HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-39-90 - PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS / PORT OF SEATTLE - SEATAC AIRPORT FLIGHT PLANFLIGHT PLAN-
REGIONAL AIRPORT
SYSTEM PROJECT
SEATAC AIRPORT
EPIC -39 -90
�r
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Advisory
Circular
AC 150/5020 -1
NOISE CONTROL AND
COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
FOR AIRPORTS
AUGUST 5, 1983
8/5/83
CHAPTER 3. AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
SECTION 1. ELEMENTS OF AIRPORT NOISE PLANNING
AC 150-5020-1
300. GENERAL. This chapter discusses the airport noise compatibility
planning process and forms the primary background for preparing airport
noise compatibility programs under FAR Part 150. In addition, noise control
and noise impact abatement actions available to both airport operator and
,neighboring communities are discussed. Equal emphasis is placed upon urban
planning and airport operational solutions. Throughout the chapter,
emphasis will be placed upon reduction of airport noise (present and future)
to the practical minimum; long -term protection of the agreed -upon noise
impact areas from development with noncompatible uses; and actions to reduce
the noncompatibilities remaining within those noise impact areas to
acceptable levels.
301. NOISE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING. Airport Noise Compatibility Planning is
a joint planning effort which examines and weighs both aviation and urban
planning strategies in seeking long -term solutions to existing and or future
noise conflicts around an airport. Local consultation and citizen
participation are key elements of the process. This includes the
participation of airport users, affected local governments and airport
neighbors, as well as the airport's operator. See!tion =103 7:o,f 'the---ASNA-Act -7
(requ res_that- noise- a - maps -be red__in consultation_with_public
a. - _ ._p arming -agen Gies _in areas.-surrounding the _ airport: -FAR Part-
f_ -req_u siltation -with the user.s._and the-7agericie with land use
control- jur.isdi tion-.or, planning responsibilities - lying= within the airport'_ s-_
65_Ldn contour: Citizen participation in the planning and
decisionmaking processes which affect their lives and property is now
recognized as a cornerstone of planning and should be integrated into that
process. See FAA Advisory Circular 150/5050 -4, Citizen Participation in
Airport Planning, and Report No. FAA-EE-79-06,. Community Involvement Manual,
for more detail on this subject.
302. SCOPE OF THE PLANNING EFFORT. The scope of the planning effort will,
of course, vary considerably, depending upon the extent and complexity of
the noise problems at a given airport. However, the planning effort should
be sufficient to identify the most viable alternative of those which might
be proposed, to demonstrate that it is equitable to those affected, and
that is fully implementable. This planning should be integrated into the
existing or ongoing comprehensive planning for the region involved and
should be realistic in its regard for monetary costs and its ability to
generate the local planning and land use control actions necessary for its
implementation and longevity. FAA does not regulate or direct the r�
consultative process of local governments, but will rely on the
certification y the airport operator, under Section 1---67.2177).1 Part 150,
concerning such consultation.
Chap 3
Par 300
Page 25
8/5/83 AC 150/5020 -1
Land or interest in land (easement) may be acquired by negotiation, through
a voluntary program, or via condemnation. In any case, the provisions of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 (P.L. 91 -646) are applicable whenever Federal or federally assisted
programs are involved.
a. Land for Other Public Uses. Noise impacted land can be acquired
by a public or semi - public agency either to implement the compatibility plan
or in cooperation with the plan while fulfilling another public purpose.
Typical uses may include sites for equipment maintenance or storage yards,
water or sewer works, and floodways or reservoirs. Other possibilities
include selected park, recreation, and open space uses which are noise
tolerant (golf courses, skeet ranges, nature areas, etc.). All uses should
respect the height and hazard requirements of the airport and be tolerant of
future airport growth.
b. Land for Compatible Resale. Occasionally, state or,local
governments are willing to acquire land which is then resold with covenants
or easements retained to assure long -term compatibility. In some cases, it
may be feasible to change such land to compatible uses within existing or
remodeled buildings. In other cases, it would be desirable to clear and
redevelop the land before making it available for sale. In either case, the
changes should be in compliance with the land use plan and be supported by
appropriate zoning. Appropriate covenants or easements should be retained
to assure long -term compatibility. Since this strategy approaches the
complexity of urban renewal, appropriate expertise should be consulted.
347. -349. RESERVED.
SECTION 5. CONSULTATIONS
a
350. CONSULTATIONS UNDER PART 150. In developing a. noise exposure map and
identifying noncompatible land uses the airport proprietor should identify
the, geographic areas of jurisdiction of each public agency and planning
agency which are either wholly or partially contained within the 65 L,dn
contour and meet with the appropriate officials to discuss means of reducing
the noise impact as required by Part_1S0. Methods for mitigating and /or
reducing the effects noise that are available to local authorities after
consulting with the airport proprietor are discussed in sections 3 and 4 of
this chapter. Part 150 requires that consultation must include any air
carriers and to the extent practicable, other aircraft operators using the
airport. Prior to submission of the noise exposure map or noise
compatibility program, the airport operator is required by Part 150 to allo
interested persons adequate opportunity to submit their views,.data, and
comments concerning the correctness and adequacy of the map or program and
projection of aircraft operations. F'AiA, will not infect ,itself into t?he
e,ssen.t- ally local responsibilit for
y consultatiomposed "` directly on the „1
airport., operator by the ASNA Act,- but will rely upon the. airport operato_r'.s
certificat -§ ion under - penalty of i8 U:S.C.: 1001, that such consultation has.
(krur.;re "See ° §" 150.21).
351. RESERVED.
Chap 3
Par 346
Page 39
Puget Sound Regional Council
Agenda
PSRO
FLIGHT PLAN WORKSHOP IV
ECE1VED
FEB 0 3 1993
DEVELOPMENT
Thursday, February 4, 1993 • 9:00 a.m. • Bellevue Conference Center
505 106th Ave. NE, Bellevue
9:00 a.m.
Brief Presentations (10 minutes each)
1. Peter Townsend, Aircraft Noise Coalition
2. Lt. Col. Joe Brennan, McChord Air Force Base
3. Frank Osbun, Citizens for Alternatives to SeaTac Expansion
9:30 a.m.
What is the Regional Airport System Plan: Its Characteristics and Elements
9:45 p.m.
Where we have come from /what weVe heard
11:00 a.m.
Where we are going /next steps
12:00 noon
Adjourn
216 First Avenue South • Seattle, Washington 98104 • (206) 464 -7090 • FAX 587 -4825
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
January 29, 1993
Report on
Flight Plan Workshop #3
Regional Council Executive Board /Transportation Policy Board
(1/28/93 -- Bellevue Conference Center)
King County Councilmember Bruce Laing, Transportation Policy Board Chair, opened
Flight Plan Workshop #3 at 11:10 a.m. He thanked the Executive Board and
Transportation Policy Board members in attendance, as well as "all those members of
the citizens groups and the general public who are here to take part or observe this
process." He announced that a fourth workshop, that had been tentative based on need,
would occur February 4th beginning at 9:00 a.m. in the Bellevue Conference Center.
AIR WASHINGTON
Brad Jurkovich, coordinator of Air Washington, introduced his group's first four
speakers: Brian Ziegler, study manager for the Washington State High Speed Rail
Commission; Bill Ayers, vice president of Marketing for Horizon Airlines; Captain Tom
Cufley, vice president flight operations and chief pilot for Alaska Airlines; and John
Nance, airline industry analyst.
Ziegler said the High Speed Ground Transportation Steering Committee had 25
members representing every conceivable rail interest in the state and transportation
interest. The steering committee completed its final report and presented it to the
legislature last year in October. "I'd like to highlight the recommendations out of that
report...related to air capacity on feasibility of a wayport in Moses Lake. The Steering
Committee made the conclusion that the ground link to a wayport was not feasible and
essentially that was due to the travel times across the Cascade Mountains."
He said it would take at least two hours to travel between Moses Lake, the wayport, and
Sea -Tac. He said the committee also concluded that high speed ground transportation
has the potential to reduce the demand for short -haul commuter trips, and cited as
examples the high speed ground transportation system in France between Paris and
Lyons which has reduced the need for additional air service in that corridor since 1983.
An example closer to home is the Amtrak Metroliner in the northeast corridor between
New York and Washington which operates at 125 miles an hour and has captured the
majority of the travel between New York and Washington on the rails. "And the travel
1
216 First .Avenue South • Seale. Washington 98104 • (206) 464 -7090 • FAX 587 -4825
times are the key. Fares are a secondary issue. Travel time has been reduced to the
point where business travelers prefer to use the Metroliner."
He said the committee clid cite cost as one reason why high speed ground transportation
may not provide an alternative to future airport capacity expansion. In fact, the
committee went on to say that airport and highway capacity expansion would still be
necessary even if a high speed ground transportation system is implemented. He said
the cost of a system in the north /south corridor, Vancouver, B.C., to Portland, Oregon,
would be between nine and 11 billion dollars.
"That would be for a system operating at 185 miles per hour, offering 12 trains a day
service, or about hourly service. With that kind of an investment, the steering committee
concluded that travel on that system would be about five million passengers a year.
Compare that to the projected travel -- total travel in the corridor of about a hundred
million passengers per year, you can see the high speed system would not carry a large
share of the intercity travel market.
"One last conclusion related to short -haul commuter air trips...high speed ground
transportation would have an effect of reducing short -haul computer air trips anywhere
between three and six percent in the year 2020. That's not a large reduction for an
investment of nine to eleven billion dollars."
He noted that the assumptions that went into that projection model were "very, very
conservative," including no increase in the real price of fuel, no increase in highway
congestion by 2020, and no increase in airport or airway congestion by 2020. "And yet
we've estimated the system would begin to pay for itself in 12 to 15 years. That's 100
percent fare box recovery. Most of the travelers would come from existing highway and
not existing air travel."
He said the Department of Transportation and its commission are about to embark on a
fairly aggressive Amtrak program that would begin to implement the recommendations
of the steering committee, "which is, we can't get there in one fell swoop; we need to
develop a rail culture, broad -based funding support in this state, and we need to provide
a high quality rail service in order to really assess the impacts of high quality rail service
on the other modes. We do need the third competitive mode of transportation in this
state.
"That's a clear conclusion by the steering committee. That Amtrak program over the
next six years is projected to increase ridership by four -fold in the corridor. That's about
four hundred thousand passengers a year today. A four -fold increase puts us about a
million and a half passengers a year. That's not quite the five million a high speed
system could generate. However, I anticipate that all of our figures are extremely
conservative. That program over the next six years is estimated to cost 250 million
dollars."
2
Bill Ayer, vice president of marketing and planning with Horizon Air, said he would
provide "a kind of a regional airline perspective on this Sea -Tac capacity issue and
hopefully that overview will at least indirectly address some of the demand management
questions you folks might have."
'By the way reading through your working papers I notice you're still referring to our
industry as commuters. I think that term is really obsolete and regional is the modern
term; really much more descriptive of where we fly and how we operate. Regional
airlines like Horizon throughout the country are now operating much larger and very
sophisticated turbo prop and jet aircraft and because of efficiency and economics,
especially recently, regional airlines are replacing major airlines in many of the major
carriers' unprofitable markets.
"Regional carriers operate just like major carriers. Same regulations, the same training,
the same standards and the term commuter really today is reserved for really just the
smallest, the Piper or the Cessna operators."
He described Horizon's share of the current air passenger market, including the
replacement of Alaska's Seattle -to- Portland flights, "service that was run by much bigger
airplanes that were uneconomical."
He recalled a Seattle PI editorial which called for "shunting" commuter flights to other
existing airports in the Puget Sound area such as Boeing Field, Paine Field, and airports
in Renton, Tacoma, Bremerton and Bellingham.
"I think there's still a feeling or an attitude that commuters are not paying their way and
clogging up the airspace and why are we putting up with them. That attitude really
shows a total lack of understanding of the role of Sea -Tac and the role of regional
airlines.
"This Sea -Tac capacity issue affects a lot of people and a lot of businesses. And it's not
a problem that solely affects those living in the immediate area in King, Snohomish and
Pierce counties. Sea -Tac provides access for the smaller cities and communities
throughout the Northwest. Access to the national transportation system via carriers like
Horizon. And it seems to us that this decision process had better ask Sea -Tac users
from all over the northwest like Wenatchee, Port Angeles, Walla Walla and so forth
what their views are on this issue.
"Convenient air service is a very fundamental requirement for their future economic
development. I think it's important this is not just a local issue. There are a lot of
3
people that have a stake in the Sea -Tac situation and the decisions that are made.
"Secondly, since deregulation happened back in 1978, airlines operate in a market driven
environment. Customers have to be the focus. And successful airlines today are those
that have figured that out, that figure out what customers want and figure out a
profitable way to provide that kind of service.
"Airlines which have violated this real basic marketing principle are in bankruptcy and
there are lots and lots of examples of that as we all know. I think the point is this that
solutions to Sea -Tac's capacity problems must work for the airlines because they must
work for our customers. And that's really the bottom line from our perspective.
"Sea -Tac has more airline service than just the local population alone can support.
That's because there is a fair amount of feed traffic that comes into Sea -Tac via Horizon
and the other regionals to a large extent, and to a lesser extent, some of the major
carriers use Sea -Tac as a connection point to feed traffic. The result is the residents of
Puget Sound have more air service than their demand alone would be entitled to all by
itself."
He described how Horizon built its route system based on customer input. "People who
live in these communities needed more than just service to Seattle. They needed
connections to points beyond Seattle within the northwest and they needed connections
to other airline flights to points literally throughout the world. And Sea -Tac is the
gateway to the world for these smaller communities..."
Ayer said Horizon's system "really well suits the needs of the people of the northwest.
You can get from any city we serve to any other city four, five or six times a day via
connecting service at one of the hub airports. And our major point of inter -line
connections is Sea -Tac. We coordinate schedules in such a way to make those
connections work. Our two biggest markets out of Sea -Tac are Seattle to Portland and
Seattle to Spokane.
"We run service every 30 minutes to Portland, every hour to Spokane. Again, that's
based on demand. Coming in from Wenatchee and Walla Walla and Bellingham and
Port Angeles...those airplanes are full of passengers who are making
connections...Yakima to Bellingham, Walla Walla, Vancouver...they are connecting to
flights to Alaska, Phoenix, LA, Northwest, Minneapolis, Alaska to San Francisco,
Anchorage, our own service to Boise, Alaska to Burbank. That's the way we schedule at
Sea -Tac. We make connections.
"We schedule in such a way to maximize the connecting opportunities from people from
our smaller cities...a lot of activity, a lot of departures at night from Sea -Tac in order to
accommodate those inbound connections.
"About 60 percent of the traffic is connecting to other carriers. If we couldn't carry those
4
people, we end up carrying four people on an 18- passenger airplane, that's not
economical at all. That's a big loser. You do that enough times, you won't be around.
So if we can't carry connecting traffic, our sh-edule between Yakima and Seattle would
go from the current ten flights down to something like four or five trips; from 256 seats
for carrying both local and connecting traffic down to 109 seats, if all we can carry are
local passengers. In fact, that would probably go down below that because people would
come to see their air service not very dependable, reliable, convenient; they decide to
drive.
"This would be a detrimental effect not only on air service but essentially the economic
development efforts of a place like Yakima. Who cares about that? I mean that hurts
Horizon but we'll go take our airplanes and go where we can make money. I'm not up
here to tell you this is a woe -is -me story for Horizon. There are lots of markets, lots of
hubs we can fly to. We'll just go find out where the demand is and put our airplanes
there. That's not a big problem. The problem is for other airlines at Sea -Tac and for
the smaller communities."
He quoted from a letter from the vice president of marketing at Northwest Airlines
talking about how important the fleet is to the service they provide.
"Any major airport that decided to accommodate only long -haul operations and restrict
or prohibit regional service would soon find itself at a competitive disadvantage in
attracting very long -haul service as a feed. The reason of course is that a signif,cant
portion of the traffic moving on regional airlines is connecting with iong -haul flights.
Without regional service, Sea -Tac would become a less attractive location for
international /domestic flights, and its position would decline over time.
"If regional flights were shifted to establish connections at air other major airports, which
we could easily do, the big loser would not be the connecting passengers, but the
commuters with point -to -point service to Seattle. On every one of our flights we have a
combination of local and connecting traffic. We need both kinds of traffic to provide the
kind of frequency the public tells us is needed on a profitable basis and in order to
upgrade aircraft.
"Our plans are to not increase the number of operations at Sea -Tac, the number of
takeoffs and landings...and the airplanes we operate are very noise - friendly. They don't
even register on the db (decibel) meters. They are turbo prop airplanes and they are
very, very quiet. Those are the airplanes that we plan to grow with."
Tom Cufley, vice president of flight operations and chief pilot for Alaska Airlines, said
he would offer "a view from the cockpit" and what runway constraints mean to pilots
coming into the Sea -Tac area.
5
He said that with good weather, the arrival rate maximum at Sea -Tac is approximately
56 aircraft an hour.
"As the weather deteriorates and the clouds come in...approximately 48 airplanes are
allowed to land and still can do the approaches simultaneously landing on both runways.
When we get to lower clouds, we start going down into one runway operation with a
sidestep maneuver." He said the sidestep maneuver allows making an instrument
approach to a runway on the right and then sidestep to a runway on the left. "In the
basic minimum weather you would make this maneuver at approximately 352 feet above
the ground. From the pilot standpoint, a sidestep maneuver is a very undesirable
maneuver."
"A stabilized approach is the key to success. On the safety issue, we've been taught that
stabilized approaches for instrument landing should start at the outer mark. In VFR
(visual flight rule) conditions, we're not supposed to change our configuration below 500
feet AGL, above ground level.
"As we get into the instrument conditions, the low visibility, the maximum capacity at
Sea -Tac for one runway operation is approximately 36 per hour." he said Alaska Airlines
has added "heads up guidance display units in our aircraft."
"Sea -Tac is the only airport in the United States that a carrier is allowed to take off
below 600 RVR (runway visual range measured in feet). Alaska Airlines is authorized to
take off at 300 RVR with the heads up guidance display."
He said instrument conditions produce "runway compression...when you have a single
runway...(and have to) slow down to approximately 200 knots and apply a lot of power.
Power, of course, is noise and noise is noise pollution." With runway compression, the
arrival rates are slowed; the airplanes that are landing have a longer rollout because it
usually takes them a lot longer to get slowed down and turn off the runway, he said.
John Nance, air safety analyst, talked about a presentation at the previous workshop by
a consultant with experience in air traffic control who gave "a very rosy view of
something in theory that in practice is completely useless for Sea -Tac. He implied the
microwave landing system might be a savior for Sea -Tac where then we would not need
a third runway. MLS is essentially dying if not dead nationwide as the new method of
choice for instrument approaches."
He said MLS "is being eclipsed rapidly" by other advances such as the global positioning
system, which "will eventually give pilots the ability with certain equipment on their
airplanes to position themselves with respect to a runway without any ground -based aid
whatsoever.
6
"These will be systems that use either forward - looking infrared or several other
methodologies and a heads up display to position yourself to where you can actually see
a runway even though the naked eye cannot. That's what we're coming to. That's going
to blow MLS and all the associated difficulties of cost and installation pretty much out of
the tub. We may have some MLS that will last for some time. But it's not going to be
the savior in the near future or the long haul for Sea -Tac."
He also mentioned the "sidestep approach" which, he said, "impacts the margin of safety."
"Airline safety is not a switch. It's not on or off. It is not safe or unsafe. There is no
such thing. There is a large gray area that occupies all the realm of safety that we deal
with in commercial aviation and that is what I call the margin of safety.
"The reason that we use more than one hydraulic system on an airplane, the reason we
have more than one pilot, the reason that we add and add and add to the system, is so
that if you have one single failure, you've got something to back you up and keep an
accident from happening...You want as many barriers between the inevitable mistake or
inevitable mechanical or carbon -based (human) failure and a terrible result as you can
possibly put in there."
"The third runway at Sea -Tac quite frankly is needed because it increases the margin of
safety and it prevents a declension (deterioration) in the margin of safety that inevitably
will occur with the increase in traffic that is also inevitably going to occur over the next
number of years."
"...Not building it is not going to guarantee accidents but not building it will increase
congestion.... There is as great a potential for trouble on the ground as there is for the
trouble in the air of stacking airplanes out there. One of my prime candidates for a
major disaster as Sea -Tac today is a ground collision based on the congestion that is
developing and will continue to develop. We need that additional runway to help
alleviate the inevitable arrive and departure congestion, simply moving airplanes around
on the ground."
"The basic fallacy with applying demand management to an airport situation like Sea -Tac
is the response time. Safety is all wrapped up in this. By the time you prove to
yourselves that there is a need for an additional runway, an additional taxiway, an
additional piece of equipment, an additional portion of the terminal, it's too late to
respond rapidly. You've got a three, five, eight or maybe ten -year lead time.... We
better do it now because we're not going to have time later on. If we see a real problem
developing, we're going to have to resort to things like simply restricting the air flow in
order to be able to respond to a declining margin of safety, so safety is wrapped up into
this too when you consider demand management, you can't take it and separate it on just
an economic basis.
7
"The difficulty is that we are assuming that the FAA's rules about parallel simultaneous
approaches which have been in existence and are rather archaic, are going to stay in
concrete. Folks, they could change tomorrow morning. We have a new administration.
I promise you there is going to be a lot of searching, soul- searching on Capitol Hill
about reorganizing the Federal Aviation Administration. Along with that will come a
need for reorganizing some of the rules and regulations, some will be changed, some
won't.
"But I would wager you that in the future we are going to see some changes in what does
constitute an acceptable situation for simultaneous parallel approaches, especially when
you crank in the new technologies of global positioning satellite, etc. So when we
sit here and say yeah, we can build this third runway but it's not going to be as useful as
if it were out there another half a mile, don't count on that. That's not necessarily true.
"If we have any real hope of diversifying, because we can't go out and buy five new
major businesses so we don't have that dependency on Boeing employment, we need to
keep a gimlet eye not just on the bottom line, but also on what it's going to take to
continue to expand this region in economics. From the aviation point of view, if you
don't have it there when the airlines nead it and when people are trying to determine
where they want to put a factory and what they're going to do in dealing with the Pacific
Rim as we begin to learn how to expand into the Pacific Rim economically, we're going
to miss the boat.
"There are communities out here like Portland, Vancouver B.C. and others that will to
step into the breach and do it for us. We have to look at the long -range situation. We
need this runway."
Seattle City Councilmember Martha Choe, a member of the Transportation Policy
Board, asked several questions of the panelists. In response, Ziegler said 105 million
passengers a year, for the year 2020, as was the projection for high speed rail ridership
between Portland and Seattle; Ayer said Horizon's planes need to be filled to 50 percent
capacity to break even; and Nance said the new technology he had discussed would be
on line within five to ten years, and that while he didn't have precise date, there had
been a rise in the number of ground collisions particularly in airports that are
experiencing increased congestion.
Nance said he would follow up with additional data on ground collisions.
Pierce County Executive Doug Sutherland, a member of the Executive Board, asked Ayer
whether airlines add equipment to attract customers or to "support of the demand of
customers already there ?"
8
Ayer said it was both.
Tacoma City Councilmember Bob Evans, a member of the Executive Board, repeated
Ziegler's comment that the assumptions by the High Speed Ground Transportation
Commission (on which he served) "were extraordinarily conservative" and asked Ziegler
about a new train that's being introduced.
Ziegler described the X -2000, which he said is a tilting train that operates at 155 miles
per hour and is built by the Swiss and the Swedish, and has been on loan to Amtrak for
about two months.
"They will operate it in the northeast corridor. In fact they started service yesterday,
operating between New York and Washington and will cut the travel time I think by
another 20 minutes or so between those two cities. Amtrak has hopes to take that
X -2000 around the country to five select high speed corridors, and one of those happens
to be Vancouver B.C. to Eugene. We're now negotiating to fund the X -2000 here in
Washington state to test it out.
"The advantage of that technology is it operates on existing tracks at 40 percent higher
speeds than conventional trains. So without a lot of infrastructure investment, you can
immediately see additional time savings."
He said the system in France "has paid for itself three years sooner than the French
originally expected."
Peter Beaulieu, Flight Plan project manager for the Regional Council, briefly discussed
the three Flight Plan working papers that had been prepared. "We've gone through a
long planning process and now we're engaged in a decision process that involves
consultation with people who have different views and expertise. And the working
papers are meant to foster that and hopefully by working through those papers, one on
demand management and system management, one on mitigation, and the other on
implementation, that some ideas will survive and can be part of a package that can be
acted upon by the Region Council...."
He introduced Sarah Dalton of the Federal Aviation Administration for some comments
on the working papers.
Dalton defended the use of the Ldn method for analyzing aircraft noise. "Ldn stands for
day /night noise level. It's a 24 -hour average so it averages the noise out. The main
criticism is it doesn't get at the peaks and that aircraft noise is a very irregular noise that
goes up and down and so an Ldn is not a particularly good representation of aircraft
noise. That's the criticism. FAA has adopted this standard to analyze noise. We have
found it to be the most effective available."
9
She disputed a statement in one of the working papers "that suggests that FAA has
adopted this level as a trade -off between the costs of mitigation and what we can afford
to pay." She said "the community response was very negative towards the noise...in the
greater than 65 Ldn environment and a little bit less irritated as you moved away, so we
did establish that level based on a scientific analysis and it was not a cost /benefit
analysis."
She also defended the use of a computer model for measuring noise. 'The computer
model that we use is called the integrated noise level.... We require the airport
operators that want to use federal funds for noise abatement to use this technology in
order to analyze the noise. We do not require noise monitoring systems for validating
the model. And we often hear a lot of criticism from the public that how do we know
this is actually what the noise exposure is? FAA has gone to great lengths of recording
noise from aircraft all over the country. Extensive monitoring was done here in Seattle
to validate the noise model. And our feeling is that the individual airport effort in
monitoring noise exposure to develop their contours doesn't come anywhere close to the
amount of data that we've got.
"Therefore, we don't think that the individual airport should F'ie tweaking their noise
models based on their monitoring. As just a general observation, noise monitoring by
individual airports is kind of sporadic. It's not ever going to come close to the amount of
monitoring that FAA has done to validate their noise model.
She said the working paper suggests "that maybe more monitoring ought to be done
locally. There are things that can be done with noise monitoring to assist the airport
operator in responding to go noise complaints.... So I don't want to discard noise
monitoring entirely because I think it has a very valuable contribution it can make to the
noise environment and helping the citizens understand and the airport operators
understand what they are up against. However, it's not necessary to develop our noise
contours. We do not require it and in fact we basically discourage it."
She also commented about the suggestion that other noise measurements should be used.
"There are a lot of metrics out there and they all have their place. One of the things I
don't find in any of these metrics is anybody has established what we could call a level of
significance. What does it mean if an individual is exposed to a noise greater than 100
dba 20 times a day? Is that a health problem? Is that a threat to their ability to
think...? Each individual is going to have their own analysis of that. I think it's
important when you do look at other noise metrics that you think about a method for
establishing a level of significance. And like with the Ldn, the FAA has established a 65
Ldn as that level."
She said also that while the Port of Seattle is not "exempt from any federal rules...their
10
program is not required to go through the process that FAA would require. And quite
honestly I think that this regiori`ought to be very thankful for that because their program
is more restrictive than the federal noise rule is and is a benefit to the citizens that are
experiencing noise impact."
And on the possibility of changing the Four -Post Plan, which governs arrivals and
departures at Sea -Tac, and whether "sound exposure level impacts can be reduced by
changing the flight tracks to and from Sea -Tac International Airport." She said the FAA
is working with several groups of people in trying to find ways to change the flight tracks
so that the noise impacts are less, but "what you find when you do this... if you're going
to move the noise, you're going to end up moving the noise, so no matter what you do,
you're going to irritate somebody somewhere. So what FAA has said is if you can get
agreement by the community where the noise is going to, that they're agreeing to take
this on, then FAA would consider adjusting the four - post."
And, she disputed a working paper statement that "the exact benefits of the conversion
from Stage 2 to Stage 3 aircraft are uncertain. I'm not really sure exactly why that's said
because we could very easily stick new airplanes into the integrated noise model and spit
out a contour or evaluate point by point what the change in that noise exposure would
be at that point. We can analyze this thing to death. I think we can come up with great
numbers on the benefit of the change from one aircraft to another.
"And the Port of Seattle has some contours that they've done that for the year 2000. We
hear this criticism a lot. This is an another area where we do hear this same thing over
and over. The noise contours are shrinking. The number of operations are going up and
the noise contours are shrinking. You can understand the conflict. This is really hard
for people to understand, grasp. I can understand why it's hard to understand. But it's
actually the case. And that is the benefit of the Stage 3 aircraft, that they do not put out
as much noise, so your overall noise exposure is going to be less."
Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
Kathy Parker of RCAA introduced the Commission's speakers.
Rick Aramburu, RCAA attorney: "I think everybody in the room knows by now that new
airport capacity is required and must be provided in the future. I think we can all agree
as well that Sea -Tac airport is too small, is too confined to do the job to provide that
21st century airport that we're all in need of. We thus face the problem. The first is
who is going to build the new airport."
He said the port of Seattle is the major airport operator in the region, but "is apparently
uninterested in operating another airport."
11
"... the second problem is money. New facilities will be expensive...the player with
virtually his hands on all of the money related to airports is the Port of Seattle. It is the
facility which is able to collect the head taxes which are now so important to airport
financing. But it does not appear that the Port of Seattle is prepared to part with its
funds to assist in future airport planning."
He said that over the next 30 years, the passenger facility charges at Sea -Tac "are going
to amount to over a billion dollars in a stream of income for airport planning. And it is
these funds combined with operating revenues that form the basis for a new airport
construction around the country including the airport in Denver."
He said there were "five questions that have been most critical for us in our initial
review of matters before you today. And they are: Costs of airport; the delays at the
airport and their calculations; the options available to the third runway; number four,
size of Sea -Tac, and number five, the problem with commuter aircraft."
As to delay, he said the important consideration is the number of times that aircraft in
and out of Sea -Tac are delayed more than 15 minutes, and he pointed to a chart
distributed at Workshop #2 which indicated that, with the information derived from the
FAA, that one percent of the takeoffs and landings were delayed more than 15 minutes
at Sea -Tac in 1991.
He said that was "consistent really with other airports across the country..that about one
to two percent of aircraft operations at Sea -Tac are delayed more than 15 minutes,
which I think is sort of a threshold to when we ought to start considering something to
be a serious problem.
"Now we've tried to follow -up since last time we were here with the FAA to get the
detail of this information and to get the reports and the background data. We've been
unsuccessful in getting that at this point. The FAA seems to be dragging its feet a bit on
that subject, and we're going to eventually get that, and as these go on we'll have some
more detail on that subject but we want to present this information to you now."
He said "five or ten minutes of delay seems hardly significant in this day and age. I
mean, we waste five or ten minutes delays in going through the parking lot at Sea -Tac
trying to find an empty stall on the third or fourth or fifth floor."
"The second issue has to do with how much we are going to spend to solve the delay
problems that we've got in the region.... The significance is that the solution proposed at
Sea -Tac is a very expensive one. The figures that have been provided to us by the Port
of Seattle indicate somewhere in the vicinity of 450 million dollars to construct the
runway. We've done some extensive review of the costs of other runways around the
country and what we find is that this is the -- if not the most expensive, one of the most
12
expensive runways found in and around the United States."
He said the reason for the large cost is the amount of fill needed, and said it would take
8,400 miles of 10 -yard dump trucks to provide the 17 million cubic yards of material
necessary. 'The question for public officials is, do we want to spend this kind of money
to relieve the delays that we are seeing before us ?"
On the issue of airport size, Aramburu said, "We went and looked at the size on the land
side of things for terminals, cargo, maintenance, all those things that are necessary....
And what we found as we went through and looked at these major airports is that
Sea -Tac currently is one of the smallest facilities, and it's certainly small compared to
those facilities which are handling over 20 million passengers per year, the Los
Angeleses, the Kennedys, the Miami airports, and those kinds of things. Sea -Tac cannot
grow, admitted by the Port, in any direction but a small portion to the southeast corner.
Ground capacity is a very, very serious problem at Sea - Tac."
"I should also mention the situation...about moving this flight track in -- Mr. Nance
would have us believe in to 2500 feet, so we can have two parallel tracks in the 2500
feet. I can tell you the Airline Pilots Association vigorously disputes running parallel
runways 2500 feet part, and that indeed as considered by them is a serious problem.
"Finally, with respect to the air side of things.... We think that the new kinds of
navigational aids which are becoming available...are going to be available to us in the
future to provide the additional kinds of capacity at Sea -Tac that is necessary and
appropriate for bringing in aircraft and making that facility be much more usable. Read
the FAA material on LDA (Landing Directional Aid) approaches, which is basically
running parallel approaches. You'll find that a number of airports across the country -- I
think approximately 30 of them -- have been identified as potential areas for these
facilities.
"We also know that there was some discussion last week by the FAA about the usability
of the LDA approach and these other approaches into the airport. ...And the
fundamental question was, if we have a third runway perhaps, we can get planes out of
the clouds onto the runways a little bit more often than we might if we had the two
runways that are there now. We're going to be providing you with a paper which
basically indicates that the times that we have these low ceilings in the Seattle area for
the most part are not the times that we have the congestion at Sea -Tac. It is in those
evening and early morning hours when we have low ceilings and also in the wintertime
as opposed to the summertime."
13
Matt Hardison of Apogee Research, Inc., a consultant hired by the Regional Council to
answer technical and policy questions related to air transportation, asked Aramburu to
acknowledge that handling the same amount of traffic with technology rather than a
third runway still wouldn't solve the noise problem.
Aramburu: "The solutions are largely to work to find another airport that will solve
those problems and reducing the number of operations at Sea -Tac, which is the only
really sure way that we can avoid not only noise for all those people that have had this
for years.
Connie Niva of Snohomish County Tomorrow, a member of the Transportation Policy
Board, asked how much of the cost of the reported 450 -500 million cost of the third
runway would be for mitigation costs.
Aramburu said he believed the figure of $450 million was accurate and, and the items
that went into it were comparable to figures presented on other runways around the
country, which cost less.
Errol Nelson of RCAA said he has been involved in preparing environmental analyses for
the past 28 years and delay studies for the last 19, and that his business conducts air
quality and noise analyses for environmental impact statements. He said he had
conducted a series of six 24 -hour sets of noise measurements at five locations in the
vicinity of the Sea -Tac, plus one remote site, between December 1st of '92 and January
7th of '93.
"And these are just some of the basic conclusions that I have reached from the data that
was collected during that monitoring process. One, the existing Ldn, the 24 -hour average
noise levels, are approximately twice or three decibels as high" as indicated in the Flight
Plan environmental analyses.
"This is both adjacent to the airport and along the departure and approach patterns. I
only measured it down to the south. I'm not going to speak for the north. Noise
measurement was taken on days when arrivals and departures were approximately 20
percent below what is considered the annual average operation.... The existing and
future noise contours from Sea -Tac are wider and longer than have been described and
the adverse noise levels affect significantly more people and property both now and in
the future adjacent to Sea -Tac airport and along the approaches.
"...the current noise remedy program, at least in my opinion, is basically ineffective in
mitigating the jet aircraft noise in the vicinity of the airport....and the number of people .
affected by adverse noise levels from Sea -Tac operations are significantly greater than
described... and the noise remedy program is basically ineffective in mitigating low
14
frequency noise that is the predominant component of noise generated by jet aircraft."
Hans Aschenbach of RCAA, a planner for the City of Des Moines, said he wanted to
comment on a comment made at the previous workshop that half of the 500 million
dollar of the third runway is for mitigation.
"Well, in fact due to my research, the Port has recently admitted that they have 250
million dollars worth of mitigation obligations left in the area around the Sea -Tac. I
think that's low but that's another question. We'll deal with their numbers right now.
But the 500 million dollars for construction costs as foreseen in Flight Plan have only 50
million dollars for mitigation built into it, not the 250 million dollars which came out
subsequently after reviewing promises made over the past 20 years. So given that rate of
expenditure, 50 million for 20 years as Flight Plan foresees it, we're on another hundred
year mitigation schedule for the people of the south county...."
"The Port has spent the last 20 years cultivating two positions: that the Port's noise
remedy program is the best in the nation, and that the noise contours around Sea -Tac
are shrinking. I beg to differ with Miss Dalton of the FAA, but my research has shown
that these predictions are not true."
He said Sea -Tac is the 20th busiest airport in the nation based on operations, but the
2500 acres there don't even place it in the top 100 in terms of size. "If we look at the
current 65 Ldn contours which stretch from Seattle to Federal Way, we're talking about
a noise impact area of 22 square miles. That isn't even half the 55 square miles of the
site of the new Denver International Airport. And by the way, Denver has noise
contours that extend beyond it as well as they're going to be mitigating, so we've got a
problem. It's a little airport that has residences built right up -- always has had
residences built right up to the edge.
He said Sea -Tac is "well run from this point of view. If you have 350 million dollars,
plus or minus, worth of obligations, 250 million plus another 110 that they've spent over
the last 20 years of noise mitigation, and you end up only spending 110 million and
everyone thinks you're a good guy, I think that you've done a good job of managing your
money. And the other 250 million could be spent on operations or whatever. And then
add on to the number you always hear touted by the Port and that's 110 million dollars
spent in obligations for noise over the past 20 years and realize half of that money has
been expended for extended clear zones, safety areas which the gentleman of Air
Washington so eloquently emphasized this morning safety, safety, safety.
"But the fact is that when the safety areas are extended, houses were taken out and so
the Port bills that as noise mitigation. So the story about the Port's program is not at all
clear and I would say from my experience in looking at other programs, that it is the not
the best or are the fairest in the nation."
15
He showed what he said was a timeline of the "promises made by the Port over the past
20 years for noise mitigation" and "the realities of the situation."
"Back in 1973 in the Sea -Tac communities plan, there were promises to insulate some
6,000 homes, schools, and multi - family residences in the south county area. That was
subsequently upped...so we got some ten thousand. About 1988 we decided, oh, maybe
we better think about those schools, hospitals and other public buildings that we had
talked about before, and so we started compiling lists of those things. In the mediated
agreement, we went from partially paying for some of the insulation to agreeing to pay
the full insulation, but those are promises.
"What happened, we began acquiring property in 1973 at a slow pace and as I said, those
were extended safety areas. Up until 1985 we hadn't insulated a single home. That's 12
years later. To October 1992 we'd only insulated 700 of the 10,000 homes and no
schools, no public buildings, no multi - family.
"For the past 20 years, the Port of Seattle has been predicting noise contours around
Sea -Tac would shrink in a substantial way. In 1973, the 70 Ldn contours extended to
255th Street in Des Moines. And it was predicted that it would shrink in 1993 up to the
South 210th Street. In fact in 1991 it is still down here at South 242nd Street.
"When the Port realized in 1985 that it was going to miss its target, it sort of redeveloped
everything and changed its planning period, the end point of its planning period from
1993 to the year 2000...."
"On the north and south access, due to extra planes in the air, contours have actually
increased. It's a small increase from 242nd Street to 244th Street and that's from 1985
to 1991."
Peter Kirsch was next for RCAA, from the lawfirm of Cutler and Stanfield in
Washington, D.C.
"The disagreements which issues of airport capacity engender take months and
unfortunately often years to resolve. And those resolutions especially when they are
dictated by a court often compromise and distort project design and efficiency. Our
clients generally, and including those here in the Seattle area, have demonstrated their
ability and willingness to pursue fights over airport capacity which can last for years and
years and which can if necessary effectively prevent any increase in airport capacity.
"Our nation needs more airport capacity. If not today, then certainly tomorrow.
Tomorrow in the equivalent terms of the aviation industry. The FAA projects the
number of annual in plane passengers at the nations top 100 airports will increase from
16
449 million in fiscal year 1989 to 732 million by the end of the decade aid.
"Larger aircrafts such as Boeing's recently proposed super -super jumbo jet will not meet
all of that staggering increase in demand. The number of operations at the top ten
airports will jump 35 percent from under 26 million operations fiscal '90 to almost 35
million operations by the end of the decade.
"What this means is that within the next eight years or so, the nation will need the
equivalent of 14 to 18 new Denver airports, if you can visualize the magnitude of the
problem. While some of these projections may be inflated by boosterism by the industry,
even the most conservative estimates project a serious capacity crisis by the end of the
decade.
"Second premise: Some of the increased demand may be met by technological
improvements.... Some increase in capacity may be realized through better airspace
management, airport operation decisions and aircraft design. Some of the demand may
even be delayed by decline in the national economy and by long touted substitutes for air
travel such as video conferencing.
"While on a national scale these technological changes will at best allow for marginal
increases in the capacity of a national air transportation system, for some cities these
improvements alone will be enough to delay for years and perhaps for decades the
necessity for pouring new concrete for new runways or for building new terminals and
associated facilities.
"The third premise relates to money. The key to developing increased airport capacity is
not going to be found in a vast new source of funds. Whether it be (passenger facility
charge) revenues or increased federal spending for infrastructure that the new
administration has promised. Airport capacity will always be funded by a combination of
bonds, federal grant monies, air carrier fees and charges and, if they survive
Congressional scrutiny, the PFCs.
"The continued scarcity of federal, state and local funds for building increased airport
capacity makes it especially important that those dollars which are available are used
efficiently to make long term investments.
"Fourth, the planning mistakes of yesterday make it increasingly difficult to accommodate
the aircraft and air transportation needs of tomorrow. Few airports that exist today in
the United States were located, designed or built with consideration for the levels of
service that are expected today, for consideration of the level of use by today's larger and
noisier aircraft, or for consideration of the rates of growth in air transportation which
we've experienced in the last decade and a half.
17
"The industry finds itself today in the grip of what I call the shoehorn syndrome....the
premise that the best place to build new airport capacity is always at the site of an
existing airfield or right next to it. Even when the over - stuffed airport envelope is so
surrounded by established communities, often as in the case of Sea -Tac or Dallas -Fort
Worth and many other large airports surrounded by established large residential
communities, that it takes a legal crowbar and a political bulldozer to fit any new runway
into the existing airport property.
"The fifth premise is that, luckily for the air transportation industry and for the
competitiveness of the industry in the world economy, more and more regional
governments such as the Regional Council have seen the value in long term planning for
airport capacity.
"The sixth and final premise is that the FAA and the Department of Transportation will
not come along and solve the intensely difficult and inherently local problems and
decisions which must precede any meaningful regional planning for airport capacity.
He said that leaves the Puget Sound region with one of three decisions: "the gridlock
decision," which has been "followed by too many cities including San Francisco, New
York and one would argue Chicago as well." That would be failure to make a decision,
and "as we have seen, your neighbors to the north in Vancouver and to the south in
Portland would be only too happy to fill the crunch by expanding their airport capacity
and offering attractive deals to shift that capacity there to facilities away from Seattle, as
was done a few years when the Delta hub was based -- decided a base to be in Portland.
A gridlock decision would be very bad for Seattle, very bad for the region and very bad
for the nation both in the short and the long term.
"The second approach to the decision would be a 1980s approach to a year 2000
problem. And this is the approach that is being used right now in Dallas /Fort Worth St.
Louis, Cleveland and a number of other urban airports.
"This would be a decision to add new capacity to Sea -Tac airport by squeezing a new
runway into the already tight envelope of the airport. I can guarantee you that this
decision would result in short-term capacity gains for the region, but I can also guarantee
you that it would come at the cost of intense and costly political and legal battle which
would leave the region addressing precisely these same questions again before the end of
the decade.
"Undoubtedly the second decision would be very attractive to the airport proprietor as it
18
would retain control over important airport planning and development decisions. But
the more important question and the one which this body is charged with addressing is
whether that in fact is best for the region, that is, is what is best for the Port of Seattle
also best for the Puget Sound region?
"The third decision would place the Puget Sound region at forefront of addressing airport
capacity problems. It would take courageous and forward - thinking decision - making.
This approach says let's not waste half a billion dollars of the region's financial capital
along with a huge chunk of its environmental, political and legal capital on a short -term
bandaid solution to airport capacity, but instead let's find a solution, whether it be a new
airport at a remote location or addition of new capacity to an existing underused facility,
which will serve the region well into the next generation.
"This is the scenario that has brought us the new Denver Airport scheduled to open
October of this year and which is being followed early in the process right now by cities
such as Minneapolis and San Diego.
"It should be obvious from my comments today that we view the third decision as the
only reasonable one."
In response to a question from Commissioner Pat Davis of the Port of Seattle, Kirsch
said a multiple airport system has been shown to work in a couple of communities,
mostly larger cities, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, but would have to be planned
"very, very carefully so that it doesn't end up being two financially or economically
unviable facilities."
Dan Cantrell of the Washington Environmental Council, a member of the
Transportation Policy Board, asked if RCAA had any recommendations on "specifically
where we might site additional capacity if we can't use Sea -Tac and you agree it is
needed."
Kirsch: "We expect to be in a position before the end of this process to put forth an
alternative.... But the position of the RCAA is that the third runway at Sea -Tac is
unnecessary and should not be built and that additional capacity should be built at
another facility, whether it's an existing facility, such as Paine Field, or whether it's at an
entirely new facility, that decision is one that requires some more technical analysis. The
data we've seen thus far does not seem to support additional capacity at Paine Field
however."
Kathy Parker of RCAA added that "we do not want to see what's happened to our
communities happen to another community ... we hope we have the vision so we can find
something that will satisfy air capacity needs but not damage communities. Airports are
great to a point. You go over that point and they are no longer a friend in your
neighborhood, so we want to be real careful about that."
19
Regional Council Consultant Sumner Sharpe asked whether the RCAA recommendation
would be for a replacement airport or for a second airport.
Aramburu said "we think that the only successful solution to providing to the problems of
Sea -Tac is another airport that takes significant numbers of operations away from that
area and has the added advantage of allowing us to seriously reconsider the four -post
plan. Ms. Dalton (of the FAA) indicated four -post plan is a creature of too many
aircraft trying to get into one place. If the numbers of aircraft flying into Sea -Tac were
to decrease, if those numbers of operations were to go at some level below 300 thousand
per year, it would be possible to reconsider the four -post plan. The importance of .
reconsidering the four -post plan is that the four -post plan has impact throughout King
County, throughout the City of Seattle, throughout the cities of Tacoma, Federal Way
and elsewhere because it basically spreads this noise in areas that it should not be. We
could then consider going back to those mitigation measures which essentially would be
going back to the mall approach and the Elliott Bay approach into Sea -Tac which does
not spread this noise over virtually all of north King County.
Apogee consultant Matt Hardison said "the evidence of what's happened at airports
around the U.S. where there are multiple airport systems in a given system is that
operations continue to grow."
Kirsch said "there are very few second airports being built today at the same time
existing airports are being kept as viable facilities. We've seen on again and off again
use of Midway for example at Chicago, and the effects or non effects that has on
O'Hare. There has not yet been to our knowledge the kind of technical analysis that
says what happens if today we build a reliever that in fact is intended to siphon off
capacity or siphon off traffic from an existing facility."
Executive Board Member Bob Evans asked about ground transportation, as a an air
capacity demand reliever, and Kirsch said "ground transportation, high speed rail, auto,
so on, is highly speculative in terms of whether or not it could have a meaningful effect
on aviation capacity."
Air Washington
Following a break, Brad Jurkovich of Air Washington began his group's presentation
talking about mitigation.
"We are not experts on mitigation. And aren't claiming to be. However, in effect we do
understand that people who choose to live near airports are suffering adverse impacts.
Our research has shown it's more than just noise. It's also a perception of ground
transportation problems as well as noise that creates significant problems in airport
neighbor residential areas. We just also feel though that there is a body of evidence out
20
there that indicates that these types of impacts can be mitigated. And our position on
mitigating them is clear. We support an aggressive policy and program to mitigate these
problems.
"In terms of the ground transportation issue, all of the organizations I believe involved in
Air Washington are also working diligently on the mass transit issue and trying figure out
a way to make that work...an important part of that debate is integration of our airport
transportation system and our mass transit system and we hope to find a method to
combine the two that works and improves both of the transportation systems.
"In terms of noise mitigation, again, our commitment is now." He said a consideration
should be given to allowing only the quieter Stage 3 aircraft on the third runway. He
then introduced George Duff, president of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Duff: "The Chamber is not proposing that we build more commercial airport capacity to
generate more air traffic. We make the proposal because the fact is, even as has been
articulated here today by those who oppose it, that increased traffic is coming.
"Our choice is two -fold. We can ignore making the tough decision now and live with
gridlock...or we can step up to the challenge now to preserve our quality of life and our
economic base by having the infrastructure to meet these inevitable future demands in
an orderly and reasonable fashion."
He noted that a recent Fortune Magazine article calling Seattle the best place in the
U.S. for business suggested that air transportation is an important component of the
area's attraction.
"Progressive cities like Vancouver, B.C., and Portland are planning for their future
airport capacity needs. Simply put, they are in a real way our competitors. Seattle needs
to join the ranks of progressive cities such as these on this issue, rather than agreeing by
inaction to lower the quality of life for everyone in this region. The business community
recognized an impending need for increased air capacity several years ago but we did not
seek to impose a solution. Rather we supported the notion that there needed to be a
process that not only validated the need, but also looked at all the options for meeting
those capacity needs. The Flight Plan, through two years of pain - staking study and
review, did just that.
"More than two years of work by volunteers as well as some of the nation's leading
experts resulted in consideration I believe of virtually every option; perhaps every option.
For example, demand management, teleconferencing, converting Vashon Island into
super airport, rapid rail, developing a Moses Lake.
"Bob Wallace's facetious solution of putting two aircraft carriers together, or the remote
location, the favorite one of all. I think that anyone who suggests a remote location
possibility for western Washington does so as a result of either not living here or not
21
being inhibited by looking at a map. Those who have followed the process carefully
have to conclude that the Flight Plan proposal is the best option. Why? Because it
allows phased expansion, limits adverse impacts and spreads the responsibility for
increased air capacity throughout the region.
"Opponents to this project have raised a number of ropes reasons why we should turn
this approach down. Important reasons to be sure. But don't be misled. All the issues
that you heard including those today have been heard in meetings over the last two
years. The solutions before us are the best options available. The message is simple.
Please study carefully the work of Flight Plan committee. Look at the diverse range of
people who are involved from experts to citizens who took part, look at the work product
and the vast range of options that were considered, look at the issues raised over the last
two years to see how the plan was modified.
"Finally, recognize that for the good of this entire region, two years of work should not
be wasted. I urge to you make a decision based on our future and not on political
expediency."
Save Our Communities
Peter Eglick, attorney for Save Our Communities, focused on "equitable and legal
obstacles to use of Paine Field as part of the alternative envisioned" by the Puget Sound
Air Transportation Committee.
"In doing so I will explain why it is neither fair nor legally feasible to assign Paine Field
a role as a site for scheduled airline service. My colleagues from SOC will address
briefly some of the dollar costs which would inevitably be associated with adoption of
such an alternative. We emphasize these not as an invitation to adoption of Paine Field
as an alternative but because we believe that a substantial portion of the analysis of use
of Paine Field downplays these costs and the presence of well organized municipalities,
school districts and private organizations prepared to insure that they are paid. In other
words, any assumption that these costs can be deferred or that the bill will not come due
and come due immediately if Paine Field is chosen is incorrect."
"Land use patterns around Paine Field have been long established. They were developed
in reliance on the 1978 mediated agreement and its progeny, committing the county as
Paine Field's proprietor not to use it as a commercial air carrier facility.
"In the PSRC staff draft working paper number two, the history of Snohomish County's
establishment of a limited general aviation role for Paine Field is described as follows.
Quote, `The community surrounding Paine Field regards the negotiations in 1978 as a
protection against impacts from the introduction of commercial aviation.'
22
"This shorthand characterization does not do justice to the actual history of planning for
Paine Field and its environs which involves more than just 1978 negotiations but a record
of promises by Snohomish County and a record of reliance by surrounding municipalities
and school districts as well as developers and area residents.
"...according to the Paine Field Master Plan adopted in 1981, and that was adopted
pursuant to the mediated agreement and subsequent events, the principle aviation
objectives of Paine Field is general aviation, and the general aviation role is described as
to retain and enhance light aircraft general aviation as the dominant aeronautical activity
at Paine Field. This role would provide for a reasonable amount of airport facility
expansion and modernization to accommodate the expected growth of this activity and
would impose strict control on any aviation activity with potential for adverse
environmental impact. So the principle role has been adopted over the past ten, 15
years is light aircraft general aviation.
"The status and effect of the Paine Field mediated agreement should not be news to
either the constituent members of the PSRC or the FAA. It has been well documented
over the years.
"For example, on February 6, 1981, Snohomish County published and circulated a final
environmental impact assessment report on its planning process for Paine Field.... This
report included discussion of the formal role adopted for Paine Field by the Snohomish
County commissioners on April 11, 1978. The assessment acknowledged the expectation
in the 1978 action by the commissioners that Paine Field would remain, quote, light
aircraft oriented with the role as defined general aviation, end quote.
"The 1981 assessment was adopted by the responsible FAA official...the planning process
which resulted in the adoption of a limited role for Paine Field grew out of a variety of
proposals, one of which very early on had been to keep options at both Paine and
McChord fields that would permit implementation of air carrier operations at some
future time. And that was one of the options that was looked at back then.
"The basis articulated by the Snohomish County Commissioners, as you know the
predecessors to the current Snohomish County government, for their adoption of a
general aviation role for Paine Field was that this role would, quote, impose a minimum
of adverse environmental impact on the Paine Field area community, end quote. As the
county explained, quote, the general aviation role will cause the least disruption to
existing land use patterns around Paine Field, end quote.
"The 1978 Snohomish County decision on Paine Field's role and the 1979 mediated
agreement which ratified it were used as the basis for the county's 1983 Paine Field area
comprehensive plan. Pattern, year by year by year planning based on this adoption of a
role.
23
"That plan guided development in the residential and commercial areas surrounding
Paine Field. And it in turn was relied upon by other entities and jurisdictions. For
example, it was adopted by the City of Mukilteo when it annexed the Harbor Pointe area
on March 31, 1981. The Snohomish County Council itself used the adoption of the 1983
comprehensive plan in ordinance 83 -076 as the basis for changes in several land use
designations within the area surrounding the airport. And the plan itself stated as a
basic premise for Paine Field, quote, that the noise abatement program will be
successfully implemented, end quote.
"Massive residential development involving hundreds of single family units as well as
large multi - family dwelling complexes have subsequently been constructed in reliance on
these policy decisions and public assurances.
"Greater densities were planned to accommodate the population growth that was
forecasted. Cities planned for residential development in non -noise impacted areas in
the immediate vicinity of Paine Field. Industry invested millions of dollars to expand in
and around Paine Field bringing needed well paying jobs to support the population that
moved to Snohomish County. Private citizens made the largest investments of their lives
to build homes in and round the Paine Field area with the knowledge that Paine Field
would remain a general aviation and industrial facility within planned limits. Much of
this development has happened in the last eight to ten years. The citizens need to know
that government will keep the promises that were made through the mediated role
determination and local land use plans.
"Snohomish County also pointed out in its comments the futility of suggesting that land
use and population impacts resulting from adoption of a Paine Field alternative could be
mitigated by the typical strategy of altering zoning to reduce development and
consequently population density around Paine Field. To use a metaphor from another
transportation mode, the train has already left the station.
"Quote, a major goal of the adopted Paine Field area comprehensive plan is to house a
significant portion of Snohomish County's expected new residents in the Paine Field
planning area consistent with its urban character.
"The growth rate for the Paine Field area is much higher than for the rest of Snohomish
County. For the 1970s it was 63 percent for the 1980s, 59 percent. It's projected to be
only slightly lower for the 1990s.
"This density has occurred precisely because of clear unchallenged consistent planning by
Snohomish County over a period of 15 years announcing that residences, schools and
light industry could safely locate in Paine Field's area.
24
"In light of this history, it is not surprising that you have already received resolutions
from the cities of Brier, Edmonds, Everett Lake Forest Park, Lake Stevens, Langley,
Lynnwood, Marysville, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace and Mukilteo, comments from the
Edmonds School District, the Mukilteo School District and the Shoreline School
District...as well as a resolution from Snohomish County itself questioning the
recommendations of the Flight Plan study with regard to Paine Field.
"The expansion of Paine Field would directly impact and possibly force closure of many
of our schools, even some of those to be constructed within the next few years.
"And finally you have the resolution of the Snohomish County Executive and the
Snohomish County Council recounting the history of the mediated agreement and its
reaffirmation up to 1989 and declaring the county's opposition to the role proposed for
Paine Field by the PSRC.
While each municipality or district uses its own language and some have different
emphases, the gist of the resolutions is the same. First, reliance on 15 years of planning
and zoning for a Paine Field role utterly inconsistent with that now under consideration.
"Second, concern for the serious harm associated with an abrupt change in that role and
the prerequisite need for payment of unthinkable mitigation costs before affecting such a
change.
"Finally this record of justifiable reliance and inducement arguably extends to reliance on
the activities of the PSRC's predecessor. As late as 1988 the Puget Sound Council of
Governments adopted a regional airport system plan... which included the following
statement: Quote, the potential role of Paine Field as an air carrier satellite will be
governed by the 1979 mediated agreement and policies contained therein on the role of
Paine Field. The way that agreement has been interpreted over the years if its governed
by the agreement there is no role.
"SOC submits in light of this history that PSRC implementation of a Paine Field
alternative will result in unprecedented intergovernmental conflict and obstacles."
Eglick then talked about the doctrine of estoppel and how it would affect a court case on
Paine Field if that became necessary.
"My purpose in providing you with this analysis is not to gratuitously raise the specter of
litigation. However, if the purpose of this workshop is to consider potential governance
or implementation obstacles to the adoption of particular alternatives such as the PSATC
preferred alternative involving a change in role for Paine Field, then the PSRC must not
be blind to the potential for more than just policy disputes. You must recognize the
likelihood of protracted litigation on what lawyers would call a favorable fact pattern for
25
the plaintiffs.
"In short, there is a 15 year history of Paine Field which SOC believes estopps anyone
from altering Paine Field's role. To ignore this history or to misjudge the potential legal,
let alone practical obstacles which it presents, would be a serious miscalculation."
Bob Stahl of Save Our Communities, citing specific references in Flight Plan papers, said
Paine Field is projected to cost more than any comparable alternative site; it has the
lowest ranking in relative economic benefit that it will produce when compared with all
other alternatives; it will not be economically self - sustaining ever, requiring a subsidy to
cover costs; it has the largest area of designated wetlands which will be affected by
development -- "read that to mean paved over "; it will displace the largest amount of
developed residential and commercial property; requires the greatest expenditure to
purchase property for noise mitigation; will introduce additional traffic into an area with
the longest peak traffic period in the region and the worse traffic congestion. and will
require over 70 million dollars in road improvements to mitigate impacts.
"In short, based on all the criteria used in the study, Paine Field costs more and produces
less than any other possible alternative."
Wayne Elsaesser of SOC said that while "Flight Plan is concerned mainly with regional
economic health, SOC has focused more on social and quality of life issues."
"The cold clinical analysis in my mind just won't do. We're dealing here with people's
quality of life.... Paine Field is no longer out in the sticks. It's in fact more densely
populated than Sea -Tac. So we're not future hordes that must be prevented from
accumulating. We're a fait accompli. Mitigation costs at Paine would be enormous. We
don't mean to be a nuisance, but it's more than two decades too late to rezone Paine
Field citizens out of the way.
"All the impact areas spoken to in your draft working paper for these workshops number
two exist now at Paine, not in the future. Many tens of thousands of people...clustered
around what's been carefully planned to be a general aviation facility that will be
impacted by noise and especially our kids as they try to learn, air pollution, both burned
and unburned fossil fuels; traffic congestion; health risks, as were talked about in the
workshop two weeks ago; lowered property values, plus the cruel irony of the inability to
sell devalued property; wetlands destruction, endangered species displacement, disruption
and pollution of streams, destruction of natural noise barriers, quality of life
degradation...."
"Exchanging high paying jobs for low paying jobs...infrastructure investment loss we with
26
regard to our schools, as well as parks and libraries and all of the rest of that, the
potential for aircraft accidents. And of course the odd frozen toilet waste bomb. The
bill in dollars I haven't calculated but it will be huge. The social damage I suggest to
you will be incalculable.
"Snohomish County is complying with growth management. We have in the past before
the phrase came into common vogue, and we will in the future. We did our growth
management homework and we did our land use master planning. The 1979 mediated
role determination we've been speaking of for Paine Field is one example. Your
predecessor organization concurred by their consistent deferral to the mediated
agreement whenever Paine Field was mentioned in RASP 2020. I did a quick review,
comes up 16 times. It was deferred to 16 times.
"We weren't advised back then to landbank or to move away or to stay away. An agenda
to use Paine Field for commercial operations was never hinted at as the COG reviewed
Snohomish County master plan after master land use plan over the years."
"As planned, Paine Field has become both a high tech employment area and a desire
residential area; people living close to good jobs, which is in my mind one of the things
growth management was all about. Not by accident. Just like we planned.
Elsaesser listed the employers in the area, which he said suggests that "excellent quality
of life is a much stronger economic growth factor than excellent air transportation."
"Given this history it is inconceivable to us that this body would consider reversing the
precedent established by the COG with respect to Paine Field. We expect you to be our
growth management ally, not an adversary in any sense.... Long established land use
planning must not be so nonchalantly overturned. Long- standing zoning cannot be
reversed after neighborhoods and industries and infrastructure have been established.
We don't think it at all unreasonable to expect consistency.
"High speed ground, advanced technology, landbanking for a new airport, we've had a
diverse menu of demand management tools talked about at these workshops, all of which
can play their part in ameliorating demand while we formulate plans for the future. A
Multiple airport system for Puget Sound is economically infeasible. The notion of
moving a few flights to wherever, Paine Field or Black Lake or Arlington or pick your
favorite, is simply naive. We don't have the population to support it. This group is in
my mind a perfect position to integrate transportation with growth management.
"Why not proactively manage growth rather than being forced to react with an attempt to
shoehorn more people into Puget Sound. Open the Cascade curtain with perhaps high
speed transportation to Spokane via Grant County. Work with other RTPOs in Oregon
and B.C. to regionally optimize the multimodal transportation along the Cascadia
corridor. And basically transportation can advance regionally the way we want it,
27
without hurting our people in the process. And that's really the bottom line. If we agree
that we need to share the pain, I state that is discretionary pain. We'll do it to ourselves
if we do it at all. As to the bottom line, large airports on top of large numbers of
citizens trying to live their lives is a horrible way to grow."
Pierce County Councilmember Barbara Skinner, a member of the Executive Board,
asked about the agreements regarding Paine Field. Chairman Laing said the issue would
be discussed with other questions at the fourth workshop.
Terry Lewis of The Boeing Company, a member of the Transportation Policy Board 18
year resident of Mukilteo, asked about a definition for the general aviation role at Paine
Field, and whether that included commercial traffic.
Eglick: "I think originally actually in the 1978 original resolution, commuter air wasn't
allowed. In '79 iteration which came after the mediation went forward, commuter air
was included but the sense of the inclusion there was very different than how we talk
about it today."
Stahl added that the definition of commuter aircraft was "19 seats or less." And
responding to a question from Executive Board member Leonard Sanderson, the mayor
of Milton, Stahl said San Juan Airline briefly operated a shuttle service out of Paine
Field, but "went broke."
In response to a question from Sanderson, Laing said the Flight Plan public hearing on
March 24 would be an opportunity for individuals as well as groups to state their
opinions on Flight Plan issues.
Regional Council Executive Director Mary McCumber added that the open Houses
throughout the region in February also would provide opportunities for public comments.
Regional Council Consultant Matt Hardison then briefly responded to questions raised
in the previous week's workshop regarding the nature of delay. ... "the point is, from an
overall system perspective, you have to consider not only the cost of delay in the air, that
is of the aircraft, but also of the passenger and the passenger really from getting from his
home or business to the aircraft, and then from the aircraft to the final destination, there
are a wide variety of sources of potential delay. You need to be concerned with the
context in which this information is being presented."
"In the case of aircraft delay, once the aircraft enters the airspace associated with
Sea -Tac in this case, they (the FAA) wants to know what the airborn delays are, what it
takes to taxi on the ground for taxi in, taxi out, and what is actually taking place, whether
there are any specific gate hold delays; that is, whether the aircraft has to wait at the
28
gate before it's given authorization to proceed. Then of course there are volume
measures, whether there's peak activity in a given period of time that the FAA captures
with its measures also.
"It does not include delays that are less than 15 minutes. That's very important because
for an airport planning perspective, a delay of less than 15 minutes on average does not
mean that there are no costs associated with that delay. A five or six minute average
delay for operations can be extremely significant.
"Five or six minutes for example over the entire year will include peak period delays of
as much as much as a half an hour, or an hour.
"Sea -Tac has delays which are significantly larger on average than the national average,
generated strictly by weather problems. That's not to say that other delays are not
significant or that they do not in and of themselves cause problems also, but it is
important to remember that if weather is a significant contributor to delay, then in large
part, that's probably attributable to the fact that there are limitations on the capacity of
the airport during bad weather conditions.
"There's one other issue that has come up regarding interpretation and that was the
question regarding what does it cost to build an airport, what does it cost to build a
runway specifically. Not unlike delay, it is very difficult to take these measures in
isolation and just say, well, it's 50 million dollars here and 50 million dollars there and
therefore they're comparable. It's extremely difficult because of the very local nature of
the circumstances. Sea -Tac has a very unique situation in that you're going to have to
move a lot of dirt in order to build the runway, but that's not dissimilar at all from the
situation that exists at other airports. So again, it's important to keep in mind the
differences between these estimates.
"There was some discussion of the fact that a half a billion dollars is significant. There is
no question that is a big number. But in aviation, the numbers generally tend to be big.
If you're talking about a solution to system capacity problems, particularly in the larger
cities in the United States, you're talking about very big costs.
He discussed the costs associated with other airports in the U.S., which ranged up to and
above four billion dollars.
Sanderson asked a question about delay, whether it's always measured against published
schedule or natural time, and Dalton of the FAA said the FAA does not use the
schedule in counting delays.
Pat Davis of the Port of Tacoma asked a question on process and materials for the
fourth meeting, and whether staff would compile a consolidation of issues and
viewpoints.
29
McCumber: "We see the next one as a wrap -up. We felt we were so tight and a lot
things didn't get discussed, we needed one more factual discussion where you could get
questions on the table and we could answer a lot of the questions you've raised so far.
Next is starting to move into the decision process for the policy board, and what you're
describing is closer to that, where we really package up what we know...."
Sharpe: "We have begun to put together a sort of question /answer kind of format, so
we'll have that. The other thing we've begun to work on is areas where there seems to
be agreement, areas where there are clear disagreement, and some questions. We can
then begin to focus the materials for the presentation late February.
"We will be asking the community groups to have some of their representatives here next
week to answer questions, if the chair wants to refer to them or defer to them to help
answer questions. I hope FAA can be here as well."
Sanderson asked about distribution of materials to members who had missed workshops.
McCumber: 'The summary has been mailed it to all the assembly members within the
region and other interested people. When we finish the workshops, I think one of the
products will be a condensed version of what did we learn and how to proceed."
Jerry Dinndorf, Growth Management Planning Director at the Regional Council, added
that "those board members who have been unable to attend have not escaped because
they have been circulated the same materials."
Federal Way City Councilmember Mary Gates, a member of the Transportation Policy
Board, said she needed sone questions answered regarding how the 65 Ldn noise
measure was selected and why and when the noise monitoring had occurred around Sea -
Tac.
"And then I had a real concern with the answer about modification of the four -post
pattern. And the concern I had was the assumption that a modification necessarily
moves the noise elsewhere. We saw it move from the water to communities. I want this
group to be very clear about the fact that we are not trying to pit community against
community. If anything, this is a regional body and any suggestion that we would do so I
find repugnant, and I'm very concerned that we don't start looking at that process
because that is wholly unacceptable to me."
Executive Board Member Barbara Skinner asked about other community groups possibly
being left out of the workshop presentations to date and added: "Somebody asked me a
little earlier if I felt that we had enough data, and my instant response was, we don't
need any more. We don't need to know the technical, the stuff the scientists and
engineers can figure it out. What we need to know, is the airport overcrowded? If it is,
what are we going to do to fix that problem? Is it noisy, and everybody knows the
answer to that.
30
"I just need to know, is it clear, does everybody agree that the airport is just about at its
maximum or will be in ten years? If so, what are we going to do about it? Where are
we going to go, and line up the alternatives and see how many of them can still stand at
the end of the process and figure out if there are enough alternatives, if not, come up
with some more. If I get any more studies on scientific data, I will hit the person that
gives them to me.
"I just need to have the major issues laid out, and the major information we've been
given that affects those issues, and all the other detail I assume the Flight Plan
committee has gone through ad nauseum.
"We should trust them to have handled a little bit of that data and taken care of that so
when it gets down to the bottom line it's still going to be, do we stick it in Snohomish
County? Do we stick it down in Pierce or Thurston, or do we stick it on the rest of the
state and go to Lewis, or do we even do it? Do we have the guts to do it ?"
McCumber: "The challenge is to simplify, to define the agreement on the facts, define
the agreement on the issues, and simplify what you're being asked to decide at the
Transportation Policy Board first meeting. But why we wanted this series of meetings is,
there is some information that people within the community including ourselves, feel
wasn't adequately looked at and needed to have a second look. We also needed this
organization to have the credibility of listening, prior to moving into that more simplified
process. I think what we were trying to do was bring new perspective, new ways of
looking at things at the table and now we need to start moving into something that is
easier to deal with, have the facts as the backup but have a very simple package. We're
seeking to do that."
Pat Davis: "I hope when you distill the facts, what we were trying to do here was look
harder, and provide some pros and cons. Do we have a problem? If we do, do we need
a regional system to deal with it ?"
Hunts Point Mayor Earselle Eade, an alternate on the Executive Board, asked about
zoning laws in relation to Paine Field, and McCumber said "there is some question
related to it and...I think it would be a good one to talk about at next meeting."
Connie Niva of Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Transportation Policy Board
added: "The element that was very telling to me today is that a lot of this is market
driven. And if this is really market driven, we can all sit here and make all the decisions
we like and say this is where the airport is going, and tell the people, go over there, and
they can say no. That's what it sounds like. I think is the telling argument in what a
body like this can control in the decision - making process. What's the ultimate pragmatic
outcome of all of that, I think, has to be a part of that decision process. This is, if you
do this, this happens; if you do that, that happens. But we're not in charge of all that.
There must be other places that have tried auxiliary airports that have worked, not
31
worked; what did the airlines do, etc.."
Hardison of Apogee said "there are different kinds of incentives that operate to effect
whether a given airport will become a scheduled commercial aircraft service airport or
not. Dallas when it first started out, grew over time from initially providing a limited
amount of service to providing more and more service. If there were a northern or a
southern site, chances are you're not going to instantaneously start with a major jet
aircraft going in. You'd start with a limited amount of service."
Executive Board Member Sanderson asked about the degree freight volume affects
passenger airlines, and Hardison responded that, "the business itself is changed over the
last ten years to the extent that most of the freight is now being moved in the bellies of
passenger aircraft, so that where you have the passenger activity, you have the
opportunity to move a lot more cargo.
Northwest happens to be the only U.S. passenger carrier that operates dedicated cargo
aircraft today. Even the dedicated cargo flights that we have with UPS, Federal Express
and carriers of that nature typically also tend to move at non -peak or evening nighttime
hours and so as a result, they don't tend to cause the same kind of congestion problems
that the passenger aircrafts do."
Sanderson: "If we look only at the passenger aspect and make some kind of decision
that something should happen at a location, and that airplane we talked about moving or
those airplanes won't actually move there because they can't take the freight business
with them, then our decision is worthless."
Laing: We're adjourned with my thanks to the board members. We'll see you on the
fourth.
The next Transportation Policy Board /Executive Board Flight Plan Workshop ( #4) will
be from 9 a.m. to noon at the Bellevue Conference Center.
32
Puget Sound Regional Council RECE ' ED
PSRC
FLIGHT PLAN WORKSHOP III
JAN 2 6 1993
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Thursday, January 28, 1993 • 11:00 a.m. • Bellevue Conference Center
505 106th Ave. NE, Bellevue
Agenda 11:00 a.m. Continuation of Workshop II Topics (50 minutes)
1. Regional Committee on Airport Affairs (5 minutes)
2. Air Washington (45 minutes)
11:50 a.m. Briefing on Workshop III Topics (10 minutes)
1. Mitigation /abatement of system impacts, e.g., noise, access, etc. (see Working
Paper No. 2)
2. Sequence /timing of decisions and implementing actions, e.g., financing,
governance, regulation, conflict resolution (see Working Paper No. 3
12:00 noon Community Presentations (up to 45 minutes each plus maximum of
10 minutes for clarification)
12:00 noon a. Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
12:55 p.m. b. Air Washington
1:50 p.m. c. Save Our Communities
2:45 p.m.
Closing discussion among Board .members, staff /consultants and
presenters (Time permitting)
3:00 p.m. Adjourn
216 First Avenue .ut
FLIGHT PLAN WORKSHOP IV
Thursday, February 4, 1993 • 9:00 a.m. • Bellevue Conference Center
505 106th Ave. NE, Bellevue
NOTE: A fourth workshop will be held on February 4 at the Bellevue
Convention Center from 9:00 a.m. to noon. Board members will discuss with
staff and consultants areas of agreement and disagreement that have emerged
during the first three workshops. Board members also will have an opportunity
to identify any additional questions for further research as regional airport
system alternative packages are developed and discussed.
No presentations from community groups or others are scheduled. These
interests are invited and encouraged to attend to respond to questions that
might be raised during the discussion.
CnnHln IA4r.uri1nn not(A ',v . At WW1 rnv re7 nrtnr
Puget Sound Regional Council
January 22, 1993
Report on
Flight Plan Workshop #2
Regional Council Executive Board /Transportation Policy Board
(1/21/93 -- Bellevue Conference Center)
King County Concilmember Bruce Laing, Transportation Policy Board Chair, opened Flight
Plan Workshop #2 at 9:47 a.m.
He thanked those in attendance for coming "considering the circumstances" of the heavy
wind storm damage from the previous day, and the power outage that resulted in the
workshop starting without lights or working microphones. The focus of the workshop was
on demand management and the alternatives for meeting the region's commercial air
transportation capacity needs.
Pat O'Malley of the Port of Tacoma asked that when people at workshops quote from
documents, they submit a copy of the page that is being quoted from, "to prevent some
creative writing."
Laing said the request was . reasonable, and asked Regional Council staff to make sure
appropriate documents are provided to board members.
Dick Mudge of Apogee Research, a consultant hired by the Regional Council to help resolve
technical and complex air transportation issues, began by responding to a question that was
raised in Workshop #1 about the use of dynamic strategic planning, and whether it could
be applied to the Regional Council's Flight Plan decision process.
Mudge used the example of the development of the airport in Sydney, Australia, to illustrate
how dynamic strategic planning can work. The concept, in essence, is to use a planning
process that allows decisionmakers to keep their options open as events and circumstances
unfold, so they can adjust their decisions and actions to economic, technology and industry
changes. Mudge said it's the kind of planning that is endorsed by Richard de Neufville, who
studied Flight Plan forecasts and who is known in many parts of the world for his
involvement and analysis related to air transportation planning.
Mudge said the planning technique helps focus on the wisest course of action by asking, at
each level of a decision, "what do we risk if we're wrong ?"
1
.216 First Avenue South • Seattle, Washington 98104 • (206) 464 -7090 • FAX 587 -4825
He said that at Sydney, events happened much faster than officials thought they would.
They had been talking for 20 years about how to deal with a potential need for additional
air transportation capacity, and doing studies, but had been unable to reach an agreement
on a specific course of action. There was a belief and forecasts suggesting that additional
capacity was needed, especially because the area depends so much on tourism, and there
were also noise and traffic congestion problems at the existing airport. The policymakers
were mulling two courses of action: doing nothing, and betting that the existing airport could
handle the demand; or building a brand new airport.
Doing nothing was viewed as a neutral decision if -the demand forecasts ended up being
high, because the airport could deal with lower demand. However, if the forecasts were
right, or too low., and the demand exceeded the capacity of the existing airport, then doing
nothing would be a bad decision, with potentially severe economic losses.
On the other hand, if they landbanked a site for a new airport, and forecasts were too high,
then the loss would be small, because the cost of the land (in that case) would only be one
or two percent of the cost of a new airport. And if the forecasts were right or too low, they
would be ready to proceed. Mudge said it was "fairly obvious to political leaders in
Australia that the right decision was to buy the insurance policy" and landbank a site.
What actually happened, two years later, was that air traffic dramatically increased and a
decision needed to made very quickly. Their decision then was to expand the existing
airport by adding a third runway, in part because they were concerned about the financial
ability of airlines to move to a new airport. But, to show that simply improving the old
airport was not the final solution, they also built a general aviation runway on the
landbanked site, planning, in 10, 20 or 30 years, to move the airport out to the new site.
The result was, they moved quicker than they thought they would have to and expanded
their capacity faster than they planned; and they were able to do so because they were very
flexible in their thinking and actions. Ultimately, Mudge said, the decision to landbank a
site, even if traffic had not increased so fast, was probably the right one.
Flight Plan, Mudge said, is very compatible with dynamic strategic planning. The process
is open, there are lots of options being talked about, and most of the information could be
put on a matrix for analysis, so that, "if the forecasts are too high, we do X; if they remain
the same, we do this; if they are low, we do this..."
Laing said it would be beneficial if key information for Flight Plan were arranged in this
way, and Mudge said he thought it could be done fairly easily.
Regional Council Executive Director Mary McCumber said board members have been given
lots of information, and "when we move to the Transportation Policy Board meeting
February 11, we'll put together the package you're asking for."
2
In response to a question from Regional County President Jim Street, she said the
information would be presented as a package with a range of options rather than
recommendations.
Laing: "It's not clear to me yet what that package is," but the remaining workshops could
provide the kind of direction needed, to put together a package, and "if you feel we need
more focus, we can talk about that."
Street: "A theme that I hope we emphasize is that we're interested in agreement...in
coherent alternatives that permit people who want to go somewhere to propose rather than
oppose something."
He said a second emphasis should be on developing a set of facts that can be agreed upon,
and Laing said the optional fourth Flight Plan Workshop may be used to reach an
agreement on facts, and where there are areas of disagreements.
Peter Beaulieu, the Flight Plan project manager for Regional Council, briefly went over the
alternatives presented in greater detail in the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact
Statement that have been proposed for meeting the region's commercial air capacity needs.
He said demand management at Sea -Tac airport could be the least costly, although that did
not fully account for the costs of mitigation, and as part of that package, there is a separate
high speed ground transportation cost of up to 9 to 11 billion dollars. He suggested it also
probably provides the least insurance if the demand meets or exceeds the Flight Plan
forecasts.
Another Sea -Tac option, the addition of a third runway, "addresses a current problem, the
loss of runway capacity during bad weather."
The third Sea -Tac option would include a rail link with a remote airport or "wayport ", either
Boeing Field or Moses Lake, which he said would involve "a lot of complications, including
the cost of the rail." Also, he said, with regard to Sea -Tac, most of the passengers are
origin /destination, as opposed to many other airports; and, he noted that there are no other
airports in US right now that have wayports.
The multiple airport system alternatives would involve Sea -Tac with or without a third
runway, and supplemental sites either north or south (one option); or north and south
(another option), which was the recommendation of the Puget Sound Air Transportation
Committee. The committee suggested the north site be at Paine Field near Everett, and the
south site either operating in conjunction with McChord Air Force Base, or east of
McChord, at Fort Lewis, or a site in Thurston County.
3
Beaulieu said that with the multiple airport system, if a third runway was not built at Sea -
Tac, the amount of traffic at supplemental airports would go from 3 -4 million to 13 million,
which would create significant additional ground traffic, including for those passengers who
would need to connect to flights at Sea -Tac.
Another alternative is the replacement airport, which would stay within the region unless
no site could be found. The two potential in- region sites could be, one off and the other on
military land in Pierce County. Replacement means that Sea -Tac would be converted to
some other use, and Beaulieu said the Minneapolis -St. Paul area is looking at this type of
question....
"One could say this is the alternative that is most dependent on high forecasts, and that ,it
may also be the most forward looking, if the name of the game is site preservation..."
because if the significant increase in demand arrives at a later date than projected, at
perhaps 2060 rather than 2030, a site would be preserved to meet that demand, Beaulieu
said.
The final alternative, no action, is projected to produce greater delays at Sea -Tac, and many
people have said that over the long term, this would be courting economic problems for the
region.
He again briefly discussed the materials that were developed for discussion of demand
management and system management.
Hans Haschenbach, who identified himself as a planner with the City of Des Moines,
referred to some handout material and asked a question about noise levels and the number
of who were listed as living within areas exposed to certain levels of noise. After
clarification, he suggested that all documents produced for the Regional Council's
discussions stipulate the year for which projections being depicted are made.
Tacoma City Councilmember Robert Evans, a member of the Regional Council Executive
Board, suggested that a breakdown of costs comparing airport expansion versus ground
transportation, showing where funds might come from, and where ground transportation
funds might be spent to deal with access issues at airports, would be helpful for the Regional
Council's deliberations.
Mike Feldman of the Port of Seattle questioned the "assumption" that demand management
could lower . the number of operations or passengers at Sea -Tac, and also questioned
information regarding noise impacts depicted for Sea -Tac, which he said included noise for
a three airport system, not just Sea -Tac.
Chairman Laing said Regional Council staff would research the issues and respond at the
next workshop.
4
Port of Seattle Commissioner Pat Davis, following up on the issue raised by Councilmember
Evans, said she too thought it would be helpful to have a breakdown of costs and of where
funds come from for air and ground transportation, so that members are aware that airport
funds are not transferrable to ground transportation.
Next on the revised agenda was Commissioner Paige Miller of the Port of Seattle. Rick
Aramburu, attorney for the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, said his copy of the
agenda did not include the Port of Seattle, and the scheduled 25 minutes of introduction had
gone on for an hour, "these hearings are for the public, not the Port," and suggested the Port
should wait until community presentations were completed.
Chairman Laing said that if the board members present wanted to move the Port
presentation to the end of the agenda, he would put it to a vote. The decision was made
to go ahead with the agenda as revised.
Port of Seattle Commissioner Miller said "elected leaders have been accused of doing a
poor job of planning for the future when it comes to growth, ground transportation" and
other issues, and now "with air capacity. we're attempting to make difficult, long range
decisions now, before we're in crisis." She said, "just as our bridges and highways are filling
up," Sea -Tac airport is "running out of room too."
Causes she listed include population increases, changes in travel patterns, the deregulation
of the airlines, a significant increase in commuter carrier use, and the fact that the two
existing runways are so close together that only one is usable in cloudy weather, 40 to 45
percent of the time. She said "we're already in a situation where planes are held on the
ground up to a half hour...it's not a future problem, its an existing problem, and as the
region grows it will get worse."
She said a third runway wouldn't be operational until the year 2000 at the earliest, and
significant capacity problems will occur as early as 1996.
Failure to address the issue will hurt the region economically and environmentally, she said,
because air facilities "are key to our global competitive position," and delays would force
international routes to other less congested airports, and would leave planes idling on the
ground and circling overhead, causing noise and air pollution problems, Miller said.
She said "we need capacity not only at Sea - Tac...a third runway is a piece of the answer...."
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Commission, of which she was a member, chose . the
multiple airport system because use of existing airports would minimize environmental
impacts, and existing airports are closest to existing populations, reducing air pollution from
ground travel, and they are within the urban growth area and comply with the state Growth
Management Act, she said.
5
"The only real alternative to a multiple airport system would be a huge new airport, which
would increase sprawl," Miller said.
She disputed the contention that air traffic can be limitecl through demand management,
and said the techniques that could be applied are limited, could drive away business, and
would push flights out of peak periods into morning and late evening, when people are most
sensitive to noise. As for high speed rail, she said there is no service now and it would be
"at least 15 years before we have decent service."
Upgrading the rail system from Seattle to Portland might reduce some air traffic and might
make a difference in the need for two supplement airports, but "it won't pay for itself," she
said. And, she said, the best ways to address noise are the conversion from Stage 2 to Stage
3 aircraft, which is currently underway, plus insulation, and "better land use controls on
parcels near the airport."
She said that in its November resolution (3125), the Port agreed be part of a regional
solution, to move forward with an environmental impact statement on a third runway and
to insulate 5,000 additional homes; but if the Regional Council doesn't act on a regional
solution, the Port "will revisit our decision."
Seattle City Councilmember Martha Choe, a member of the Transportation Policy Board,
said she appreciated the information, but, "I'm a little sensitive to the perception of this
group in terms of fairness, and with all due respect, I'm not sure what the specific issues
were that the Port was asked to respond to...
Chairman Laing said, "And I felt the same way...we've allowed a rebuttal when we haven't
allowed others to..."
Choe: "We need to address that going forward. This is a highly emotional issue on both
sides, and I'm corned about the perception, and the fairness. I think if we allow rebuttals,
we've got to be very structured and objective about the time when that occurs for both
parties.... I'm concerned that the integrity of this process not be compromised. And I'm
concerned about the presentation. I think some of the points were clarified, but I think part
of it was persuasive, and I don't think that's appropriate for this part of the agenda."
Laing said he agreed and asked Sumner Sharpe, Regional Council consultant for the Flight
Plan project, to discuss why the Port was put on the agenda.
Sharpe said the discussion with the Port that led to its presentation was that "they had
clarifying information as to the nature of the demand, from our discussion last time about
the characteristics that the demand was from international flights and commuter flights ...and
to add any other comments they had about the characteristics of capacity and the problems
with capacity. That was the discussion I had with Port officials and what they were asked
to respond to."
6
Choe said she understood that part of the issue is that there is a debate over what are facts,
"but again I think we need to pause and establish some ground rules about how we allow
that clarification. I think clarification is extremely critical ... in as much as we can agree on
the facts, I think the more the better, but I think we need to be very careful about straying
off our objective course."
Chairman Laing said "our intent is not to have a presentation and rebuttal during these
workshops, and I think we've fallen into that."
Tacoma Port Commissioner O'Malley said he thought that the reading of an excerpt from
a document at the previous workshop was a bit misleading, and "I think that in turn
prompted this, so maybe now that we've seen the pendulum swing to both sides, we can
move ahead."
Seattle Port Commissioner Miller apologized, but O'Malley said no apology was necessary,
and Laing, Street, Choe and O'Malley said it was an internal procedural issue that needed
to be resolved with staff and consultants. The point was stressed that staff and consultants
need to assure that presentations are factual rather than persuasive, and on the issues that
need to be addressed at the workshops.
Sarah Dalton of the Federal Aviation Administration discussed demand management and
system management, saying "this has always been a difficult conversation for the federal
government, because we have a lot of authority in this area," including issues such as
airspace control and grant agreements.
She suggested that some items in the Regional Council's Draft Working Paper No. 1, on
Demand Management and System Management, might not be workable. For instance, gate
controls applied at airports to ensure that planes have a certain percentage of seats filled
prior to takeoff, or to gain other assurances, might interfere with interstate commerce, she
said.
As for reconfiguring the FAA- imposed four -post plan that governs arrivals and departures
at Sea -Tac, she said there were "no plans on the table to reconfigure it," that it is an
efficient system, and it is unlikely that significant efficiencies could be gained by changing
it. She said the suggestion that reconfiguring airspace could increase the number of
takeoffs and landings at Sea -Tac from 42 to 56 per hour "is not possible." Getting capacity
benefits requires runway separation of 2,500 feet,rather than the 800 feet that exists at Sea -
Tac, she said, although a microwave landing system might help on clear days or days that
weren't too cloudy, she said.
7
Board Member Robert Evans said he understood there had been discussions about changing
the four -post plan, specific to its southern post, to which Dalton replied that local changes
to change noise impacts might be made, but they would not provide more efficient use of
air space.
Milton Mayor Leonard Sanderson, a member of the Regional Council Executive Board,
asked if changing the noise impact wouldn't simply be moving it from one place to another,
and Dalton replied that would be a judgement that would have to be made, but that there
would "have to be an agreement by all communities affected...if it impacted Tacoma, there
would have to be an agreement that this would be okay...."
Consultant Dick Mudge of Apogee said "there are current rules and there are future rules,"
that demand management has never been tried in this country, and that it's "new territory
with lot of grey areas in what the FAA can and cannot do...a very wide grey area as to what
can and cannot be done." He suggested that "if Sea -Tac and other airports go to Congress
for clarification," that might result in changes, and the restrictions that the FAA operates
under may change.
He suggested that while currently, changing airspace probably wouldn't provide a major
capacity gain, "...there a lot of things that happen in aviation...that take a long time to
change, and that he would be more optimistic that some demand management efforts could
be implemented.
Save Our Communities
Following a break, Bob Stahl of Save Our Communities began his group's presentation by
saying that he was disappointed in the number of Transportation Policy Board and Executive
Board members who were not at the workshop. He said SOC acknowledges that the Flight
Plan forecasts were done correctly, that the numbers "for the most part add up," but that the
comments of Richard de Neufville, recognized as an expert on capacity issues, "must be
respected."
He said that while SOC is a diverse group of people who are not experts on siting aspects
or demand management, "we understand numbers, and we problems with Flight Plan's
numbers." He said demand management is "an oxymoron at best."
If the numbers are correct, that 38 percent of the traffic at Sea -Tac travels 150 miles or less,
and 42 percent are commuter flights, "there's something missing. The tail is wagging the
dog." He said airline industry officials weren't present to answer questions that need to be
answered. For instance, what would the airlines do if a cap were put on operations at Sea -
Tac; "that could be mighty important to your decision." He said the airlines should be
asked, "if we limit you to the number of gates you can have, or the number: of flights after
5 p.m., what are you going to do ?"
"Why isn't someone here from United Airlines or Alaska Airlines here to answer these
questions ?" Stahl asked. He said he hoped board members would be sure to ask airline
representatives those kinds of questions.
The capacity problem, if there is one, is not being created by the residents around Sea -Tac
or Paine Field; Thai Air and JAL have moved from Sea -Tac because "there wasn't enough
business," Seattle is the 19th largest city in the U.S. and Sea -Tac is the 26th busiest airport
in the U.S.; and Boeing Field handles more operations than Sea -Tac, so it is difficult to
understand the problem, Stahl said.
SOC member Wayne Elsaesser said Sea -Tac airport is too small, that Portland, Vancouver
(B.C.) and Denver, if its new airport is built, are bigger, and the Port of Seattle is in a
competitive business, and therefore is seeking expansion.
"Ten years ago, the forecasts said no capacity problems were likely," he said. Paine Field
"isn't the answer to the alleged shortfall," and the expectation that "just a few" commercial
flights could be brought into Paine Field is "unrealistic." He said San Juan Airlines recently
tried to start commercial service at Paine Field, but "failed in a matter of weeks."
If there is a need for additional capacity, an entrepreneur in the region will fill it; even with
50 flights a days, Paine Field would provide very limited choices to travellers and would not
be economically viable, he said. He noted that the Regional Council stresses moving people
efficiently, and "we agree "; larger planes are being proposed by all manufacturers, landing
fees could be imposed, planes could be held for take off until they are sufficiently full, and
technology is reducing the need for business travel, he said.
In addition, planes flying non -stop to Tokyo, New York and elsewhere that now have to stop
in Seattle, won't continue to have to do so with increasing technology, he said..
"High speed ground transportation is a faster and more environmentally sound alternative."
He said it is "embarrassing" that our region cannot do what others around the world have
done and build an efficient rail system -- "how did we become so dumb ?"
And if the state is serious about growth management, it will work for high speed ground
transportation not only along the I -5 corridor, but to Spokane and other parts of Eastern
Washington as well, he said.
Chairman Laing asked staff about questions related to how the airlines would react to
certain issues, and Beaulieu of the Regional Council staff said airline representatives had
been members of the earlier Flight Plan committee.
As to caps on operations as have been put on the Long Beach, California, airport, that is
not a regional airport, Beaulieu said, which could make a difference; also, he said, a
discussion of how the airlines would react if nothing were done to increase capacity in the
region is found in Issue #6 of Working Paper No. 1 on demand management and system
management.
He added also that when the initial Flight Plan forecasts were done, commuter airline
operations were projected to continue to increase; however, the current forecasts project
that commuter operations will be a declining share of operations, dropping from 42 percent
to 22 percent in the year 2020.
Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
Attorney Rick Aramburu of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs said his group
would focus on whether there in fact is a capacity problem, what the benefits of a third
runway would be and whether the benefits would justify the expense, and whether there
really is enough room at Sea -Tac "to make it into a 21st century airport."
He said "the issue of delay is the most confusing and least documented segment of this
discussion," and that most delay is caused by weather, such that "no amount of runway or
concrete will solve the problem" in bad weather. He said the FAA recognizes significant
delay as 15 minutes or longer.
He said RCAA had called virtually every airport in the country that is building a new
runway, and the third runway at Sea -Tac "is among the most if not the most expensive
proposal." In trying to determine how much delay there really is at Sea -Tac, RCAA called
the FAA; RCAA learned that the number of operations actually delayed was 5 to 6 percent,
and that the actual delay time reported by the FAA was significantly different than the
computer - generated delay time numbers produced for Flight Plan, he said.
While the reported delay time for 1990 was 29,000 hours, actual delay time reported by the
FAA was 4,451 hours. He said the FAA- reported delay time translated into a total of one
second of delay per passenger, a comparison just as valid as estimating the impact of noise
as an average over a 24 -hour period, as is currently done by the FAA.
The total operations delayed over 15 minutes equalled only 1.4 percent of all operations in
1990 and 1 percent of operations in 1991, which is consistent with operations at airports
around the country, he said. "This is not delay in terms of our daily lives," and in fact delay
going out to the airport from downtown Seattle is about 15 minutes, he said.
10
A survey of passengers at Sea -Tac indicated that delay "is not a big issue with them," he
said. The justification for spending 400 million to 500 million dollars, to take care of delay
by building a third runway, "is not found in the data received so far" and the urgency for
public policy application by the Regional Council to the issue is not apparent either, he said.
Pierce County Councilmember Barbara Skinner, a member of the Regional Council
Executive Board, asked Aramburu whether he had any projections regarding delay for 20
years into the future.
Aramburu said he did not, but noted that "actual delays are one -fifth of what the computer
says," which makes it especially difficult to try to calculate what future delay might be.
Terry Lewis of The Boeing Company, a member of the Transportation Policy Board, asked
whether Aramburu's figure of $400 million to $500 million for a third runway is correct.
Mike Feldman of the Port of Seattle said about half that figure is mitigation costs;
Aramburu said it was all for construction. Feldman said also that Aramburu's fact sheet
showing Denver costs of $380 million for the construction of five independent runways didn't
include site acquisition costs and that the cost Aramburu quoted for the third runway at Sea -
Tac was a preliminary number.
Regional Council President Street asked if there are circumstances at Sea -Tac that might
make it more expensive to build a runway there than at other areas; Feldman said he wasn't
sure, but added that importing the fill material required would add significant costs.
Aramburu said the needed fill -- 17 million cubic yards -- would fill seven Kingdomes.
Mudge of Apogee said the Denver cost actually would be about $2 billion, and it's difficult
to pull out the costs of just one runway from a major airport project. On the issue of delay,
he said FAA does not necessarily regard 15 minutes as significant delay, but that's the point
at which it asks airlines to keep track of delay. And there are many components of delay,
he said. If planes are held at one airport because the airspace is full at another airport, it's
uncertain to which airport that delay is assigned, he said.
He suggested that the numbers offered by Aramburu don't in fact represent "true system
delay," and that there is no magic number for how much delay is unacceptable. It used to
be, he said, that delay was considered anything beyond four minutes; now airports use
anywhere from 6 minutes to 10 to 12 minutes, he said. And, he said, the peak period delay
may be four or five times the average delay.
Among the components of delay are ground access, gate delay, airfield delay and airspace
delay, he said.
Beaulieu said that according to the FAA, 85 to 90 percent of the arrivals at Sea -Tac are on
time.
11
O'Malley of the Port of Tacoma said he would like to see a staff analysis of the delay and
cost numbers presented by Aramburu, and Mudge said that would be done.
Feldman said airline schedules have already been adjusted to account for delays, so that
while a flight to San Francisco used to be listed on a schedule as a two -hour flight, it now
is listed as a 2 -hour, 20- minute flight, showing how the system has already absorbed delays.
He stressed also the significant difference between the average delay over a 24 -hour period
and the delay during peak hours.
Gerald Bogan, president of G. Bogan & Associates, Inc., was introduced as having 38 years
experience in air traffic control. He said he is "pro aviation and pro airports, but you have
to look at what you get for the dollar "
He described the various facets of an air traffic control system, and talked about how each
applied to Sea -Tac Airport and the region, then talked about the difference between a
dependent and an independent runway. When you add another dependent runway, "you
don't get a full increase in the number of operations...(so that)runways alone won't solve"
a significant capacity problem, he said. He said there are three things that factor into
capacity, the number of runways, the weather, and the electronic and radar devices at an
airport.
Then he talked about the three kinds of electronic devices that can help with takeoffs and
landings, including an instrument landing system, such as exists at Sea -Tac; a microwave
landing system, which he said allows planes to come into a runway at an angle; and a
Landing Directional Aid, which would allow two planes to come down at the same time, one
not lined up with a runway, and then, when it got below the clouds, to do a "sidestep"
maneuver that would allow both planes to land on adjacent dependent runways.
Bogan said he could "give you arguably the same capacity" at Sea -Tac with a Landing
Directional Aid, for around $5 million, as would be available with a third dependent runway,
which has been estimated to cost $400 million. The only difference in terms of capacity
would be for departures; but for arrivals, because of the required separation between planes
before they get below the clouds, a third runway wouldn't provide significantly more arrival
capacity than a Landing Directional Aid would, he said.
Street: "It sounds like you're saying you can substitute the landing technology for the
runway. So why are we here ?"
Bogan said that "political constraints" were one reason; the key is the fact that the third
runway would be dependent and "does not give you lots of added capacity...the third runway
is not going to do that much for you."
12
Laing asked if this was only true at Sea -Tac, and Bogan said that, when applied to
dependent runways, the argument held true "any place on earth."
Laing asked if it mattered that the dependent runways at Sea -Tac are closer together than
at some other airports, and Bogan said it did not.
O'Malley said that with the available land at Sea -Tac, it wouldn't be possible to construct
two independent runways, and Bogan concurred.
O'Malley: "So what you're saying is, it (a third dependent runway) is not cost effective."
Feldman asked Bogan if it mattered whether he was talking about any runway, in any kind
of weather, and Bogan said the ability of the sidestep maneuver to handle arrivals would be
on a sliding scale, depending on such factors as how high the cloud cover was, how many
runways there were, and whether they were dependent runways. He said capacity is also
dependent upon the type of airplanes that are arriving.
Sanderson said that even if all that were true, "that still means you're going to have more
operations," and asked how much wider an approach path would have to be to accommodate
such maneuvers, and what new areas might be exposed to noise.
Bogan said that would require detailed study to see what part of the community might be
affected. He said the question remains, with two runways, with state -of- the -art equipment,
if that capacity versus the capacity increase with a third runway, would justify the expense
of a third runway.
Mudge: "You're not saying that having a third runway...won't add capacity, you have to
decide whether it's cost effective."
Street asked whether the sidestep maneuver Bogan mentioned had been figured into the
Flight plan data to date, and Beaulieu said the environmental impact statement "recognizes
it exists, but it was not analyzed."
O'Malley asked whether Dalton of the FAA hadn't said earlier that technology wouldn't
provide significant increases in capacity.
Dalton said two dependent runways do give more capacity than a Landing Directional Aid,
because the necessary aircraft separation can be measured diagonally between aircraft
approaching the two runways; two parallel streams of aircraft, with this kind of aircraft
separation, is better than one stream.
13
Y
She said the FAA has looked at the microwave landing system, which will be tested at Sea -
Tac, but that it would not help with landings about 25 percent of the time. She said "the
benefit of the dependent runway is delay savings, rather than capacity increase."
Street asked if that meant that a third runway would provide a capacity increase 25 percent
of the time, and Dalton said that was correct. Bogan and Dalton disagreed on this point.
Mudge interjected that there were other complications, such as the traffic that is handled
by Boeing Field.
Dalton said that in the FAA's discussions regarding a microwave landing system, the agency
had not considered interaction with Boeing Field.
Mudge said such a system is now being tested in San Francisco.
Bogan's final comment was that, regarding any decision, "you want to look at what you get
for capacity per dollar."
Gerald Dallas was introduced by Aramburu as a consultant having 30 years experience in
airport planning, involving 65 airports around the country. Dallas said that a lot of
information was being considered, and he wanted to "put us all on the same playing field"
by establishing some basic conclusions. One was that "the conclusion of Flight Plan is that
Sea -Tac cannot accommodate the passengers forecast in the year 2020 with the third
runway."
Hearing no disagreement, he said the next conclusion is that the Flight Plan forecast is for
45 million passengers in 2020. "Flight Plan says Sea -Tac isn't big enough, you need another
airport....what Flight Plan also says is that 40 million of those 45 million are going to be
accommodated at Sea -Tac. The one point that I don't think Flight Plan does say is the
ability of Sea -Tac to handle those 40 million passengers on the land side. Flight Plan does
not cover that issue. Maybe it can, but Flight Plan doesn't speak to it."
Dallas said that at most, an additional 200 acres could be added to the current Sea -Tac site,
but the microwave landing system that had just been discussed would take up a significant
portion of that additional land, taking "a big swath of the ability to make this thing (a third
runway) work. The point being, there's not much land for 40 million passengers."
He said LAX in Los Angeles accommodates about 45 million passengers per year now on
approximately 1100 acres for landside activities, "and they're short of space for cargo
carriers...the other airports I've looked at have much larger acreages available...."
14
Another question, he said, was that a supplemental airport in the multiple airport system
recommended by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee would take about 1 -1/2
million passengers in 2010, and questioned whether that would be enough to make it
economically feasible.
Also, he said the FAA, according to Flight Plan information, would provide about 9 percent
of the funds for Sea -Tac with a third runway, and a new airport. "Now, the majority of the
money that Flight Plan says is coming from passenger facility charges, if the passengers don't
come, the money doesn't come. The bank still has to be paid."
He also suggested that according to information prepared for Flight Plan, it would cost more
than $400 million to accommodate 3 -1/2 million passengers at a supplemental airport, and
$600 million at Sea -Tac, to accommodate 40 million passengers.
He also suggested that there is "no institution to make it work, and what have you got at the
end of that, Sea -Tac full of passengers, chock full, another airport handling 3 -1/2 million
passengers, so in another 20 years, our children will back in this room, trying to solve the
same problem. Take that billion dollars and make a down payment on something you can
be proud of into the next century."
A discussion ensued as to whether the $400 million figure Dallas had referred to was
applied to Paine Field, and whether the total was in fact $600 million, not $1 billion, with
$400 million for Sea -Tac and $200 million for Paine Field.
O'Malley asked for a formal response from staff, and Chairman Laing assured that would
happen.
Choe asked what Dallas meant about "no institution or formal arrangement to make it
work," and Dallas said he was referring to the lack of a specific entity that could convince
the airlines to move from Sea -Tac to another airport.
Beaulieu said the price tag for a multiple airport system, including a third runway at Sea-
Tac, was estimated at 650 million. "...it does not accumulate to $1 billion."
Skinner said that with all the references to Flight Plan, she wanted to make sure that
everyone was aware that the multiple airport was offered as a recommendation of the
advisory committee, but was not a recommendation flowing out of the current deliberative
effort. The Regional Council does not yet have a position.
Mudge said he thought it was important to emphasize that many factors go into how a
multiple airport system can develop, including market forces -- "when can the airlines make
money going to another airport," and suggested that "that can be helped" by institutional
efforts. "You have to look at market forces, what things the region can use to speed that
up or slow that down... there a lot of models out there that can track it."
15
1
Dallas: "The point is, I think you people need a lot of information that you don't have."
Chairman Laing said that time had been exhausted time, and since Air Washington had not
been able to get time to make its scheduled presentation, it would be given the time at the
next workshop.
President Street said that at the next workshop, the community groups should go first to
make they are all accommodated.
The next Transportation Policy Board /Executive Board Flight Plan Workshop ( #3) will be
from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Thursday, January 28, at the Bellevue Conference Center.
16
THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN ALTERNATIVES
FLIGHT PLAN WORKSHOP II
January 21, 1993
7. What Are the Regional Alternatives?
Five alternatives have been identified to serve expected long -term (year 2020 and beyond) commercial air
transportation capacity needs in the central Puget Sound region. The alternatives are not equally effective in
serving demand and have varied impacts on the community and natural environment. Detailed Environmental
Impact Statement work on specific siting options would follow a regional decision on the system alternative (the
Regional Council action scheduled for April 29, 1993).
1. Sea -Tac Airport Enhancement Measures:
• Sea -Tac with Broad System Management: This alternative attempts to meet the region's future travel
needs without building any new runways. It includes the use of demand management, new technologies,
and high -speed rail; or
• Sea -Tac in conjunction with a remote airport: A remote airport is a second airport such as Boeing Field
or Moses Lake (Grant County) Airport that would serve either connecting passengers or a share of long
distance passengers otherwise served at Sea -Tac alone; or
• Sea -Tac with a new dependent ( *) runway: This runway would be able to accommodate both landings
and takeoffs of commuter and jet aircraft, and would enable consistent two - runway airport operations
during all weather conditions.
(note *: A dependent runway is one that is not sufficiently separated from an existing runway or runways
to operate at its full capacity.)
2. Two - Airport Multiple Airport System:
One supplemental passenger - service airport would be located either north of Sea -Tac in Snohomish
County or south of Sea -Tac in Pierce County. Sea -Tac would either retain its current airfield configuration
or would add a new third dependent runway.
3. Three- Airport Multiple Airport System:
Two supplemental passenger - service airports, one located north of Sea -Tac (Snohomish County) and one
located south of Sea -Tac (Pierce County), would be developed. Sea -Tac would either retain its current
airfield configuration or would add a new third dependent runway.
4. Replacement Airport:
Sea -Tac Airport would be closed and a new, larger airport with three runways would be constructed in a
new location.
5. No Action:
Sea -Tac would continue to be the region's only passenger - service airport. No capacity improvements
related to commercial passenger service would be made to any Puget Sound area airports.
Demand Management would be part of all alternatives, especially the first option for Sea -Tac Airport enhancement.
The Regional Council has developed a draft working paper on Demand Management and System Management for
consideration during the RASP decision process. (Two related working papers address Impact Mitigation and
Abatement and Timing of Decisions and Actions.)
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
Figure 3 -1A
Broad System Management
(Rail, technology, demand management)
Primary Airport
High Speed Rail
(route Is Illustrative only)
Puget Sound Regional Council
DEMAND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
TECHNIQUE
JURIS-
DICTIONAL
RIGHTS
THOSE
ADVERSELY
AFFECTED
Figure 3 -1B
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS
COMPARATIVE
REDUCTION IN SEA- MULTI - REPLACE -
CONGESTION TAC AIRPORTS MENT
MAXIMUI
DEMANI
MGMT.
p0. NOTHING (NO SEA TAC EXPANSION1
NO BUILD
SUPPLEMENTAL AIRPORTS
CONTROL GATES
YIELD MANAGEMENT
LARGER AIRCRAFT
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
ALTERNATIVE MODES
PRICING SCHEMES
LANDING FEES
GATE FEES
TERMINAL FEES
PECS
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT
SLOT RATIONING
QUOTAS
CENTRAL FLOW CONTROL
PROPRIETOR ALL
USERS
PROPRIETOR POSSIBLE
AIRUNES
PROPRIETOR AIRLINES
AIRLINES
AIRUNES
FEDERAL/
INDUSTRY
REGIONAL
PROBABLE
PROPRIETOR
PROPRIETOR
PROPRIETOR
PROPRIETOR
FEDERAL
PROBABLE
PROPRIETOR
FEDERAL
PASSENGERS
SMALLER AIR-
CRAFT
OWNERS
COST
RECIPIENTS
AIRUNES
SMALLER
OPERATORS
OPERATORS
OPERATORS/
PASSENGERS
PASSENGERS
NEW
ENTRANTS
NEW
ENTRANTS
MOST SEVERE ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES EASIEST TO
IMPLEMENT, INCREASES
CONGESTION
NONE
AVOIDS CONGESTION, IMPROVES LARGE
ASSESSIBILITY
.GREATER PROPRIETOR RIGHTS, CAN MODERATE
INDIRECTLY CONTROL AIRSIDE
CAPACITY
CONTROLS LOAD FACTORS SMALL ✓
NATURAL TREND, HIGH
REPLACEMENT
COST
MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM
FORESEEABLE TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCES, MUST BE IMPLEMENTED
INDUSTRYWIDE
RAIL MOST EFFECITVE IN HIGH
DENSITY MARKETS WITH POOR
ROAD SYSTEMS, LESS EFFECTIVE
FOR SHORT HAUL TIME SENSITIVE
TRIPS
LEGAL IMPEDIMEATIS GA AND
COMMUTERS MOST AFFECTED,
MINIMUM AFFECT ON CARRIERS.
GREATER PROPRIETOR RIGHTS
SUBJECT TO LEASE AGREEMENTS
MUST BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY,
COULD GENERATE SUPPLEMENTAL
AIRPORT FUNDS
FEDERAL RELUCTANCE, CONTRARY
DEREGULATION TRENDS
MUST NOT UNDULY LIMIT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AIRLINES SET SCHEDULES,
CONVERTS AIR DELAYS TO GROUND
SMALL MED. ✓
SMALL
SMALL
SMALL
SMALL
SMALL MED.
LARGE
MODERATE
MODERATE ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
ALTERNATIVE: Sea -Tac
with Demand Management /System Management (FEIS Fig. 3-1A)
ACTIVITY LEVEL: 356,000
annual commercial operations in 2020 +/-
(plus other airports)
1991 = 330,000
Efficient Capacity (at Sea -Tac): 380,000 total
operations.
38 million annual passengers
EST. COST: 230 million dollars, the least capital cost
(does not include all mitigation)
OTHER CAPACITY ISSUES:
• All or part of HSGT total cost at up to $9.03 to 11.95 Billion
(north -south route) funded from separate sources.
• Noise in 2020:
COMMENTS:
Metric Population Affected (Sea -Tac)
65 Ldn 12,000 (67,000 in 1990)
55 Ldn 135,000
80 SEL 120,000
least new "insurance" and most dependent upon low forecasts,
as a stand alone alternative, and most dependent upon possible
technology.
• Need for airline and military cooperation, and dependent upon
regional management.
• 1.68 million daily passenger ground miles.
Figure 3 -2
Sea -Tac with a New Air Carrier Runway
Puget Sound Regional Council
ALTERNATIVE: Sea -Tac
with new dependent third runway (FEIS Fig. 3-2)
ACTIVITY LEVEL: 456,000
annual commercial operations in 2020 +/-
1991 = 330,000
Efficient capacity: 480,000 total operations
41.8 million annual passengers
EST. COST: 600 million dollars
(does not include all mitigation)
OTHER CAPACITY ISSUES:
• Noise in 2020
Metric Population Affected (Sea -Tac)
65 Ldn 22,000 (67,000 in 1990)
55 Ldn 162,000
80 SEL 120,000
• Local access and mitigation
COMMENTS:
• Solves Toss of one existing runway during bad weather (44
percent of the time).
• 13 million cubic yards of imported fill for 7,000 foot runway.
• 1.68 million daily passenger ground miles.
Figure 3-3
Sea -Tac with a Remote Airport
Puget Sound Regional Council
ALTERNATIVE: Sea -Tac
in conjunction with a remote airport (FEIS Fig. 3-3)
ACTIVITY LEVEL: 489,000 annual commercial operations in 2020 +/-
1991 = 330,000
(380,000 at Sea -Tac and
109,000 at the remote airport)
Efficient capacity: 630,000 to 880,000 total
operations (with full utilization of remote airport)
45 million annual passengers
(32 MAP at Sea -Tac, and
13 MAP at the remote airport)
EST. COST: least at Sea -Tac, but terminal cost at the remote site, and cost
for rail connection.
(does not include mitigation)
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY ISSUES:
• HSGT: Dependent upon decision and separate funding of
5.45 Billion to 7.31 Billion (east -west route) if the
Moses Lake site,
or, 5 mile rail link to to Boeing Field
• Noise in 2020:
Metric Population Affected (Sea -Tac)
65 Ldn 12,000 (67,000 in 1990)
55 Ldn 135,000
80 SEL 120,000
COMMENTS:
• Airline and customer cooperation required; an unlikely solution
since 70 percent of travelers are origin and destination, rather
than connecting passengers.
• Dependent upon long term rail action, or upon solution to
Boeing Field airspace interaction.
• 1.9 million daily passenger ground miles.
Figure 3 -4
Two - Airport Multiple Airport System (north)
Puget Sound Regional Councl
Figure 3 -5
Two - Airport Multiple Airport System (south)
Puget Sound Regional Council
ALTERNATIVE: Multiple Airport System
with one supplemental airport (north or south)(FEIS Fig. 3-4,5)
ACTIVITY LEVEL: 489,000 annual commercial operations in 2020 +/-
1991 = 330,000
Site Operations Passengers
Sea -Tac 356 - 456,000 32 - 41.8 MAP
EST. COST:
North/ 33 - 133,000 * 3.2 to 13 MAP
South
45 million annual passengers (MAP)
Efficient capacity of 630,000 to 980,000 total operations
Note *: range assumes additional runways after 2020
466 - 1,043 million dollars
(does not include all mitigation)
OTHER CAPACITY ISSUES:
Noise in 2020:
Population Affected
Metric Sea -Tac Supplemental
65 Ldn 12- 15,000 (67,000 in 1990) 0 to 2,000
55 Ldn 136,000 4 - 39,000
80 SEL 120,000 9 - 81,000
COMMENTS:
• Distribution of operations depends upon a third runway decision
(yes /no) at Sea -Tac. Connecting flights not well - served by
balanced distribution (workable system serves only origin and
destination traffic at supplemental sites).
• If a new third runway at Sea -Tac, then need for supplemental
site in 2020 is weaker.
• Dependent upon airline cooperation and market.
• Institutional issues at supplemental sites.
Figure 3-6
Three-Airport Multiple Airport System (north and south)
Puget Sound Regional Council
ALTERNATIVE: Multiple Airport System
with two supplemental airports (north and south) (FEIS Fig. 3-6)
ACTIVITY LEVEL: 489,000
Site
Sea- Tac:
North:
South:
annual commercial operations in 2020 +/-
1991 = 330,000
Operations
356 - 456,000
35 - 133,000 *
34 - 73,000 *
Passengers
32- 41.5 MAP
2.2 - 7.6 MAP
1.3 - 7.1 MAP
45 million annual
passengers (MAP)
Efficient capacity of 880,000 to 1,480,000 total operations.
Note *: Range assumes greater use of additional runways
after 2020.
EST. COST: 788 - 1,362 million dollars.
(does not all include mitigation)
OTHER CAPACITY ISSUES:
Noise in 2020:
Population Affected
Metric Sea -Tac North South
65 Ldn 12- 15,000 (67,000 in 1990) 0- 1,000 0 - 1 , 0 0 0
55 Ldn 136,000 4- 24,000 1- 2 1, 0 0 0
80 SEL 120,000 36- 67,000 9- 53,000
COMMENTS:
• Range of operations and impacts at each site depends upon
whether a new runway is built at Sea -Tac. Connecting flights
would not be well- served by a balanced distribution (workable
system serves only origin and destination traffic at supplemental
sites).
• If new Sea -Tac RW, then need in 2020 is weaker.
• Airline cooperation and market.
• Institutional issues.
Figure 3-7
Replacement Airport
Puget Sound Regiionol Council
• 1.51 to 2.05 million annual passenger ground miles.
ALTERNATIVE: Replacement Airport (FEIS Fig. 3-7)
ACTIVITY LEVEL: 500,000 * annual commercial operations in 2020 +/-
1991 = 330,000
45 million annual passengers
750,000 activity level possible with three runway
configuration (e.g., after 2020).
EST. COST: 1,564 to 2,078 million dollars
OTHER CAPACITY ISSUES:
• HSGT:
• Noise:
COMMENTS:
(does not include all mitigation)
Segment for access from population centers.
Population Affected
Metric New Site
65 Ldn 3.8 - 4,700
55 Ldn 81 - 101,000
80 SEL 86 - 108,000
Noise impacts with Sea -Tac operations removed.
• Most dependent upon high forecast (especially if Sea -Tac, is
retained during a phased transition).
• Airport impacts removed from human environment to the natural
environment (but accessibility is also compromised).
• 5.1 million daily passenger ground miles (by far the greatest
amount).
• Airline and market cooperation required.
• Conversion of Sea -Tac Airport site to other uses.
• Institutional issues.
Figure 3 -8
No Action
Puget Sound Regional Counci
ALTERNATIVE: No Action (FEIS Fig. 3-8)
ACTIVITY LEVEL: 437,000 annual commercial operations in 2020 +/-
1991 = 330,000
35.8 million annual passengers
INVESTMENT: None.
(does not include mitigation)
OTHER CAPACITY ISSUES:
Noise:
Metric
Population affected (Sea -Tac)
65 Ldn 25,000 (67,000 in 1990)
55 Ldn 175,000
80 SEL 120,000
Aircraft delay in the air and on the ground will increase dramatically as
airport efficient capacity (380,000 total operations) is exceeded.
Related noise and air pollution impacts.
COMMENTS:
• Expected economic damage to the region over the long term.
(Most of associated economic growth is already assumed in
current forecasts for the region now being used in planning
under the Growth Management Act).
• Airline adjustments likely.
• 1.54 million daily passenger ground miles.
SYDNEY CASE STUDY
Background
• Constrained, older airport
• Noise impacts on nearby neighborhoods
• Forecasts showed frequent change
Sydney Case Study 1
DECISION CONTEXT
Options:
"Do Nothing" (minor improvements)
• Cost effective if forecasts too high
Significant losses if forecasts too low
Land bank for new replacement airport
• Small loss (insurance) if forecasts too high
• Significant gain if forecasts too low
Strategic Action:
Selected Site and Acquired Land
Sydney Case Study 2
OUTCOME:
Aviation demand grew rapidly following
deregulation of Australian airlines...
Supporting Actions:
Expand current airport
Re- orient runways to minimize noise
impacts
Build GA runway at new site to show
seriousness about eventual move
Conclusions:
Used insurance policy.
Expanded faster than originally planned
Implemented revised option
Sydney Case Study 3
DYNAMIC STRATEGIC PLANNING
One Interpretation
Dynamic: - Adjust options to changes in
economics, technology, and various
Analytic process more important
than mathematical techniques
Strategic: - Not a master plan (or series of
master plans)
Assess Tong -term impact of
alternatives
Planning: - Emphasis on economic and social
impacts versus engineering details
How much and what type of
insurance should community have?
Sydney Case Study 4
KEY TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Decision Oriented:
Extension of Decision Tree Analysis
• Assess risks /costs of making wrong
decision
Action Oriented:
• . Have option "ready- to -go"
Process Oriented:
• Analytic .(ongoing. review)
• Public (build consensus for action)
Sydney Case Study
1
T
H
0
U
S
A
N
D
S
0
F
0
AE
R
T
i
0
N
S
FAA TOWER OPERATIONS
BY TRAFFIC CLASS
THE SEATTLE - TACOMA HUB: 1970 - 2010
2000 Y
1800
1600
1400 -
1200
1000
800 -
600
400
.200-
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
® AIR CARR. NB COMMUTER ® GEN.AV. IM MILITARY
T
H
0
U
S
N 2000
D 1800
• 1600
O 1400
F 1200
O 1000
• 800
R 600
A 400
200
O .0
1960
FAA TOWER OPERATIONS
BY AIRPORT
THE SEATTLE- TACOMA HUB: 1960 - 2010
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
® BOEING FLD. SEA -TAC
® RENTON MUN. TACOMA NAR.
PAINE FLD.
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC`
DRAFT WORKING PAPER NO. 2
IMPACT ABATEMENT and MITIGATION
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Puget Sound Regional Council is scheduled to amend the 1988 Regional Airport
System Plan in April 1993. This action will culminate a three -year effort, known as the
Flight Plan project, to examine and address the commercial air transportation capacity
needs of the central Puget Sound region. The amendment may consist of a range of
management and expansion actions.
As part of the Flight Plan effort, on October 6, 1992, the Regional Council released the
Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement which assesses the impacts of a range
of alternatives for meeting the region's commercial air transportation capacity needs.
This draft working paper on airport impact abatement and mitigation, and two other
working papers, on demand management and system management, and on
implementation of decisions, are provided as supplemental information to previous Flight
Plan reports and the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Responses to
all of the working papers will help to shape the Regional Council's amendment to the
Regional Airport System Plan, last updated in 1988.
The elements of this paper are:
•
the Summary, which includes this Introduction; an Overview, which briefly
discusses the need for abating and mitigating impacts resulting from activities
designed to help meet the region's commercial air transportation capacity needs;
and Issues and Options, which present abatement and mitigation issues and
options in general terms;
• an Issue Index, which is a guide to the detailed text that is the major element of
this paper; and
• Working Paper No. 2, which provides detailed information and discussion on
impact abatement and mitigation, including financing and enforcement issues.
This document is a draft working paper and, will be corrected and updated as new
information is presented. Contact: Peter D. Beaulieu, Project Manager, (206) 464-7537.
1
Sec`:e, VYcs nctn (206) 464d090 • FAX 537 -4325
OVERVIEW
Present commercial air transportation activity, and future increases in activity, can affect
the communities of this region in terms of environmental, ground transportation, land
use, and property value impacts. The possible health impact of noise in the vicinity of
airports, regardless of airport sites, is a regional concern. The capacity of businesses, ,
families and individual citizens in the region to absorb these impacts should be
considered when making decisions on airport operational capacities.
This working paper presents issues and possible options relating to the abatement and
mitigation of potential impacts that could result from alternatives for meeting the
commercial air transportation capacity needs of the central Puget Sound region.
Abating an impact means to avoid, stop or decrease it; mitigating an impact means to
make it milder or less severe and may involve compensation for impacts.
Public agencies are responsible for making infrastructure and policy decisions that serve
the common good. Decisionmakers need to ensure that adverse impacts from these
decisions are avoided or mitigated, so that, as much as possible, one segment of the
population, interest, or community does not benefit at the unreasonable expense of
another or the common good. When impacts do occur, they should be mitigated fairly
and quickly.
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
I. The Community's Capacity to Accept Impacts
• Is there a baseline of impacts, such as a threshold of documented health effects,
beyond which additional impacts simply should not be permitted, and which
cannot be compromised in making a commercial air transportation capacity
decision?
Conduct specific health, environmental and land use analyses with regard to
airport noise.
Examine site - specific information and refine, if necessary, the regional decision.
How should the rights of those who could be impacted be identified, and
protected or compensated, as a baseline for other political negotiations related to
airport or service expansion?
Demonstrate the need for the proposed action and the resulting impacts, then
swiftly and fairly compensate for those impacts.
•
Specific to noise, develop community noise capacity measures to be used along
with airport operational capacity measures.
Complete site -level environmental impact statements, then prepare a regional
supplemental environmental impact statement if necessary.
II. Noise Impacts
How should noise be measured?
Use the current federal standard.
Analyze beyond the current federal standard.
Select and use supplemental noise measures.
• How can disagreements regarding noise at Sea -Tac be resolved?
Rather than current noise modeling, use future noise monitoring involving
affected communities.
Use current modeling and supplemental noise measures.
• What specific steps can be taken to minimize noise impacts?
Use price signals to encourage use of fewer planes.
Minimize exposure outside the federally recognized impact area.
Limit noise at Sea -Tac by spreading operations to other airport sites.
• Since the exact benefits of conversion to Stage 3 aircraft are not certain, how else
might noise impacts be mitigated?
Confine and mitigate operations at Sea -Tac.
Spread overflights to other airports.
What can be done about noise layering?
Adjust the federally established Four -Post Plan governing arrivals and departures
at Sea -Tac.
3
Negotiate with the federal government to reduce aircraft operations over
populated areas from military bases.
Negotiate to remove the Air National Guard from Paine Field.
III. Air quality
• In addition to current information on air quality impacts, how might additional
information be developed and considered during the process of selecting the
appropriate alternative for meeting the region's commercial air transportation
capacity needs?
Ensure regional review of air quality data developed in site - specific environmental
impact statements
IV. Impacts on Ground Transportation
• How might they be mitigated?
Increase mass transit access to Sea -Tac.
Work to expand current service.
Assign high priority to projects that alleviate ground transportation around
airports.
Select a multiple airport system.
V. Stepping up to Mitigation .
• What noise impacts should be compensated?
Only those within the federally recognized impact area.
Mitigate impacts at a lower range of noise.
• What about impacts to residential property values?
Eliminate potential sites as quickly as possible to avoid uncertainty that affects
property values.
Expeditiously pay market value to qualifying individuals.
4
•
Regulate or prohibit building within closely monitored high noise areas.
• What about impacts to schools and other institutions?
Negotiate with affected communities to establish a regional policy and regionally,
supported mitigation actions.
• Who should pay?
Federal sources include the Airport and Airways Trust Fund.
Local sources could include passenger facility charges (paid by the airlines ?), Port
of Seattle revenue bonds, parking revenues or landing fees.
VI. Implementation and Enforcement
• How should local agreements, regional needs, and federal requirements be
reconciled?
Evaluate noise and other impacts on a case -by -case basis.
Clarify FAA authority.
In the spirit of existing and new local agreements, work toward a comprehensive
regional policy on noise and other impacts.
• How might abatement and mitigation actions be enforced?
Through federal action obligated by the National Environmental Policy Act.
State action, to establish noise standards that can be applied uniformly within the
region.
Action by local airport operators, who could enact gate controls, landing fees or
other restrictions.
Local municipal action, to amend land use regulations to be consistent with recent
noise studies.
Action by the Regional Council, to require noise mitigation prior to approving
Council - controlled federal transportation funds for access improvements.
5
ISSUES INDEX to WORKING PAPER NO. 1
IMPACT ABATEMENT and MITIGATION
ISSUES PAGE(S)
I. COMMUNNITY CAPACITY TO ACCEPT IMPACTS 9 -11
ISSUE 1: Is there a baseline of impacts, such as a threshold
of documented health effects, beyond which additional
impacts simply should not be permitted, and which
cannot be compromised in making a commercial air
transportation capacity decision? 9
Conduct specific health, environmental and
land use analyses 9
Examine site - specific information 9
ISSUE 2: How should the rights of those who could be impacted
be identified, and protected or compensated, as a
baseline for other political negotiations related to
airport or service expansion? 10 -11
Demonstrate need, then swiftly and fairly
compensate for impacts. 10
Develop noise capacity measures to use with
airport operational capacity measures 10
Complete site -level environmental impact
statements, prepare supplemental statement 10 -11
II. NOISE IMPACTS 11 -17
ISSUE 3: How should noise be measured? 11 -12
Current federal standard 11 -12
Beyond federal standard 12
Supplemental noise measures 12
ISSUE 4: How can disagreements regarding noise at Sea -Tac
be resolved? 12 -13
Future noise monitoring involving
communities 13
Current modeling and supplemental
noise measures 13
ISSUE 5: What specific steps can be taken to minimize
noise impacts? 13 -15
Price signals 13 -14
Minimize exposure impact area 14 -15
Spread operations 15
ISSUE 6: Since the exact benefits of conversation to Stage 3
aircraft are not certain, how else might noise
impacts be mitigated? 15 -16
Confine and mitigate operations at Sea -Tac 15 -16
Spread overflights to other airports 16
ISSUE 7: What can be done about noise layering? 16 -17
Adjust Four -Post Plan 17
Reduce operations from military bases 17
Remove Air National Guard from
Paine Field 17
III. AIR QUALITY 18
ISSUE 8: In addition to current information on air quality impacts,
how might additional information be developed and
considered during the process of selecting the appropriate
alternative for meeting the region's commercial air
transportation capacity needs 18
Ensure regional review of air quality data 18
IV. IMPACTS ON GROUND TRANSPORTATION 18 -19
ISSUE 9: How might they be mitigated? 18 -19
Increase mass transit 18
Expand current service 19
Assign high priority to projects that
alleviate impacts 19
Select multiple airport system 19
V. STEPPING UP TO MITIGATION 20 -24
ISSUE 10: What noise impacts should be compensated 20
Only those within federally
recognized impact area 20
Impacts at a lower range of noise 20
•
ISSUE 11: What about impacts to residential
property values 21 -22
Quickly eliminate potential 21
Expeditiously pay market value 21
Regulate building in high noise area 22
ISSUE 12: What about impacts top schools and other
institution 22
Establish regional policy mitigation actions 22
ISSUE 13: Who should pay? 22 -24
Federal sources 23
Local sources 23 -24
VI. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT 24 -27
ISSUE 14: .How should local agreements, regional needs, and
federal requirements be reconciled? 24 -25
Evaluate on a case -by -case basis 24
Clarify FAA authority 25
Work toward comprehensive regional policy .. 25
ISSUE 15: How might abatement and mitigation actions be
enforced? 25 -27
Federal action 25 -26
State action 26
Action by local airport operators 26 -27
Local municipal action 27
Action by the Regional Council 27
8
WORKING PAPER NO. 2
IMPACT ABATEMENT AND MITIGATION
I. THE COMMUNITY'S CAPACITY TO ACCEPT IMPACTS
ISSUE 1:
Is there a baseline of impacts beyond which additional impacts should not be
permitted, and which cannot be compromised in making a regional
commercial air capacity decision?
In many environmental issues, establishing a baseline level of impacts that cannot
be compromised is an important approach to assuring that actions or decisions do
not have an unacceptable negative impact on priority values.
As one example, when streamflows are set, base streamflows are required under
federal and state laws and court interpretations, to assure that the water does not
get below an established minimum level. Allocation of additional water above
this protected amount is allowed, subject to political and administrative processes.
The dividing line is a matter of controversy.
ISSUE 1 OPTIONS:
A. With regard to airport noise, analyses of impacts could address three areas:
health and welfare, environmental degradation /impact, and land use planning.
An incomplete but growing body of literature is addressing health effects. Federal
agencies have studied possible health effects above the 70 Ldn level *, and also
conclude that "public health and welfare effects below 60 Ldn have not been
established, but are assumed to decrease according to the decrease in the percent
of people highly annoyed."
*Note: Ldn, a noise measurement, is the average noise over a 24 -hour period,
with a penalty for nighttime noise.)
The federal government has recently upheld the 65 Ldn noise standard, beyond
which impacts should be mitigated, but also recognizes the value of supplemental
noise measures. This position is discussed below. (Federal Agency Review of
Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, Federal Interagency Committee on Noise,
August 1992, p. ES -2).
B. Upon completion of site -level environmental impact statements, the results could
be returned to the Regional Council to ensure review of all environmental data
and an opportunity to refine, if necessary, the regional decision.
Impacts on air quality and the natural environment are addressed in the Flight
Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, and more detailed information is
expected in site -level environmental impact statements. This working paper
supplements the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement material.
9
ISSUE 2: How should the potential rights of those who could be impacted be identified, and
protected (or compensated), as a baseline for other political negotiations related
to airport or service expansion?
•
ISSUE '2 OPTIONS:
A. First, demonstrate whether airport expansion actions are needed, in addition to
demand management and system management actions. Then, swiftly and fairly
compensate qualifying citizens for damages.
An important and fundamental question is whether possible airport expansion
serves as a mitigation action in itself, reducing noise and air pollution impacts
from what it would be in the absence of such actions. While airlines tend to
adjust to airport limitations, the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact
Statement shows that increasing aircraft congestion and delays could occur before
any significant market adjustments are likely.
B. Specific to noise, in deciding upon a long -term regional airport system plan,
develop community noise capacity measures that are used alongside of competing
airport operational capacity measures.
This multiple- criteria approach could affect the regional airport system selected,
and the balance among construction, demand management, and mitigation
elements, and the timing of these elements. Policymakers should ensure that
smaller communities are not burdened unfairly when damages /impacts are
involved, even if the broader geographic region would appear to benefit.
Under this option, the claims of individuals and the community both would be
respected in regional solutions, but neither should have unilateral dominance.
Comment: Other airports have used noise and air operational needs as
measures of capacity. Examples are St. Louis and Denver. But,
these preceded the enactment at the federal level of noise - reducing
technological requirements for new aircraft. In 1990 federal
legislation set a timetable for replacing noisier Stage 2 aircraft with
quieter Stage 3 aircraft, generally by the year 2000. A major
consideration identified in the Flight Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement is the reduction of the 65 Ldn contour in future
years. Ldn is a measurement of noise (see Issue 1). The 65 Ldn
contour is a geographic area in which noise from aircraft operations
reaches 65 Ldn.
C. Complete site -level environmental impact statements and then, based on these
and other findings such as cost and financing studies, prepare a regional
supplemental environmental impact statement if necessary.
10
This phased approach could possibly lead to a reconsideration of the selected
regional alternative and attached conditions if all siting options for the selected
regional alternative are fatally flawed.
The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement is a non - project impact
statement and acknowledges this possible outcome. Uncertainty over several
years leads many to call for a well - informed and final decision as soon as possible.
II. NOISE IMPACTS
ISSUE 3: At what level, and in what unit of measurement, should noise impacts be
considered? Should measures other than the 65 Ldn metric also be used when
making major airport system decisions affecting new sites?
For determining areas that should receive impact mitigation for noise, the Federal
Aviation Administration uses a noise measurement of 65 Ldn, which is the
average noise over a 24 -hour period, with a penalty for nighttime noise. The 65
Ldn level is equivalent to 35 noise events at 99 decibels during daylight hours, or
one very loud flight every 20 minutes, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
The FAA refers to the 65 Ldn contour as a compromise between impacts and
high costs of mitigation. A contour is the geographic area that is exposed to a
noise level of a specified amount (such as 65 Ldn) ore more. While the 65 Ldn
contour may be valuable for determining mitigation areas for existing facilities, it
may be less satisfactory for estimating impacts from future actions.
Noise complaints and impacts can extend beyond the 65 Ldn contour, particularly
with respect to aircraft overflights -- for example, under the Four -Post Plan. The
Four -Post Plan is a four - cornered pattern of arrivals, departures, and climb and
descent rates for Sea -Tac Airport that was introduced by the FAA in 1990.
In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency identified the 55 Ldn contour as
the noise level at which noise impacts begin (with a 5 Ldn margin for safety),
apart from any modifications due to costs.
The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement uses five metrics: the 65
Ldn contour, 55 Ldn, the number of new persons affected by either Ldn level, and
the 80 Sound Exposure Level for single overflights.
Some California airports such as Long Beach regulate the single event Sound
Exposure. Level (SEL). This sets noise limits for single overflights, rather than
using the Ldn measure, a weighted 24 -hour noise average.
ISSUE 3 OPTIONS:
A. Continue to use only the federally recognized 65 Ldn contour as the basis for
mitigation, and do not consider other supplemental noise measures.
11
The Ldn contours depict average noise over a 24 -hour period. The 65 Ldn
contour may not be the threshold of significant impact. It is a federally a
recognized compromise between impacts and the costs of mitigation.
This measure was re- examined and confirmed as the "principle" noise metric by
the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, which was convened to review
airport noise issues. (Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis
Issues, Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, August 1992.)
Note: For airports completing airport noise studies under Federal Airport
Regulation Part 150, compensation is limited to the recovery of
damages with respect to noise attributable to the airport.
The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (PL 96 -193, 49 USC
2101) outlines the requirements and exceptions to this limitation. The Sea -
Tac Noise Mediation program is recognized and grandfathered into later
federal aircraft noise legislation.
B. Analyze noise beyond the federally accepted 65 Ldn contour.
While federal agencies recently recommended continued use of the Ldn metric "as
the principal means for describing long -term noise exposure of civil and military
operations," they also recommend "agency discretion in the use of supplemental
noise analysis." (See previous source, above.)
C. Select and use supplemental noise measures.
Federal agencies recommend supplemental noise analyses in some cases. For
example, in the analysis of schools, communications requirements, and other
indoor land uses that are active during aircraft operational hours and not during
the night -time period, they recommend that 24 -hour Ldn measures be
supplemented with other measures. (See previous source, above.)
ISSUE 4: Parties disagree on the level of noise experienced at Sea -Tac International Airport.
Computer modeled noise is not trusted by affected parties. What should be done?
The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement reports the results of the
federal Integrated Noise Model when applied to projected aircraft operations
under the different regional alternatives and multiple siting options. The general
message is that noise is reduced at Sea -Tac, even as the number of flights
increases. Overflight noise is a major new impact for any new sites that might
receive commercial aircraft.
Note: Results of the integrated noise model are based on physical and
operational characteristics of the specific airport. Operational
characteristics include aircraft mix, flight tracks, and approach profiles.
Optional data include departure profiles, approach parameters, and aircraft
noise curves. Use of Stage 3 aircraft alters the aircraft mix (size), noise
curves and model results.
12
The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement documents the numbers of
people affected by the 65 Ldn level of noise, the larger number affected by a
lesser noise measure (55 Ldn), and the number affected by noisy overflights (80
SEL, or sound exposure level). The new number of people subject to these
impacts is also shown in the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement ,
for each regional alternative.
ISSUE 4 OPTIONS:
A. Base future noise abatement and mitigation actions on noise as monitored in the
future, rather than as modeled now.
The monitoring effort could directly involve the affected communities in some
way to help ensure widespread acceptance of the results. Use this information to
verify modeled Ldn contours, and in the future to determine noise compensation
boundaries.
In a related action, the Port of Seattle already has installed a computerized noise
management system which will help to monitor the effectiveness of its 1990 Noise
Mediation Agreement. Coordination with airlines (on monitored flight tracks)
and with FAA are part of this improved effort to respond to noise Hotline calls.
As another example, the Port of Seattle has the capacity to replicate aircraft noise
from Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft with a portable noise simulator.
B. Use current modeling and supplemental noise measurements. (See Issue 3,
above.)
This could involve consideration of supplementing accepted metrics with others
besides the 80 Sound Exposure Level.
For example, some observers suggest that the Ldn metric should not be
frequency ,adjusted in a way that, in their judgment, dismisses some offensive
airport noise. Others suggest metrics that focus less on the 24 -hour average and
focus more on actual noise events (the 80 Sound Exposure Level is only one of
these options.)
ISSUE 5: What specific steps can be taken to minimize noise impacts?
ISSUE 5 OPTIONS:
A. Review and possibly correct existing price signals that do not reflect to the
airlines the total costs, especially the impacts, of airline operations.
13
Noise impacts from overflights might be reduced if landing fees, for example,
encouraged use of fewer planes. Resulting efficiency might defer the time when
overflight noise would be spread to new areas served by possible new airline
terminals or airports. However, the possible efficiencies might involve greater
noise from larger planes at the existing airport sites.
Landing fees and other pricing mechanisms are examined in Working Paper No. '1
addressing demand management and system management.
B. Minimize noise from overflights -- sound exposure levels -- outside the 65 Ldn
contour (see definition of Ldn, Issue 3.)
If the regional sound exposure level is to be minimized, then actions to meet
future commercial aircraft needs may be:
• confined to the existing Sea -Tac area, or
• located at a second airport in combination with Sea -Tac, with the second
site removed from population centers.
Spreading aircraft operations to supplemental sites in urban locations increases
the number of people affected by the sound exposure level from overflights, while
reducing marginally the number of forecasted flights at Sea -Tac. The equity issue
is complicated by differing ways of measuring noise, and their differing results for
the regional alternatives.
The sound exposure level impacts can be reduced by changing the flight tracks to
and from Sea -Tac International Airport, which would involve consideration of
amendments to the Four -Post Plan. The Four -Post Plan is the four cornered
pattern of arrivals, departures, climb and descent rates, for Sea -Tac Airport. This
plan was introduced by the FAA in 1990.
Comment: In the FAA Environmental Assessment, the selected Four -Post Plan
was preferred because both runway construction and scheduling
adjustments by the airlines (two other alternatives) were not
expected in the foreseeable future. The Flight Plan project now
considers capital construction and demand management alternatives.
Perhaps the specific Four -Post Plan now can be re- evaluated and
refined by the FAA as part of a broad regional agreement among
the FAA, the airport operators, and the impacted (and served)
communities. Tradeoffs between current airspace efficiency and
noise impacts are probably involved.
In a similar case affecting New York area airports, Congress required the
FAA in 1991 to produce a retroactive environmental impact statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act, after the FAA increased
capacity by fanning departures out over New Jersey. Noise mitigation,
possibly to be achieved through refinements to the fanned patterns, stalled
in New York because of the implication that the FAA had ignored the
National Environmental Policy Act.
14
Here, the Four -Post Plan was reviewed in 1990 through an environmental
assessment not a more thorough environmental impact statement process.
This was challenged and then upheld in a recent federal court test. The
Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, done under the state
Environmental Policy Act, encourages cooperation with the FAA on
complex airspace and noise issues such as this. (Flight Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Section 4.10.)
C. Instead of avoiding overflight impacts of supplemental airport sites, limit new
noise within the 65 Ldn contour by spreading some new operations to other
airport sites, even if this largely increases the population affected by the sound
exposure level (SEL) of overflight noise.
This is a major dilemma to be addressed for the long term. For the Flight Plan
action alternatives, residents affected by the (diminishing) 65 Ldn contour vary
from 12,000 to 20,000 in the year 2020. Residents affected by 80 SEL (see Issue 3
for definition) in different locations are a larger number, varying from 120,000 to
252,000.
ISSUE 6: Since the exact benefits of conversion from Stage 2 to Stage 3 aircraft are not
certain, how else might noise impacts be mitigated?
A Stage 3 aircraft is any transport or non - transport category jet aircraft that has
been shown to comply with Stage 3 noise standards prescribed in Federal Aviation
Regulation Part 36 Noise Standards. Stage 3 is the most stringent noise standard
applicable to aircraft noise.
For example, Alaska Airlines is replacing Stage 2 Boeing 727 aircraft with Stage 3
737s. A Stage 2 727 generates 97 decibels on departure, while the 737 generates
79 decibels. A 20 decibel difference would be perceived by the human ear as a
quartering of the noise level. At Sea -Tac, the opportunities to replace 727 aircraft
are significant, especially southbound takeoffs turning westward on routes toward
Alaska.
Individually, the larger Stage 3 planes may be quieter than the replaced smaller
Stage 2 planes, but this is not necessarily the case. These factors are taken into
account in the modeled (diminishing) noise contours shown in the Flight Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Even with the projected conversion of the commercial aircraft fleet from Stage 2
to quieter Stage 3 aircraft by the year 2001, there are also projected to be more
operations (takeoffs and landings), so that the net benefit of Stage 3 aircraft noise
reduction would be lessened.
ISSUE 6 OPTIONS:
A. Confine and control future operations at Sea -Tac to diminish the number of
people affected by overflight noise events.
15
Control total operations, especially commuter use of limited airspace, at Sea -Tac,
rather than spreading the undiluted burden of overflight noise to additional
neighborhoods and communities.
The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement shows that if future
airport noise at Sea -Tac is abated by using a supplemental airport or airports,
overflight noise would affect a much larger population than it does currently.
Overflight noise above the 55 Ldn* measure affects between 135,000 to 181,000
people under the different multiple- airport system alternatives.
The number exposed to 80 decibel single sound exposure levels is much greater
than for 65 Ldn noise exposure nearer the airport(s). For the Flight Plan
alternatives, the figure varies from 120,000 (no action) to up to 252,000 (Flight"
Plan FEIS, Section 1.3.1).
B. Moderate Sea -Tac impacts by spreading activity and especially overflight noise to
other airports.
Instead of controlling the number of flights (especially commuter flights) within
the Sea -Tac capacity, spread some operations -- necessarily local origin and
destination flights -- to new supplemental airports sites in other communities.
Under this scenario, would overflights over a much larger affected population be
worth the five to ten percent reduction in the growing number of forecasted
operations at Sea -Tac? Or, would the marginal relief from much greater overall
noise levels at Sea -Tac be justified in terms of equity, the spreading of noise over
more airport users?
Within the regional alternatives, different courses of action involving different site
selection or site opportunities, would impact either: general aviation interests
(e.g., Boeing Field), neighborhood interests and
regional liveability (e.g., Paine Field), or the military (McChord). All of these
options, and expansion at Sea -Tac Airport, are extremely difficult and
controversial.
Cooperation by the airlines and legality under federal statutes are major factors in
adjusting use of airports in the region to market demands. The important role of
the McChord /Fort Lewis complex has increased in recent years. This reflects
changing geopolitical factors, changing military strategies and tactics, and, related
to these trends, reassignment of units from other bases that are to be closed.
Formal consideration of joint use would be triggered by a formal request, and
would be subject to approval by the military or Congress.
ISSUE 7:
Noise from commercial air transportation is often layered on top of other
aircraft noise ( McChord Air Force Base, and general aviation) which can be
forced to lower altitudes. How might this regional issue be addressed?
16
ISSUE 7 OPTIONS:
A. The FAA should adjust the Four -Post Plan.
The Four -Post Plan governs approaches and departures from Sea -Tac Airport.
Flight paths are distributed around four turning "posts ". The two southern posts
interact with air traffic at McChord. Adjustments might allow military operation
at a higher ceiling than is now permitted for McChord Air Force Base (now
limited to a 1500 -foot ceiling in many cases). Such adjustments usually reallocate
noise from one community to another. This is a major reason why federal law
now requires a technological solution, Stage 3 aircraft.
B. Negotiate to require military bases (McChord Air Force Base) to reduce aircraft
operations in populated areas, where other alternatives are available in the state.
Specifically, operate Air Force fighter aircraft at Fort Lewis and confine touch -
and-go operations for C -141 cargo aircraft to Grant County Airport at Moses
Lake. This would bring the Moses Lake facility into a comprehensive set of
airport system actions benefiting the congested and noise - sensitive Puget Sound
airspace.
Comment: With base closures, the complement of C -141 aircraft at McChord is
increasing from 36 to 48 (one fifth of the worldwide fleet), and an
attachment of 24 A -10s is being added.
The important and growing military role and effectiveness of McChord and
Fort Lewis present major obstacles to any joint commercial use. An
upcoming report to Congress by the Federal Aviation Administration and
the Department of Defense on possible joint operations at McChord (with
a possible second runway) may provide new information. This may be
released in March 1993.
C. Local noise impacts of possible commercial service at Paine Field could be partly
offset by removing the Air National Guard to another site.
Cumulative environmental impacts sometimes offer the opportunity to offset new
impacts by removing existing impacts. This is the theory behind air quality offset
programs in federal regulations, and might also be applied to noise impacts at
airports, depending upon the circumstances. Paine Field might represent an
opportunity to substitute some new . commercial aircraft noise for existing military
aircraft noise.
17
III. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
ISSUE 8: In addition to current information on air quality impacts, how might additional
information be developed and considered during the process of selecting the
appropriate alternative for meeting the region's commercial air transportation
capacity needs?
ISSUE 8 OPTIONS:
A. Ensure regional review of air quality data developed in site - specific
environmental impact statements.
Federal and state regulations address air quality concerns in different ways at the
federal, state and project levels. These issues are addressed in the Flight Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Once site -level baseline data and impact studies are completed in site -level
environmental impact statements, this information should be returned to the
Regional Council to ensure review of all environmental information and an
opportunity to refine, if necessary, the regional decision.
IV. GROUND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
ISSUE 9: What can be done to reduce impacts of airport patronage on traffic congestion,
and to ensure reliable access to the airports as trends in ground delay worsen?
In addition to aircraft operational capacity, Sea -Tac Airport faces worsening
ground access. This is a major comprehensive planning issue and is addressed in
this way in the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (Section 4.4.6,
and Appendix B), but here is raised more narrowly as a mitigation issue.
ISSUE 9 OPTIONS:
A. Increase mass transit access to Sea -Tac Airport.
Transit access increases reliability by giving access to High Occupancy Vehicle
express lanes. A 1988 survey indicated that 3 percent of passengers arrived at the
airport by mass transit.
Proposals for High Capacity Transit must use alignments consistent with the
future airport location or locations.* A high capacity transit plan is expected in
March or April 1993, to be followed by a public vote perhaps in November.
*Note: The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement stresses that
supplemental airports included in many of the possible multiple airport
system alternatives do not include connecting passengers (passengers
transferring from one aircraft to another). In these cases, multiple
airport systems do not depend upon possible rail connections.
18
B. Work to expand and improve service presently provided by airport buses, transit
buses, shuttles and limousine service, and aggressively examine the merits of
remote passenger check -in terminals.
These steps would give access to High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. During periods
of high congestion, the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes can provide passage •
through freeway segments that are otherwise increasingly congested and slow,
especially during bad weather.
C. In the Regional Transportation Plan, assign high priority to airport access
facilities and impacted local facilities.
In addition, support legislation enabling local jurisdictions to apply and use
Airport Trust Funds for this purpose. Airport Trust Funds currently are restricted
for use to airport operators.
D. Select a multiple airport system or a replacement airport as the regional policy.
The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement indicates that total annual
ground mileage to and from the airport or airports probably diminishes with the
dispersal of some services to supplemental airports. This finding is heavily
qualified by the comment that air traveler selection of airports will be governed
largely by the relative service advantages offered by the competing airlines (costs,
schedules).
The most important ground transportation issue is that ground congestion will
result at any airport site selected.
If increasing ground mileage for airport access is moderated by a multiple airport
configuration, this is accompanied by aggravated ground access at the new sites.
The degree of new congestion is only generally quantified in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (total annual vehicle miles traveled, and peak
hour air travelers at each site). Specific information on actual facilities is
deferred to site specific environmental impact statements.
If a replacement airport outside the region were selected, this would have to be
accessible by High Speed Ground Transportation. Even if a replacement airport
is located in Pierce County, the resulting ground transportation could be roughly
three times that of the multiple airport systems. Also, this does not account for
High Speed Ground Transportation rail costs and added inconvenience to
passengers due to mode transfer, an inconvenience to be weighed against the
inconvenience for others due to noise impacts caused by alternative urban airport
sites located within developed communities.
19
V. STEPPING UP TO MITIGATION
ISSUE 10: Generally, the federal government has paid for noise abatement only within
the 65 Ldn contour. Should noise mitigation Isere be less limited?
ISSUE 10 OPTIONS:
A. Rely on scheduled aircraft modifications.
The 65 Ldn contour is projected (modeled) to contract in size as Stage 3 aircraft
replace Stage 2, by the year 2000. The number of persons living within the 65
Ldn contour at Sea -Tac Airport is projected to decline from 67,000 to a range of
12,000 to 25,000 by the year 2020 (depending upon the Flight Plan alternative
selected). Extending buyout and insulation actions until all Stage 2 airplanes are
replaced by the new Stage 3 airplanes could reduce mitigation costs. However,
this option would continue what is perceived by some Sea -Tac Airport -area
residents as a delay in past mitigation responsibilities dating from 1974.
Comment: The results of the recent Federal Airport Regulation Part 150 noise
study reportedly indicate that the 75 Ldn contour has expanded
(public testimony before the Seattle Port Commission, November 3,
1992). Noise impacts may have expanded into areas planned for
development following adoption of the 1978 Communities Plan.
Surrounding Sea -Tac Airport, issuance of building permits may have
continued within an expanding 75 Ldn contour.
B. Mitigate some current impacts between the 65 Ldn contour and the 60 Ldn
contour.
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise recommends that if noise in areas
within the 65 Ldn contour increases by 1.5 Ldn, then significant noise increases
outside the 65 Ldn contour also should be addressed: "Further analysis should be
conducted of noise sensitive areas between 60 -65 Ldn having an increase of Ldn 3
or more due to the proposed airport noise exposure."
The site specific studies called for in the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact
Statement should examine both Ldn boundaries and Ldn levels within and
possibly outside those boundaries.
Federal mitigation assistance does not restrict local authorities from more
extensive efforts. (The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared under the State Environmental Policy Act and can go beyond federal
noise guidelines.) Also, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise suggests
that federal agency mitigation options may include noise sensitive areas between
60 Ldn and 65 Ldn. Further, "If the 65 Ldn screening test calls for further
analysis between Ldn 60 -65 decibels, agency mitigation options will include noise
sensitive areas between Ldn 60 -65 decibels that are projected to have an increase
of 3 decibels or more as a result of the proposed airport noise exposure." (Federal
Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, Federal Interagency
Committee on Noise, August 1992, pp. ES -4, and Section 3.5, Volume I.)
20
ISSUE 11: What is the appropriate regional action to address the effect of airport noise
on property values?
Residential property values are negatively affected by aircraft noise. State -of -the-
art research done for Vancouver (B.C.) International Airport concludes that
within impacted residential areas, values decline by 0.65 percent for every 1 Ldn
increase. On the other hand, development associated with the introduction of
commercial air transportation, or the enhancement of existing commercial air
transportation, may increase the value of commercial property around airports.
Actual impacts vary with specific actions and sites. In addition, delay in final
decisions on airport roles, in itself, can depress property values.
ISSUE 11 OPTIONS:
A. Expeditiously eliminate as many sites as possible from further consideration.
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee was under constant pressure to
eliminate specific site options. During its planning work, the committee declined
to do this because the difficulties associated with all test sites are such that if one
site were removed, all others would claim similar exemptions from consideration.
The committee acknowledged that major obstacles exist at all locations, that none
of the site options is "good ".
Comment: As a quantitative basis for broadened mitigation, or for assessing the
impacts of noise in making long term regional decisions, it is
possible to calculate the total loss in residential property values.
This could exceed several hundred million dollars.
For example, a 5 Ldn change within the 60 Ldn or 65 Ldn contour, times
.065 percent, times an average house value of $150,000 times 1000 homes
= $48.75 million for each 1000 homes affected.
This value represents family investments and lost equity, and could be
considered alongside claimed investor benefits related to increased
economic activity generated or supported by airport operations.
B. Expeditiously pay market value to "qualifying" individuals for property losses.
Port of Seattle Resolution 3125 (November 3, 1992) moves to establish mitigation
of eligible homes affected by existing and possible airport expansion, as a
precondition to possible construction of a new third dependent runway.
21
C. Regarding continued local government issuance of building permits within a
changing 75 Ldn contour, ...
either:
Continue to issue local building permits within the changing boundary and press
for noise abatement (to be funded through or by the Port of Seattle),
or,
Withhold building permits and possibly compensate for inverse condemnation
(payment then would be by the local governments responsible for building
permits.) Inverse condemnation is lost property value resulting from impacting
public actions, rather than direct condemnation of property for direct public use.
An issue that should be researched is whether it is possible to prohibit the
issuance of building permits in certain areas, such as over 75 Ldn, as a health
hazard.
Comment: A cooperative strategy is needed between the operator of the
airport, and the local governments responsible for building permits.
Responsibility for costs (for abatement or for possible inverse
condemnation) depends upon how this convoluted issue -- permits,
within a possibly changing 75 Ldn boundary, versus abatement -- is
resolved.
ISSUE 12: What about the impact of noise on schools and other facilities?
ISSUE 12 OPTION:
A. Negotiate with affected communities a regional policy and regionally supported
mitigation actions.
Mitigation assistance need not be limited to residences. San Jose's noise
insulation program includes schools, and Resolution 3125, approved by the Port of
Seattle on November 3, 1992, could lead to expanded noise insulation programs
for institutional buildings including public and private schools.
ISSUE 13: Who should pay for noise and other impact mitigation?
These options overlap financing options that might support programs to
redistribute some noise from Sea -Tac Airport to additional airport sites within the
region.
Preliminary cost estimates for noise impact area acquisition (not including other
forms of additional mitigation) were identified in the Flight Plan Draft Final
Report (Appendix C -83).
22
Site acquisition costs for noise mitigation varied from 50 million dollars to over
300 million dollars. Determination of total costs, which could be much greater,
was deferred to the site -level studies.
Noise impacts on local property values are complicated. Residential property
values would be adversely affected (see Issue 11). Commercial property
development could increase, which often results in a net increase in municipal
property tax revenues. However, this development might not offset negative
impacts. That is, some residential communities could be harmed overall, while
others where commercial development is concentrated, might retain the tax
benefits.
ISSUE 13 OPTIONS:
A. Use federal sources:
• Continue to use federal entitlement funds and discretionary funds from the
Airport and Airways Trust Fund.
• Support statutory proposals giving jurisdictions, other than airport operators,
access to Airport Trust Funds. Under these proposals, Trust Funds could be
used for offsite ground access to airports.
B. Use local sources:
• Impose a user charge through federally authorized passenger facility charges to
finance service at other sites.
As a precondition, either develop a single airport authority, which is necessary
to use passenger facility charges on multiple sites, or seek to amend federal
legislation to allow transfer of passenger facility charges from one authority
within an airport system (Sea -Tac Airport) to another (a supplemental
airport.)
At Sea -Tac Airport, use federally authorized local passenger facility charges,
and then use released funds from other sources to support airline service at
other sites. (Unlike local landing fees, passenger facility charges are exempt
from effective veto by the airlines.) It's important to note, however, that
federal entitlement funds diminish by 50 percent if local passenger facility
charges are imposed. At Sea -Tac, entitlement funds are roughly 7 million
dollars a year while passenger facility charges could generate 22 million dollars
a year.
23
• Issue revenue bonds or general "double- barrel" general obligation bonds, to be
retired through any of several sources available to the Port of Seattle:
concessions, including parking fees; landing fees; or passenger facility charges.
(Double - barrel general obligation bonds are retired through user charges, but
are backed by access to property taxes if necessary. Port collection of property
tax is limited by statute to 0.214 percent of the assessed valuation within King
County. Collection of part of this authorized tax by the Port is controversial
and currently is used exclusively by the Marine Division.)
Comment:Airport budgets are supported first by revenues other than landing
fees (e.g., concessions), then by federal grants, and then landing fees. Possible
cost -based pricing of airline access to limited runway capacity is not reflected
in this approach. Undercharging for access to finite airspace may contribute
to congestion.
• Use of some parking revenues (one third of Sea -Tac Airport revenues) for
mitigation actions would serve to transfer runway access charges to airlines
using the runways. While landing fees are typically 2 -4 percent of airline
operating costs, a slot -based fee structure could be a very effective market
mechanism governing commuter airline decisions.
• Landing fees at Sea -Tac could be a revenue source supporting supplemental
airport sites. Differential landing fees at the different sites could further serve
to attract airlines to the supplemental sites.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
ISSUE 14: If there is a need for new airport sites, how should local agreements, regional
needs and federal requirements for airport access be inutually reconciled?
The community surrounding Paine Field regards the negotiations in 1978 as a
protection against impacts from the introduction of commercial aviation.
Likewise, communities around Sea -Tac Airport believe they were promised that
the new second runway would not be followed later by a third runway. (This
commitment is not in writing and might not have related to a new runway on the
existing Sea -Tac site.)
ISSUE 14 OPTIONS:
A. Evaluate noise and other impacts on a case -by -case basis.
For noise, follow the FAA criterion whereby a federal environmental impact
statement is not required if the proposed noise increase is less than 1.5 Ldn, and
does not expand the 65 Ldn contour. This approach may be inadequate in
dealing with cumulative impacts, e.g., the introduction of revised regional flight
paths (the Four -Post Plan), followed by a Microwave Landing System and a
possible dependent third runway.
24
B. Clarify the extent of Federal Aviation Administration authority to interpret
constitutional issues (interstate commerce clause requirements).
Federal law empowers the Secretary of Transportation to decide whether airport
measures (e.g., local agreements) impose an "undue burden" on interstate and
foreign commerce. (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, Section ,
104(b)). Airports are restrained from prohibiting service, but are not required to
plan for it. See the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix
B.
With regard to conditions attached to federal airport funding, the FAA holds that
any airport which has received federal funds within the past 20 years -- for
example, Paine Field -- must make the airport open to all who desire access. This
is an FAA administrative position (FAA Advisory Circular 150 /5190 -1A).
C. In the spirit of the 1974 understanding at Sea -Tac, and the 1978 Mediated
Agreement and 1979 negotiations (and County Council action) in Snohomish
County, and the 1990 Mediated Noise Agreement at Sea -Tac, work toward a
comprehensive regional policy on airport noise and other impacts.
Concerns over aircraft noise have been dealt with on a specific -case basis at Sea -
Tac Airport and Paine Field. Benefits of these separate actions are affected by
the federal Four -Post Plan and possible amendments, and other possible system -
level actions within the Regional Airport System Plan. This option suggests a
regional noise mitigation element in the Regional Airport System Plan.
This option could involve a partnership on a range of issues among the airport
operator(s), the local governments and their regional and countywide structures,
and the FAA.
ISSUE 15:
How might some noise mitigation and abatement actions, perceived as site
specific remedies, be enforced through earlier regional action in the scheduled
amendment of the Regional Airport System Plan?
ISSUE 15 OPTIONS:
A. Federal action: Most broadly, seek amendment to the federal law governing
airport improvement planning under the Federal Aviation Administration.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear a San Francisco Airport
Commission appeal against FAA. The FAA had rejected local noise rules
through which airplanes equipped with "hushkits" would have been banned during
the transition period (1990 -2000) leading to fully converted Stage 3 fleets. The
Supreme Court decision to not hear the case indicates that FAA grant sanctions
under federal noise policy will be upheld. FAA sanctions can include withholding
of approval for locally- imposed head taxes called passenger facility charges.
25
(Washington Letter on Transportation, April 27, 1992).
Comment: The National Association of Regional Councils has offered airport
planning recommendations which could be considered in 1993, or in
1994 reauthorization legislation.
The recommendations would spell out the "3 -C" planning process
(continuous, comprehensive and coordinated) as it is under the federal
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, and as it is called for in
the 1982 Airport and Airways Act. A regional component would be added,
in addition to local, state and federal.
Alternatively, the Federal Aviation Administration does have authority to convene
the airlines to adjust airline schedules at congested airports. This resulted in
operational quotas at four of the nation's busiest airports, and is not likely to be
used again. The airlines were deregulated by federal statute in 1978.
B. State action: Establish noise standards that can be uniformly applied within
regions.
The Washington State Air Transportation Commission can address specifics in its
recommendations to the Legislature in 1994. The Commission can suggest
amendments to state law (e.g., the Noise Control Act of 1974, RCW 70.107 and
WAC 173 -60) in its report to the Legislature in December 1994.
Comment: In an analogous situation, a 1985 state law requires preemptive state
siting of hazardous waste management facilities. This is linked to
mitigation negotiations with the impacted communities.
C. Local airport operator actions might be linked to regional policy.
Local operators could:
• At supplemental sites, impose controls through municipal ordinances.
Some examples are found in California. In the past, Long Beach, California,
limited service to one million annual passengers. Operators here might
impose operational controls, supported in part by a court order. John Wayne
Airport (in Los Angeles) limits operations to 8.4 million annual passengers
and requires all planes to meet a specified load factor (the percentage of seats
filled) before takeoff is permitted.
Note: Without assumed controls such as this at Paine Field (should it be
selected as part of a regional alternative), the 65 Ldn contour might
encompass schools located within 3000 feet of the runway.
26
• The airport operators can impose gate controls to increase airline efficiency.
This potentially useful approach does not violate the exclusive authority of the
FAA to control airline operations once they have departed the airport. (For
more information, see Working Paper No. 1 on demand management and
system management.)
• The airport operators can impose operations -based landing fees.
This would encourage larger and fewer commuter aircraft. Commuter aircraft
are nearly half of all operations at Sea -Tac. While the forecasts foresee
improved efficiencies in the future, the Update forecasts illustrate that this
may not be assured by market forces alone. (See Demand Management,
Working Paper No. 1.)
• The airport operators can impose operating restrictions.
Vancouver Airport in British Columbia will control the kind of aircraft,
direction, hours of operation, and reverse thrust operations on the runways.
Airport development projects and lease policies also can include noise -
oriented provisions.
See also Working Paper No. 1, Demand Management and System Management.
As the aircraft activity level increases throughout the region, the need for
collaborative system management might render less and less adequate the case -by-
case approach to resolving airport and airspace issues.
D. Local municipal actions.
Review and amend land use compatibility standards, consistent with the most
recent noise studies (done under Federal Airport Regulations Part 150). Land
use actions should be consistent with approved airport operations and actual
trends in airport noise. This affects zoning, subdivision ordinances and
construction regulations.
E. Region Council action.
The Regional Council could require specific noise mitigation policies or actions
as a necessary condition before assigning regional funding priority to airport
access facilities under the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act.
The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act now requires the
Metropolitan Planning Organization, which in this region is the Puget Sound
Regional Council, to set priorities for spending federal surface transportation
funds in the region. The region could ensure that adequate funds for noise
mitigation have been identified and committed.
27
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
DRAFT WORKING PAPER NO. 3
IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS
January 1993
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Puget Sound Regional Council is scheduled to amend the 1988 Regional Airport
System Plan in April 1993. This action will culminate a three -year effort, known as the
Flight Plan project, to examine and address the commercial air transportation capacity
needs of the central Puget Sound region. The amendment may consist of a range of
management and expansion actions.
As part of the Flight Plan effort, on October 6, 1992, the Regional Council released the
Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement which assesses the impacts of a range
of alternatives for meeting the region's commercial air transportation capacity needs.
This draft working paper on airport implementation of decisions, and two other working
papers, on demand management and system management, and on impact abatement and
mitigation, are provided as supplemental information to previous Flight Plan reports and
the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Responses to all of the working
papers will help to shape the Regional Council's amendment to the Regional Airport
System Plan, last updated in 1988.
The elements of this paper are:
•
the Summary, which includes this Introduction; an Overview, which briefly
discusses the implementation of decisions relating to alternatives designed to help
meet the region's commercial air transportation capacity needs; and Issues and
Options, which presents implementation issues and options in general terms;
• an Issue Index, which is a guide to the detailed text that is the major element of
this paper; and
• Working Paper No. 3, which provides detailed information and discussion on
implementation issues, including timing and enforcement issues.
This document is a draft working paper and will he corrected and updated as new
information is presented. Contact: Peter D. Beaulieu, Project Manager, (206) 464-7537.
1
216 First Avenue South • Sec !e, Washington 98104 • (2561 464.7090 • FAX 557425
OVERVIEW
Working Paper Nos. 1 and 2 address airport demand management and airport system
management, and impact abatement and mitigation. These points interact with the five
regional airpo; t system alternatives presented in the Flight Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement. (See Section 1.2, and Section 3.) The alternatives are not equally
effective in serving demand and have varied impacts on the community and natural
environment.
Detailed environmental impact statement work on specific siting options would follow a
decision on the system alternative by the Regional Council, scheduled for April 29, 1993.
The demand management and system management alternative (the first alternative listed
below under Sea -Tac Airport Enhancement Measures) is the subject of Draft Working
Paper No. 1. Some demand management measures are assumed to be part of all
regional alternatives.
The alternatives are:
1. Sea -Tac Airport Enhancement Measures:
• Sea -Tac with Broad System Management: This alternative attempts to
meet the region's future travel needs without building any new runways. It
includes the use of demand management, new technologies and high speed
rail (see Draft Working Paper No. 1); or
Sea -Tac in conjunction with a remote airport: A remote airport is a second
airport such as Boeing Field or Moses Lake (Grant County) Airport that
would serve either connecting passengers or a share of long distance
passengers otherwise served at Sea -Tac alone; or
• Sea -Tac with a new dependent runway: This runway would be able to
accommodate both landings and takeoffs of commuter and jet aircraft, and
would enable consistent two - runway airport operations during all weather
conditions. A dependent runway is one that is not sufficiently separated
from an existing runway or runways to operate at its full capacity.
2. Two- Airport Multiple Airport System:
One supplemental passenger- service airport would be located either north of Sea -
Tac in Snohomish County or south of Sea -Tac in Pierce County. Sea -Tac would
either retain its current airfield configuration or would add a new third dependent
ru nway.
2
3. Three - Airport Multiple Airport System:
Two supplemental passenger - service airports, one located north of Sea -Tac
(Snohomish County) and one located south of Sea -Tac (Pierce County), would be .
developed. Sea -Tac would either retain its current airfield configuration or would
add anew third dependent runway.
4. Replacement airport:
Sea -Tac Airport would be closed and a new, larger airport with three runways
would be constructed in a new location.
5. No Action:
Sea -Tac would continue to be the region's only passenger - service airport. No
capacity improvements related to commercial passenger service would be made to
any Puget Sound area airports.
This working paper identifies issues that could affect implementation of the selected
Regional Airport System Plan amendment. The amendment might be a regional action
package including demand management and system management, a long term airport
system configuration with impact mitigation, and clear provisions for implementation
(including timing of actions). Financing and governance issues might also be addressed
as part of the regional action, depending upon the trend in future service demand and
the airport system selected.
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
I. The Planning Horizon -- When is the capacity problem likely to occur?
• Do changes in Flight Plan forecasts alter the need for capacity enhancement
and /or efficiency actions?
Use measures of system capacity and activity levels for both near term and long
term planning.
■ With uncertain forecasts, should the regional system be based on forecasted needs
for the intermediate or long term future?
Plan for the intermediate future.
Plan for the long term, but phase implementation.
3
II. Implementing the chosen alternative
• Should the regional decision be implemented on a single or dual track?
Use a c'ual track approach.
Make decisions on a single track.
• Should more than one siting option be pursued?
Select more than one option.
Select an alternative with a specific site, then proceed quickly with studies.
• What technical criteria should guide phased implementation?
Passengers and operations.
Technology.
Average seat capacity.
Regional economic growth.
Airline industry changes.
Air fares.
New federal or state regulations.
Adverse change in noise impact.
Delayed expansion of the existing airport.
Demand management.
III. Linking commercial air capacity decisions to other regional decisions
•
How might a Port of Seattle decision be linked to other regional decisions?
Holding off on a regional decision on the third runway.
Regard independent airport actions as complementary.
4
Work to amend federal legislation.
Adopt regional policies on demand management, impact mitigation and airport
system configuration.
• With a multiple airport system, how can supplemental commercial service be
linked to a third runway at Sea -Tac?
Secure airline concurrence.
• Should service continue at Sea -Tac as a replacement airport is phased in?
Service at both sites.
Switching from one to the other.
IV. Financing
• How can the costs and benefits of the regional airport decision be related to other
regional decisions?
Review comprehensive regional financing needs.
Make the decision compatible with other transportation decisions.
Use local comprehensive plans.
Work with the Washington State Air Transportation Commission.
Consider high speed ground transportation.
Secure private financing.
Highlight the need for conflict resolution.
■ What about phasing and financing?
Passenger facility charges.
Compensate the military for use of McChord.
Commit funds to expansion of existing facilities.
Finance mitigation first.
5
V. Governance
• How can demand management and impact mitigation be ensured?
Amend federal legislation.
Work with the FAA.
Adopt airport gate controls and other fees and conditions.
Require certain airport operator rules to receive permits.
Seek conditions on federal airport grants.
Negotiate a solution.
Create a Regional Airport Authority.
Use the Growth Management Act.
ISSUES INDEX to WORKING PAPER NO.3
IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS
ISSUES Pages
I. THE PLANNING HORIZON 10 -14
ISSUE 1: Do changes in forecasts alter need 10 -12
Near term and long term planning 10 -12
ISSUE 2: Should the regional system be based on
forecasted needs for the intermediate
or long term future 12 -14
Plan for the intermediate future 14
Plan for the long term, but phase
implementation 13 -14
II. IMPLEMENTING THE CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE 14 -21
ISSUE 3: Should the regional decision be implemented
on a single or dual track 14 -15
Dual track 14
Single track 14
ISSUE *4: Should more than one siting option be pursued? 16 -18
More than one option 16
Selecting a specific site, with quick studies 17 -18
ISSUE 5: What criteria should guide phased implementation 18 -21
Passengers and operations 18
Technology 18
Average seat capacity 19
Regional economic growth 19
Airline industry changes 19 -20
Air fares 20
New federal or state regulations 20
Adverse change in noise impact 20 -21
Delayed expansion of the existing airport 21
Demand management 21
III. LINKING DECISIONS 21 -26
ISSUE 6: Linking Port of Seattle decision
to other regional decisions 21 -24
Delaying regional third runway decision 21 -22
Regard independent airport actions
as complementary 22
Amend federal legislation 22 -23
Adopt regional policies 23 -24
ISSUE 7: Linking supplemental commercial 24 -25
service to a third runway
at Sea -Tac
Secure airline concurrence 24 -25
ISSUE 8: Service at Sea -Tac with a
replacement airport 25 -26
Service at both sites 25
Switching from one to the other 25 -26
IV. FINANCING 26 -30
ISSUE 9: Relating costs /benefits of
airport decision to other
regional decisions 26 -28
Comprehensive regional
financing needs 26
Compatibiity with other
transportation decisions 26 -27
Use local comprehensive plans 27
Work with State Air Transportation
Commission 27
High speed ground transportation 27 -28
Private financing 28
Conflict resolution 28
8
ISSUE 10: Phasing and financing 29 -30
Passenger facility charges 29
Compensating the use of McChord 29
Expanding existing facilities 29 -30
Mitigation first 30
V. GOVERNANCE 30 -33
ISSUE 11: Ensuring demand management and
impact mitigation 31 -33
Federal legislation 31
Work with the FAA 31
Gate controls and other actions 31
Rules for permits 31
Conditions on grants 32
Negotiate a solution 32
Regional Airport Authority 32 -33
Growth Management Act 33
9
WORKING PAPER NO. 3
IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS
I. THE PLANNING HORIZON: WHEN IS THE CAPACITY PROBLEM LIKELY TO
OCCUR?
ISSUE 1:
Changes have occurred since the Flight Plan Forecasts were developed in July
1990. Do these changes alter the projected need for significant capacity
and /or efficiency actions, or only the timing of this need?
The projected need for regional decisions serving long term needs is based
on regional population and employment forecasts, recent passenger and
operational trends at Sea -Tac Airport, and forecasted future activity levels.
A critique of air travel forecasting in general, and of the Flight Plan
forecasts in particular, has been prepared by the Washington State Air
Transportation Commission (Review of Flight Plan Demand and Capacity
Analysis, October 31, 1992).
This report documents an important caution relevant to the use of
forecasts: "A program of monitoring aviation activity growth is
recommended to provide guidance on the timing of airport development
decisions. Because of possible variations, the forecasts are best considered
as activity levels that should trigger decisions regarding airport
development."
(In its recommendations, the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
suggested actual dates for its recommended near term actions, which
include a third dependent runway at Sea -Tac Airport and opening up Paine
Field in Snohomish County to commercial air traffic, followed by later
operation of a supplemental airport site in Pierce or Thurston counties.)
ISSUE 1 OPTION:
A. For both near term and long term planning, use measures of system
capacity, and of activity levels requiring action.
10
The use of such measures is important. However, the following forecasts
and actual levels of activity provide a glimpse at the inherent difficulty in
forecasting commercial air transportation demand and needs, which are
dependent upon a great many variables:
Airport capacity
The number of passengers at Sea -Tac exceeded 17 million in 1992.
At the beginning of the Flight Plan effort in 1989, it was believed
that the passenger capacity of Sea -Tac Airport was 25 million /year.
However, due to improving efficiencies, such as anticipated larger
average airplane size, and a more flexible standard for airplane
delays, the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement
reports the passenger capacity of Sea -Tac Airport at 35.8 million per
year under the no- action alternative. (See the Flight Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Table 1 -1, or Section 3.)
• Passenger levels
The Flight Plan passenger forecasts were revised downward later in
the study to show that commuter aircraft growth has stopped.
Commuter flights were reduced from 42 percent of the total, to 22
percent of a larger total number of operations in 2020.
Market forces
The Washington State Air Transportation Commission report
suggests the possibility of a more abrupt adjustment in passenger
forecasts than was made in the Flight Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement, due to possible market forces.
The airlines lost 9 billion dollars in the past three years, more than
was made in profits during the preceding 67 years since the airline
industry began.
It is expected that either airline costs will be cut (for example,
tougher negotiations on landing fees), or that ticket prices might
begin to climb after bankruptcy protections are removed from the
most troubled airlines. Rising prices then could directly moderate
previously expected demand trends.
11
ISSUE 2:
However, the commission observes that trans- Pacific ticket costs
may actually drop, and notes that even moderately increased
international arrivals would test Sea -Tac capacity because new
traffic would be concentrated at the already congested noon peak
period.
• Population and employment trends
Underlying population and employment trends will be slightly less
than had been expected in 1989. This refinement is based on 1990
census results, and is reflected in the Flight Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
• Operations levels
The number of operations (takeoffs and landings) was 350,000 in
1991, compared to an estimated efficient airport capacity of 380,000.
Average annual aircraft delays are expected to nearly double
between 1992 and 2000 (See Flight Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Section 1.1). Delays for individual aircraft can be
five to ten times the average annual delay.
Given the uncertainty of forecasts, should the regional airport system decision
be based on forecasted operational needs for the foreseeable future or, instead,
for the very long term (the year 2020 and beyond, e.g., 2050)?
The short -term approach results in uncertainty associated with indecision.
Local land use agreements and planning under the Growth Management
Act can be based on the foreseeable future, twenty years or less.
However, the 20 -year horizon for planning under the Growth Management
Act is a minimum; nothing in the law restricts local governments from
planning under the Act farther into the future.
The longer -term horizons introduce greater uncertainties even as they lead
toward consideration of threshold alternatives, such as a replacement
airport. A replacement airport would depend upon a ground connection
such as a possible high speed ground transportation link running south
from Everett and Seattle.
12
ISSUE 2 OPTIONS:
A. Plan for the intermediate future (e.g., 2010).
The demand forecasts for the near term, because they are lower than the
long -term forecasts, point more to the alternatives using existing facilities.
This is because marginal adjustments to existing facilities could be enough
to meet this short -term demand.
The result would be that the region would focus on the phasing of
management and expansion of existing system resources and, therefore,
accept the impacts on community values and urban systems that would
come with expanding existing facilities.
The flexibility that could be provided by new capacity through the selection
of new facilities would be lost.
However, use of a longer term decision horizon does not preclude
emphasis on managing the existing system as well as possible.
B. Plan for the very long term (2020 to 2050), but phase implementation.
And, act on only those intermediate actions that do not foreclose long term
solutions.
The longer term horizon provides greater flexibility in each airport plan to
adapt to unforeseen market forces and new technologies.
This introduces the notion of activity levels, and related to this, flexibility
as to when they will be achieved.
The time horizon selected has important implications for the criteria that
will be used to assess the alternatives. For example, the replacement
alternative and the multiple airport system alternatives might be less easily
dismissed if a longer term approach is taken.
A near -term decision and land preservation (new airport sites) or site
designation (new or existing sites) beginning in the near term would be
important. If a multiple airport system is needed in the long term, and a
site has not been selected or preserved in the near term, land use
encroachment on candidate sites might foreclose this alternative.
13
Comment:
Governments planning under the state Growth
Management Act can use a minimum planning horizon
of 20 years, which is relatively short -term planning '
when compared to the time that can be necessary to
plan for and implement an airport decision. In
practical application, however, it appears that some
governments, such as King and Pierce counties, are
using a planning horizon of 30 years or more. The
Act also requires local governments to plan for
regional and statewide facilities, and for state agencies
to act consistently with the resulting plans.
Airport planning involves regional and state facilities;
the necessary time horizon of longer than 20 years is
similar to what is required for high speed ground
transportation and high capacity transit.
One example_ of not foreclosing future options might be to depend upon
demand management and system management to serve passenger levels
within the reported capacity of 35.8 million per year (Flight Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement), with the regional policy and site
preservation and ground transportation actions, such as investment in a
high speed ground transportation system, leading possibly to a new
replacement airport. This could also require ensuring the ability to handle
international traffic by managing Sea -Tac Airport (and perhaps Boeing
Field) to reduce commuter flights during the noon peak.
II. IMPLEMENTING THE CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE
ISSUE 3:
(Note: For detailed discussion of implementation issues related to
demand management and system management, see Draft
Working Paper No. 1)
Because of the complexity of the issues, and the many decision authorities,
should implementation of the regional airport system plan be incremental or
possibly a dual -track approach?
This would involve a set of near -tens actions and a set of long -term
alternatives and actions, to be pursued concurrently. The options listed below
are not mutually exclusive.
14
ISSUE 3 OPTIONS:
A. Use a dual -track decision approach as is used in the Minneapolis -St. Paul
region.
This involves a portfolio of concurrent studies and actions, with final
decisions based on monitored trends and results. Near -term actions are
selected that can be incrementally adjusted so they do not foreclose major
long term alternatives that are also under review. A practical advantage of
a dual -track strategy is that it encourages the community to review a range
of alternatives together and, in this way, to recognize that all alternatives
have advantages as well as disadvantages.
The short -term track at Minneapolis -St. Paul includes a new commuter
runway combined with three demand management elements:
• New use of a general aviation reliever airport,
• Rescheduling of peak- period commercial operations at the
primary airport, and
• Pricing policies to help manage airport demand.
The long range decision at Minneapolis -St. Paul is a new runway versus a
new airport, with early site preservation for possible use. A legislative
decision is expected in 1996.
In this region, the Washington State Air Transportation Commission is
scheduled to make broad recommendations on statewide policies to the
Legislature in December 1994.
B. Make incremental actions on a single decision track.
One example would be to install at Sea -Tac a 5,000 foot runway limited to
use by commuter planes at Sea -Tac (as suggested by the City of SeaTac).
This would be either convertible to a taxiway or could be enlarged
(depending upon location if a third dependent runway is later approved
and constructed).
However, this approach could delay again any serious look at possible long-
term regional needs and alternatives.
15
ISSUE 4: Should the implementation strategy be one of pursuing more than one siting
option be pursued?
Decisions and timing of final action would be based in part on the results •
of monitored needs, which could allow for attrition of options due to
• unforeseen fatal flaws.
ISSUE 4 OPTIONS:
A. Select more than one site option.
At the appropriate time, site -level environmental impact assessments would
be made to see if the selected site options remain viable.
Site preservation actions for the range of sites would include these
concurrent steps:
• Initiate formal review by the military by petitioning for a joint
operating agreement at McChord.
(Concerning the McChord site, if increasing military operations are
scaled down over the very long term, then the option of eventually
developing commercial aviation would serve to support the
continued economy of the Pierce County area.)
•
Clarify federal conditions attached to the transfer of Paine Field to
Snohomish County (1948), and whether small "commuter" aircraft
(defined by FAA as having no more than 60 seats) are acceptable
under the wording of the Snohomish County Mediated Agreement
(as amended in 1979).
• For all site options, incorporate policies and actions in multicounty
and countywide planning policies and local comprehensive plans,
under the Growth Management Act.
The result of selecting more than one site option, however, would be that
the resulting uncertainty could affect more sites than may be necessary.
This in turn affects residential and commercial property values and
investments, community peace of mind, and other important community
values.
16
B. Select a regional alternative with a specific site, then expeditiously proceed
with a site -level environmental impact statement.
However,, this could make the selected regional alternative more vulnerable.
to be overturned by the results of later and fewer site -level studies. And if
it were overturned, this would renew the discomfort of redoing the regional
decision process even as site options became more committed to other
uses, and as other growth management decisions were being made for
possible high capacity transit service routes.
If this approach is selected, an institutional test should be applied to
possible sites, and possibly given veto weight.
• The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee retained all
evaluation sites because, in its judgment, following the exemption of
any site, most other candidate sites would attempt vetoes for a
variety of compelling reasons:
Sea -Tac due to existing impacts;
Paine Field due to impacts and previous interlocal
agreements;
McChord due to national defense priorities, and Thurston
County sites due to impacts and location outside of the
region and the urban growth boundary; and
Boeing Field due to airspace conflicts with Sea -Tac Airport,
and to general aviation interests and needs.
• The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee institutional studies
(Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix D) proposed that
ranked regional alternatives, such as its own draft preferred
alternative and the secondary multiple airport system alternatives,
might be subject to modified rankings, based on a final and
separately applied institutional test.
This test was to be applied after a ranking based only on technical
information regarding operations, economic /financing, and
environmental issues.
17
• Under the Flight Plan process, the study of implementation issues is
phased after the technical selection of a recommended regional
system. Multiple sites are retained for each regional alternative.
This is done to reduce the potential that fatal flaws, such as
compelling institutional factors, will overturn any broader regional
decision.
ISSUE 5: Once a regional airport system is selected, what technical criteria might be
used to guide a phased implementation strategy?
Studies for the Twin Cities have considered use of 10 measures for phased
implementation of near and long term actions.
For illustration, these are listed below together with comments relating
them to the Flight Plan work in our region. The reader is cautioned that
focusing on changes in specific forecasting inputs (airline ticket prices,
aircraft size) can be misleading, since shortfalls in one area may be offset
by higher numbers elsewhere.
The most important test in the Twin Cities is whether long -term traffic
growth exceeds one percent per year, based on the calculated costs and
benefits of specific alternatives. A similar single threshold may be useful in
the Puget Sound region. The Port of Seattle already monitors and
publishes trend information on a monthly basis.
ISSUE 5 OPTIONS:
A. The numbers of passengers and operations (takeoffs and landings)
vary from forecasted levels by 20 percent for three straight years.
Comment: The action schedule is reviewed, based on this new
information. This is less relevant to Sea -Tac Airport
since this is not an airline hub airport subject to
service decisions by a dominant airline.
B. Technology offers a 15 percent increase in runway capacity.
Comment: See Draft Working Paper No. 1 for possible
technology options in our region.
18
C. Average seat capacity (per aircraft) varies from expectations.
Comment: Flight Plan forecasts are based on the assumption that
commuter flights will not increase in number. Instead,• •
rising commuter demand will be accommodated by
replacement of the smaller planes with larger ones.
If the long -term Flight Plan projections of passenger
demand are high, then substitution of smaller planes
with larger planes would probably take place more
slowly than forecasted. Forecasts of operations might
not be affected, although demand management
actions, such as gate controls to assure or accelerate
assumed trends in commuter aircraft size and load
factors, could influence the final outcome.
The Washington State Air Transportation Commission
notes that market factors might also serve to reduce
the number of commuter flights at Sea -Tac Airport, as
larger planes also compete with them for landing slots.
(Review of Flight Plan Demand and Capacity
Analysis, Dr. Richard de Neufville, October 31, 1992.)
D. Regional economic growth, a basis for developing passenger demand
forecasts, exceeds or falls below forecast levels for three straight
years.
Comment: In 1969, the Boeing depression ended discussions of
new airport sites studied in the Air Transportation
System Advance Plan. A possible issue facing the
region (and growth forecasts) is whether Boeing can
retain its 60 percent market share in the changing
commercial airline industry.
Once issue raised by supporters of the regional
economy is that superior air transportation capacity
will help support continuing economic vitality, partly
by tying the region to emerging Pacific Rim activities.
E. Significant airline industry changes occur, such as mergers, hubbing
increases or decreases, or the ratio of origin - destination passengers
to connecting passengers changes by 10 percentage points.
19
Comment: The Washington State Air Transportation Commission
critique (referenced above) pays particular attention to
past fluctuations in demand at major airports. This
pattern is most applicable to "fortress hub" airports
where one or two airlines are dominant. At Sea -Tac
Airport, two - thirds of the service to passengers is
shared by four airlines (rather than one or two).
Airlines subject to recent bankruptcy proceedings
account for only 15 percent of the passenger travel at
Sea -Tac Airport.
F. Real air fares rise or fall.
Comments:
Airline price wars since 1990, combined with
the number of airlines in financial trouble, may
produce rising real ticket fares if airlines
competing under Chapter 11 protection are
eliminated. If ticket prices do not rise or no
longer fall in real terms, then airlines will be
increasingly forced to reduce operational costs.
This trend could include tougher negotiations
on landing fees and even greater local
challenges to retain competitive advantages
over competing airports outside the region
(Portland and Vancouver, B.C.).
G. Significant new federal or state regulations.
Comment: Observers do not predict a reversal of the 1978
Airline Deregulation Act.
H. There is an adverse change in noise impact due to change in
operations or aircraft mix.
Comment:
This would especially include 1990 federal
legislation requiring the phasing -in of Stage 3
aircraft by the year 2001. For the Puget Sound
region, the Flight Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement predicts a diminishing area
and population within the most affected noise
contours. (See Draft Working Paper No. 2.)
20
In our region, overflight noise which reaches beyond the vicinity of
Sea -Tac Airport, was spread even farther across the metropolitan
region under the Four -Post Plan imposed by the FAA in 1990. The
Four -Post Plan improves efficiency of arrivals and departures at Sea -.
Tac, but involves increased overflights in populated areas.
I. Delayed expansion of the existing airport and of site acquisition for
an alternative new airport.
Comment:
Implementation difficulties are addressed in the
Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Section 3.8 and Appendix B).
J. Demand management techniques prove to be more or less effective
than expected.
Comment:
This presumes that demand management is
done either alongside or in front of facility
expansion. (See Draft Working Paper No. 1.)
III. LINKING COMMERCIAL AIR CAPACITY DECISIONS TO OTHER REGIONAL
DECISIONS
ISSUE 6:
Institutionally, how might a Pat of Seattle decision on Sea -Tac expansion be
linked to a regional decision on commercial air transportation capacity, or to
broader regional infrastructure and growth management decisions?
ISSUE 6 OPTIONS:
A. Refrain from making a decision regarding the future of Sea -Tac (e.g., a
third dependent runway), until after a region -level decision and site -level
research are completed.
Port of Seattle Resolution 3125 (November 3, 1992) discusses, as part of
moving ahead with the third runway, the need for a regional decision
involving other capacity increasing options.
21
The Port reserves the right to revisit this decision, and possibly authorize
independent action at Sea -Tac Airport, based in part on the results of
authorized site specific studies.
A risk with this general approach is that more analysis can always be done,
deferring any real decision further into the future. It also continues
uncertainty for communities affected by a possible third runway.
B. Regard independent airport actions as complementary elements of a more
casually developed long -term regional airport system.
This is the approach that has been used in most or all other locations.
The major concern is that possible system elements beyond Sea -Tac
Airport do not have advocate agencies interested in their development.
Possible elements could be:
• Review 1979 Paine Field recommendations of the mediation panel,
accepted by Snohomish County. For example, what noise levels
might be accepted within the recommended performance standards.
Continue to consider long term use of McChord Air Force base
consistent with the possible results of a forthcoming Pentagon study
of the airport future. One consideration could be the partial
financial support of the base with a share in future commercial
aircraft landing fees.
• Continue to work toward commuter service at Olympia Airport.
•
Continue to research airspace issues and opportunities at Sea -Tac
Airport and Boeing Field in conjunction with shifting some general
aviation activity to airports outside of the Sea -Tac Airport area
airspace (recommended in the 1988 Regional Airport System Plan.)
Airport operators work toward interagency agreements under
provisions of the Municipal Airports Act (RCW 14.08).
C. Work to amend federal airport legislation to require the same systematic
policy integration for airport(s) as is required for surface transportation.
22
The National Association of Regional Councils is working toward proposed
amendments to federal airport legislation, for Congress to consider in 1994.
These amendments would directly involve metropolitan planning
organizations such as the Regional Council in continuous airport system
planning. The federal Government Accounting Office also has offered
testimony to Congress on the need for more systematic planning and
funding by the FAA, and has called for more systematic measures of
effectiveness and monitoring of results.
D. Adopt regional policies on phased elements for demand management and
system management, impact mitigation and abatement, and on an airport
system configuration (the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact
alternatives).
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee focused its final
recommendations on a system configuration, calling for a multiple airport'
system and, in addition, stating a preference for site -level actions. The
committee did research the remaining elements and in its action it did
acknowledge their importance.
If there is no linkage between Sea -Tac investment and actions at other
airports, then a multiple airport system might not be achieved.
Sea -Tac Airport, with a third dependent runway, would be sufficient from
an operational point of view (disregarding impacts) to handle 90 percent of
the operations forecasted for the year 2020. Unless a longer time horizon
is used as the basis for selected a regional alternative, the Sea -Tac capacity
would be within the range of uncertainty of the forecasts, making less
compelling the reasoning for a multiple airport system.
Comment:
A consultant to the Washington State Air
Transportation Commission has prepared reports for
the FAA concluding that a threshold of originating
passengers (10 million per year) must be achieved
before a multiple airport system will be viable. Flight
Plan forecasts indicate that this threshold might be
achieved in this region in 2005, in the absence of
demand management actions.
On the other hand, if a third runway is not constructed at Sea -Tac, then a
multiple airport system might more readily result.
23
ISSUE 7:
Airlines would have the option of requesting access to Paine Field, for
example, and could not be prohibited from landing there. Local land use
agreements would face a test on federal conditions attached to the transfer
of the facility to Snohomish County (in 1948). Over the very long term and
the absence of additional facilities at Sea -Tac Airport, it is possible that
a two - runway configuration would be proposed, or that movement toward a
replacement airport (replacing service at Sea-Tac and at Paine Field) could
result. This dual airport approach could move in the direction of central
Pierce County - -a possible replacement airport location -- although the
population center of the region is north of Sea -Tac Airport, rather than
south.
The Flight Plan Final Environmental impact Statement shows that under
this more decentralized multiple airport systems, connecting passengers
would be forced to transit between airports.
Further, it shows that ground transportation impacts might be greater than
for a more centralized airport system.
If a multiple airport system is selected, how should a supplemental airport be
committed to commercial service in relation to a possible third dependent
runway at Sea -Tac Airport?
While linkage may be desirable, market conditions are unlikely to fit
exactly with a region's need for a decision.
ISSUE 7 OPTION:
A. Secure airline concurrence as was done with the conversion of Stewart Air
Force Base to commercial service in the New York area multiple airport
system.
This illustrates the value of a local negotiation strategy toward the federally
deregulated airlines, in contrast to an enforcement strategy directed at the
airport operators. While airline access to Sea -Tac Airport might be
conditioned under a demand management and system management policy,
the airlines can opt to use other competing airports outside the region.
The deregulated airlines are not inclined to support redundant sites, and
are not moved by government edicts. In New York, American Airlines
extended service to a new northern site partly in exchange for additional
gates at the relieved Kennedy Airport.
24
Cost would be less of a factor in cases where facilities already exist.
Market conditions will be the key to starting commercial service at a new
airport, and regional ground access (e.g., peak hour traffic congestion in
Seattle) may be the most powerful market force pointing to supplemental
site options north of Seattle.
ISSUE 8: For the replacement airport alternative, might service still be continued at Sea -
Tac as the new airport is phased in?
ISSUE 8 OPTIONS:
A. Continuing service at Sea -Tac as new service is phased in.
This approach, however, could jeopardize the economic viability of the new
airport, and federally deregulated airlines could be even less inclined to
cooperate. Displaced airlines would incur higher costs than those
remaining at Sea -Tac. The Regional Air System Plan decision is a public
decision affecting and limited by private financial risks.
Support and cooperation from the airlines is a major factor in successful
plan implementation.
Comment:
Dallas illustrates the issue. Southwest Airlines refused
to leave the old airport. In Denver, opening of the
new airport and closure of the old airport (Stapleton)
will occur on the same day.
B. Switching all service from Sea -Tac to a new service site without phasing it
in.
In this instance, ground access to the new airport must be timed to offer
service to the new airlines (and the traveling public) on opening day. The
new replacement airport would shift more of the related economic growth
to the new location, while removing business and activity from the present
Sea -Tac area.
25
Comment:
IV. FINANCING
ISSUE 9:
In Minneapolis -St. Paul, the dual -track decision
approach includes research on how to convert the
present airport site to other uses, if the scheduled
(1996) decision for the long term calls for a
replacement airport.
How can cumulative costs and benefits of regional airport decisions be
considered and directly related to other major regional and infrastructure
decisions?
Phasing of regional and later site level decisions (e.g., Port of Seattle policy
action following completion of site level studies authorized by Resolution
3125) could be affected. Regional studies include work of the High Speed
Ground Transportation Commission, the Washington State Air
Transportation Commission, the local governments and regional
organizations (working under federal and state laws), and the High
Capacity Transit Study.
ISSUE 9 OPTIONS:
A. Combined financing needs can be reviewed comprehensively.
Airport capital costs range from slightly below one billion dollars to over
two billion dollars. High Capacity Transit capital costs could exceed 9
billion dollars, and high speed ground transportation capital costs statewide
are estimated at 14.5 billion dollars to 19 pillion dollars.
These projects are not necessarily supported by the same funding sources.
B. The airport system decision should be compatible with High Capacity
Transit and other transportation planning.
Local officials could vote on a High Capacity Transit plan in March or
April 1993, and the issue could go to the general election ballot in
November. The Regional Airport System Plan amendment is scheduled
for April 1993.
26
In addition, the state is in the process of proposing certain roadways in the
region for designation as part of the national Highway System, which is
required to include interstate highway access to airports. Congressional
approval is scheduled for September 1995.
C. Local comprehensive plans adopted in July 1993 under the Growth
Management Act can help implement parts of a Regional Air System Plan
amendment.
Actions under the Growth Management Act could include protection of
future noise zones from development, coordination of capital facilities
planning with airport siting, and comprehensive attention to long term
development patterns that are influenced, in part, by airport decisions.
Zoning actions are required by July 1994. These could help reduce future
noise mitigation costs.
D. Local airport operators and the Regional Council can develop more
systematic ways of working with the Washington State Air Transportation
Commission.
The commission is scheduled to develop statewide policy options by July
1993, and a final report to the legislature by December 1994. These
actions should consider possible state actions to help implement elements
of the regionally adopted Regional Air System Plan amendments.
E. The following timing aspects of a high speed ground transportation system,
if it appears likely to be approved, should be considered:
• Part of the initial Everett -to- Portland segment, possibly to be
completed by 2020, could connect to possible supplemental airport
sites.
• Seattle -to- Portland improvements proposed for completion by the
year 2000 could involve connection to southern supplemental airport
sites (e.g., McChord Air Force Base), or a replacement airport site.
• The High Speed Ground Transportation Commission does not
foresee a large transfer of air passengers to rail (Executive
Summary, October 15, 1992); this confirms the earlier analysis done
by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (Flight Plan
Phase II Report).
27
• The most likely supplemental airport site options do not depend
upon rail connections, since service at the new site would be for
origin- and - destination travelers, not connecting travelers.
If coordination does not take place, site preservation options may be lost.
F. Secure private financing.
Financing might be through private sources as well as public sources.
Toronto offers the example of an airline terminal that was funded from
private sources. By contrast, high speed rail proposals premised on private
financing do not appear to be proceeding, although lower technology
options may be viable.
G. Highlight the need for continuing conflict resolution with regard to airport
impacts and coordination with other regional issues, particularly with
possible legislative proposals from the Washington State Air
Transportation Commission.
Foster informal means of coordination between the FAA, the local
communities, and the airport operator(s). Specify, as part of the Regional
Air System Plan amendment, what is expected of the different agencies and
governments.
Ensure that regional actions consider draft state policy options as these
become available from the (a report is due in July 1993), and encourage
the commission to consider forthcoming regional analyses and decisions.
Based on these collaborative efforts, possibly identify legislative proposals
to be submitted to the commission. These might include significant
incentives and benefits to be assured to the community(s) eventually
selected for airport capital expansion or service expansion. In 1993, the
commission is scheduled to address the state's interest in air transportation,
how well the current governance structure addresses operation, siting and
expansion of airports, the ability of state and regional government
authorities to work together, and the protection of environmental quality
and mitigation of impacts of air transportation. These issues relate to
multimodal transportation and growth management issues.
28
ISSUE 10: What is the specific relationship between phasing of possible system expansion
actions and known airport financing?
Airport revenues are derived mainly from four sources. These are the
federal Airport Improvement Trust Fund (nearly 90 percent supported by a
_ten percent tax on airline tickets), airport concessions, aircraft landing fees,
and now local Passenger Facility Charges (subject to FAA approval). At
Sea -Tac Airport, local property tax levies are not involved. Access road
improvements are financed in part by local governments, the state
Department of Transportation, and for qualifying projects, the federal
government (under the Interstate Surface Transportation Efficiency Act).
A major revenue source for highway improvements is the state and federal
gas tax.
ISSUE 10 OPTIONS:
A. For systems involving new sites, use passenger facility charges or other
local sources such as landing fees or concessions to subsidize supplemental
sites in the early years.
Federal law presently restricts passenger facility charge cross - subsidies to
airports that are owned by the same authority. This option would require,
as a minimum, a convincing airport system (rather than a single airport
authority), together with an amendment to the federal law.
B. If an operating agreement is developed with the military for joint use of
McChord, compensate the military with a share of local landing fees.
This revenue transfer could help ensure financial security for bases during
federal budget reductions. (Under the joint operating agreement at
Charleston, an annual lump sum payment of half the landing fees collected
is transferred to the military base).
C. Possibly foreclose opportunities for a new supplemental or replacement
airport by committing the limited funds available to expansion of existing
facilities.
Passenger facility charge financing is vulnerable to possible overestimates
of future trends in passenger levels.
29
Further, if passenger facility charges, Airport Improvement Program
entitlements and discretionary funds, and other sources are largely used on
a new third dependent runway at Sea -Tac Airport, then no financial path
would remain for initiating a multiple airport system .by subsidizing new
service at'possible supplemental airports.
D. First finance mitigation as part of a phased regional solution. The level of
remaining funding could then serve as a major criterion in selecting a
long -term regional airport system, with some solutions being less expensive
than others.
Ground transportation expenditures serving airport sites may significantly
reduce funds available for competing ground transportation needs in the
region. These tradeoffs should be quantified, based on site -level studies,
and considered for their implications on the regional decision.
V. GOVERNANCE
ISSUE 11:
How can we implement selected demand management and system
management strategies? How can we ensure that decisions on airport capacity
and on mitigation and abatement are legally binding for the airport
operator(s)? Also, what agreements might be reached with the airlines that
now are a- deregulated private industry under 1978 federal law?
The region must recognize that local controls would be imposed within the
context of a federally deregulated airline industry.
In 1990, the federal government did add the requirement to replace Stage
2 aircraft with quieter Stage 3 aircraft by the year 2000. This is partly to
reduce the trend toward widely varied local regulations.
Advice from a demand management expert panel is recorded in the
minutes for the meeting of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
on August 15, 1991, and points to imposition by the airport operators of
gate controls, operations -based pricing, and, if done within limits, peak
pricing structures. Amendments to state legislation governing airports are
also possible.
30
ISSUE 11 OPTIONS:
A. Amend the Municipal Airports Act (RCW 14.05), or pass other legislation
creating new authority at the state level.
The Municipal Airports Act provides for interlocal agreements between
airport authorities. One proposal in the past was first to create countywide
agreements, and then to link these agreements across the region. Beyond
this, the Act itself could be amended.
For example, airports could be controlled by a state entity, and then leased
back to local authorities with certain restrictions related to management of
the overall system, and with state agreements with the federally -
deregulated airlines.
In addition, operational permits are issued by the State Department of
Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. The Department of
Transportation can adopt or amend noise standards governing aircraft and
aircraft engines at airports operating under a permit from the Department.
B. The FAA can include a Federal Airport Regulation Part 150 program as a
mitigation measure under National Environmental Policy Act.
By statute, Part 150 is a voluntary program. However, once a Part 150
study has been included in a National Environmental Policy Act document
(e.g., site- specific environmental impact statements) as one of the
mitigation commitments, then the FAA and the airport operator accept the
responsibility to see that it is carried out.
C. Adopt airport operator rules for gate controls, slot -based landing fees, and
operating conditions.
(Draft Working Paper No. 1 and No. 2 identify federal, state, and local of
this kind for, respectively, demand management and system management,
and impact abatement and mitigation.
These options include: amending the federal law governing the Airport
Improvement Program, establishing statewide noise standards, adopt local
airport ordinances, gate controls, slot -based landing fees, and operating
restrictions.
31
D. Airport operator rules could be required as conditions for receiving needed
local permit approvals or obtaining funding priority for access roads or
regional transit services. Attach conditions to funding priority for ground
access facilities.
Under this approach, the Regional Council could influence airport
operator plans and actions. Legal questions could result, since this is not
exactly the same as when local permit - issuing governments attach
conditions to local zoning approvals issued under the State Environmental
Policy Act.
The legality and other aspects of linkage should be researched and broadly
discussed before taking any such action.
As an example, the City of SeaTac calls for a binding Interlocal Agreement
between the Port of Seattle and the City of SeaTac, if a suggested
commuter runway of 5,000 feet is built. (Letter, March 5, 1992.)
E. Petition the Secretary of Transportation for federal conditions on airport
grants.
Notice of a community right to petition is contained in the 1992 FAA
Reauthorization Bill.
F. Instead of enforcement, negotiate a solution.
Dispersal of airplane operations to.a new airport in New York (previously.
Stewart Air Force Base) depended upon negotiations with American
Airlines.
American was granted additional gates at Newark and JFK Airports, as
well as other compensation. The airline pays full landing and fuel fees at
Stewart, but only one dollar in terminal rental. Service began in 1990.
Now, seven airlines serve Stewart with flights to East Coast cities and hubs.
Stewart Airport in New York is a convenient and accessible airport
(especially compared to the alternatives) and serves a market area of one
million people in a rapidly growing part of the region. Initial flights by
American were to its airline hubs at Chicago and Raleigh- Durham. These
favorable and probably necessary conditions may suggest possible threshold
criteria for evaluating supplemental airport site options in the Puget Sound
region.
32
Continually consider what might be done to encourage airline participation.
Without this, public policy decisions will not be "implemented ".
G. Create a regional airport authority.
If a multiple airport system is selected, the market size is such that
subsidies from the primary airport to the supplemental airport or airports
probably would be necessary in early years. If this arrangement is
foreclosed by mitigation expenditures at the primary airport, or by existing
federal conditions attached to passenger facilities charges, then either
interlocal agreements or a broadened authority may be necessary as the
vehicle to enforce /enable the selected regional solution.
H. Use enforcement tools that are available through the state Growth
Management Act (or any new state legislation proposed in December 1994
by the Washington State Air Transportation Commission).
Under the state Growth Management Act, the Regional Council must
certify that the transportation element of local comprehensive plans is
consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan.
The Regional Council could decline to certify the transportation elements
of local comprehensive plans in the vicinity of airport sites if transportation
facilities are inconsistent with the requirements of the amended Regional
Airport System Plan.
If the issue could not be resolved between the parties, the regional Council
and /or local governments could refer issues of consistency to the Growth
Management Hearings Board. The state has the authority to invoke
sanctions to achieve compliance.
• State Growth Management Act regulations require that "no
comprehensive plan may directly or indirectly preclude" siting of
facilities of a countywide or statewide nature (WAC 365-195 -
340(2)(c)).
One of the most significant and immediate implementation issues, if any
sites other than Sea -Tac Airport are involved, is how to move on to the
next step. This would include, as a minimum, countywide siting studies,
and specific airport master plan amendment studies (as an example,
Snohomish County now is beginning a master planning update for Paine
Field).
33
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
JAN 1 9 1993
COMMUNITY'
DEVELOPMENT
To: Puget Sound Regional Council Assembly Members
January 15, 1993
From: Councilmember Jim Street, President
Councilmember Bruce Laing, Chair, Transportation Policy Board
Subject: Flight Plan /Regional Airport System Plan Amendment
Enclosed is a summary of yesterday's briefing session and workshop on Flight Plan
and the upcoming Regional Airport System Plan amendment. The issues being
addressed in these workshops are as complex as they are significant. Making a fair
and considered decision on the amendment requires a thorough understanding and
thoughtful discussion of a range of- complex technical and social factors.
We also enclosed a copy of Working Paper No. 1 on Demand Management and
System Management, which provides important background for next Thursday's
workshop, and for the decision meetings to come over the next several months.
Additional working papers on impact mitigation and abatement, and on
implementation of decisions, will follow. Also, handouts from the community groups
who appeared at the first workshop, and other materials, will be available at the next
workshop, or from the Regional Council Information Center, 464 -7532.
cc: Interested Parties
216 First Avenue South • Seattle, Washington 98104 • (206) 464 -7090 • FAX 587 -4825
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
The Briefing
January 15, 1993
Report on
Flight Plan Briefing /Workshop #1
(1/14/93 -- Bellevue Conference Center)
Jim Street, a member of the Seattle City Council and president of the Puget Sound
Regional Council, opened the meeting at approximately 10 a.m. with brief remarks.
Street characterized the task facing the Regional Council as a "key regional system
decision...to decide how to meet the region's long -term commercial air transportation
capacity needs." He described the sequence of workshops, open houses, and meetings
leading to April 29 action by the Regional Council General Assembly, and said that he,
personally, had three objectives for the process:
1) to be fair and open - minded -- "we are eager to hear public input in all its diversity;"
2) to be thorough; and
3) to be decisive.
"That will be a challenge...I hope that each of us approaches this decision with the intent to
make a decision, not just stop one."
Street then turned over the task of chairing the meeting to the Regional Council's
Transportation Policy Board chair, King County Councilmember Bruce Laing.
The next speaker was Mary McCumber, executive director of the Regional Council, who
talked about the Council's mandates under federal and state laws. She said the Regional
Council is a new regional planning organization for cities and counties in King, Kitsap,
Pierce and. Snohomish counties; the cities and counties signed an interlocal agreement in
1991 under the state's Interlocal Cooperation Act, and the purpose of the Regional Council is
to carry out state and federal law for transportation planning and regional growth
management.
She described changes in the Regional Council's Executive Board membership that are being
undertaken in response to the state Regional Transit Act of 1992, but said the proposed
changes do not change the Regional Council's responsibilities.
216 First Avenue Soon • Sec`le, Wcshinoton 98:04 • (206) 464 -7090 • FAX 587 -4825
Under federal and state laws, she said, the Council, as the designated Metropolitan Planning
Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Organization, has new responsibility and
authority for regional transportation planning and must do a Regional Transportation Plan
that covers all aspects of the transportation system, including highways, ferries; public transit
and airports.
She also described the requirements of the state Growth Management Act, the Regional
Council's role in developing multicounty policies, and the need for consistency between
jurisdictions, and between county and local plans, which also must be consistent with the
Regional Transportation Plan.
Sarah Dalton, airport planning and capacity officer for the Northwest/ Mountain Region
of the Federal Aviation Administration, used the "four -post plan" to illustrate arrivals and
departures at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. She described the complexity of regional
airspace management and the airport system in the central Puget Sound region. "...there's a
whole lot of planes, a whole lot of congestion... (it's) a very unique place in the country to
try to do anything with airport capacity."
She said the Puget Sound region faces a "capacity crunch, at this time, mostly in poor
weather conditions," and when the cloud ceiling gets down to 5,000 feet, Sea -Tac Airport
goes from a dual arrival stream to a single arrival stream. A major problem, she said, is
that the runways at Sea -Tac are only 800 feet apart, while at least 4,300 feet from centerline
to centerline is needed for "independent" operation of the two runways, and 2,500 feet for
"dependent" operation.
On a clear day, she said, Sea -Tac averages approximately 60 arrivals per hour; on a
"marginal" weather day, the arrivals per hour are "in the low 40s;" and in poor weather,
about 20 percent of the time, there are about 30 arrivals per hour. She said the FAA is
doing a lot of technology research -- "we recognize we can't deal with air capacity problems
around the country with (additional) runways alone."
However, she said such technology as Rapid Update Radar, a Global Positioning System and
a Microwave Landing System won't change the need for runway separation standards based
on air turbulence from aircraft (called wake vortex), and "won't reduce the crunch," though
a Microwave Landing System could produce a "marginal capacity increase at Sea - Tac."
Jerry Dinndorf, director of the Growth Management Planning Department at the
Regional Council, gave an overview of Flight Plan activities to date, and also talked briefly
about the recommendation of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee, which has
recommended a multiple airport system that includes a third runway at Sea -Tac, opening up
Paine Field in Snohomish County to commercial aviation, and, at a later date, selecting a site
in Pierce County or Thurston County to meet additional commercial air capacity needs.
Bob Wallace, who chaired the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee, described the
need to provide additional air capacity for the Puget Sound region as "one of the most
important issues to confront this region in the last 20 years and in the next 20 years." He
said that after three years of looking at the issue, the Puget Sound Air Transportation
Committee concluded "that we do in fact have a serious .problem...if we don't do
something... we will have a very serious economically life - threatening,
quality -of -life- threatening problem." He said it would occur "if we're lucky by the year
2000; if we're not lucky, perhaps as early as 1996." He said the Committee looked at
practically every conceivable alternative, "everything from soup to nuts, from helicopters to
aircraft carriers in Puget Sound."
"Every place in the world that's healthy economically is grappling with air capacity,"
Wallace said. He said the region has four options:
1) do nothing;
2) "go out in the desert" as Dallas and Denver did;
3) "simply bite the bullet and expand the existing airport" as Vancouver, B.C., did; or
4) develop a multiple airport system -- "this is the one that seems to be working in most
other communities around the world."
He said the multiple airport system recommended by the Commission has "three legs,
equally crucial," including reconfiguration of Sea -Tac (the addition of a third runway); the
use of Paine Field, "perhaps the most under - utilized airport in the western world;" and long
range, an additional commercial air facility in Pierce or Thurston county.
He said the Committee believes "it's the only feasible alternative for a host of economic and
political and geographic and other reasons," urged the Regional Council to "move it
forward," and move it "as efficiently as the process will allow."
Peter Beaulieu, Flight Plan Project Manager for the Regional Council, described the
process that led to the development of the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement,
which, he cautioned, is "not a siting study ", but an overall look at system options. He said
the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement does not identify a preferred
alternative; rather, the major alternatives it identifies are:
Sea -Tac Airport with, as capacity enhancement measures:
demand management and system management, or
a new dependent third runway, or
a new remote airport
a two - airport multiple airport system
with Sea -Tac and a site to the north or the south
a three - airport multiple airport system
with Sea -Tac and airports to the north and the south
a replacement airport, or
no action.
He concluded by saying that the regional preferred alternative is to be developed through the
decision process now underway.
Gary Grant, Port of Seattle Commissioner and a member of the Regional Council's
Transportation Policy Board, said studies show "we must take steps at Sea -Tac today,...the
Sea -Tac facility is nearing capacity, especially in bad weather." He noted that Sea -Tac
experienced a 10 percent increase in operations (landings and takeoffs) from -1991 to 1992,
with more than 350,000 operations carrying 18 million passengers in the last year. He said
Sea -Tac will exceed its efficient capacity of 380,000 operations as early as 1996.
He noted that the Port of Seattle Commission approved Resolution 3125 addressing
mitigation issues, the Port is accelerating noise insulation of 5,000 homes and will have up to
another 5,000 homes insulated for protection from noise by 2001. He said the Port is
supplementing its single - family residence insulation program with accelerated insulation of
multifamily housing, schools and other institutions. "We've been recognized nationally as a
leader in noise mitigation."
He said that overall, the Port is tripling the number of homes to be insulated, and that the
Port passed Resolution 3125 "with hopes and the firm belief that the Regional Council will
adopt a regional solution."
"Sea -Tac, even with improvements, can't meet the capacity needs of the region," he said.
Robert Levanthal, the chair of the Washington State Air Transportation Commission,
discussed his commission's review of the Flight Plan demand forecasts. "No single forecast
can be relied upon," he said, adding that forecasts "have historically been erroneous." He
suggested that the characterization of his commission's report to the Legislature on the Flight
Plan forecasts was inaccurate.
One reason he said the Flight Plan air capacity forecasts are wrong is that "the elasticity
factor is a one -to -one ratio with the price of tickets...and as ticket prices go up, travel,
particularly discretionary travel, will go down...." (NOTE: The complete text of the
committee's discussion of the Flight Plan forecasts is attached.)
r
Levanthal suggested that a new Denver airport may have an impact on capacity needs at
Sea- Tac... "there are puts and takes everywhere...no forecasts are certain."
Transportation Policy Board Chair Bruce Laing asked if that meant that forecasting is
impossible.
Levanthal said that the history is that forecasts are wrong..." And suggested that the
message was, "don't pour concrete until you're sure of what the facts are."
Tom Brown of Eldec Corporation and a member of the Transportation Policy Board
asked Levanthal what he thought was the right course of action for the Regional Council to
pursue, and when.
Levanthal said, "You shouldn't commit until the last possible moment... (but that)you could
easily say the last possible moment is now...." He said that "clearly ", the lead times needed
for air capacity expansion planning are "monumental." "All I'm saying is, don't pour
concrete until you have to..." He noted also that the recent rapid increase in commuter
flights at Sea -Tac is "now levelling off," and that if those flights remain at current levels, it
would affect whether there is a need for additional airport capacity.
Dick Mudge of Apogee Research, Inc., was introduced as a consultant hired by the
Regional Council to help answer technical questions that arise during the Flight Plan decision
process. He said the Puget Sound area is not alone in dealing with air transportation issues,
and talked his experience in dealing such issues in other parts of the country, including
Minneapolis -St. Paul, where policymakers are considering either doubling the size of the
current airport or building a new airport, and Phoenix, where policymakers are considering a
possible regional airport.
Mudge talked about environmental quality and livability issues; he said the effects of
aviation capacity decisions:
1) are long term;
2) have a "tremendous impact" on the nature of a community in terms of growth, economic
growth and value choices; and
3) "this is a true public - private partnership...we're dealing with the market, which limits
options..."
He said the effect of air capacity decisions on environmental quality and livability may be
discounted by some people, but "these things are real...", and said there's a lot of research
that shows that noise, for example, can have real health effects. He said technology, such as
the move from Stage 2 aircraft to quieter Stage 3 aircraft, can help address some noise
impacts, but said it's "part of the solution...but not a complete solution."
He said airports have a wide range of impacts, some negative and some positive, and the
negative impacts are "much easier to identify," while the positive impacts don't always
receive the same kind of attention.
"It's important to remember there are broader positive impacts" such as economic benefits,
Mudge said, and a challenge is, "can we use those to compensate those affected by negative
impacts...." He said that in doing airport planning, it's important to decide "what can we do
to abate them, to offset them..." and "if we were dealing with a situation in which nobody
lost, we wouldn't all be here."
He said transportation is a key factor in economic growth, "and that's certainly true of
aviation services, especially as we move into an international economy." Aviation is an
important factor, but not the only factor, in economic growth, he said. He discussed aircraft
delay, and said, while a delay of five or six minutes "sounds like what's the big deal...when
you do have a capacity problem, they (the delays) tend to be much longer than that."
He said the average delay at Sea -Tac currently is about five minutes, and if nothing is done
to address capacity needs, that delay could go to nine minutes (delay for individual aircraft
can be five to 10 times the average annual delay.) What's acceptable delay at one airport
may not be acceptable at another, he said, noting that at LaGuardia in New York the average
delay is 12 minutes, while Phoenix is aiming for a level of service that would ensure only an
average three - minute delay -- "there's no single right or wrong answer."
He said airports delays affect ground access as well, noting the large public cost of ground
improvements while "airport improvements tend to be borne by users (the airlines)... but all
these tend to come out of our pockets someplace." He also noted that while the current
Flight Plan effort focuses on commercial air transportation, whatever is done will have an
effect on the total regional system of airports, including general aviation, which includes
corporate jets, emergency aircraft and small airplanes used for recreational and other
purposes.
"We can't just say let's look at this because it's best for commercial... ", he said, and added
that capacity at Sea -Tac also will be affected by what happens in the rest of the country.
The Workshop
Following a break, Transportation Policy Board Chair Laing began the workshop, saying,
"these workshops are not public hearings and are not designed for debate... ", adding that
opinions can also be expressed at later open houses and a public hearing in March. "The
workshops are for us to gain information."
Pierce County Councilmember Barbara Skinner said she has been receiving a number of
letters on the Flight Plan issue, and surmised that other Regional Council board members had
too; Laing said copies of correspondence should be forwarded to Flight Plan Project
Manager Pete Beaulieu at the Regional Council, so that copies could be made for all
Regional Council board members.
Beaulieu began the introduction to workshop issues with a brief discussion of growth trends
in. airport .capacity needs that had been identified in Flight Plan studies, and also suggested
that, to put discussions of noise issues in perspective, board members should be aware that
going from 70 decibels to 80 decibels, for example, is a doubling of noise volume, and 90
decibels is four times as loud as 70 decibels.
Mudge also discussed passenger demand and suggested that trends indicate that the future
rate of growth will be slower than it has been in the past; that the growth rate of operations
(takeoffs and landings) also will be slower because the average aircraft size is increasing and
because the percentage of seats filled (called the load factor) also is increasing.
However, he also cautioned that financial troubles have resulted in airlines deciding to defer
some aircraft purchases, so that the average size of airplanes may not increase "as fast as we
originally thought."
He said a lot of the impact of noise is based on perception, that some people in high noise
areas don't complain, while others in low noise areas who are introduced to new noise do
complain, even though it may not be as high as in high noise areas. He said a great many
noise complaints come from people around airports who live outside the FAA - recognized 65
Ldn noise area. (Note: Ldn, a noise measurement, is the average noise over a 24 -hour
period, with a penalty for nighttime noise.)
Air Washington
Brad Jurkovich, the director of Air Washington, said his organization "advocates and
supports" the recommendation of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee. He said
the organization includes small businesses and large businesses, small organizations and large
organizations, including the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and said a coalition of
labor and business organizations also is supporting the recommendation. "We can't ignore
this decision...it impacts all of our jobs," he said.
Kit Narodick of Air Washington, who chaired the forecast subcommittee of the Puget
Sound Air Transportation Committee, discussed how the committee's forecasts of the
region's air capacity needs were developed. He said the committee used "the same kinds of
data from the same sources that other agencies and institutions in the State of Washington
have used and are using" for projections for roads and high speed rail. "No one has ever
said our forecasts are wrong," Narodick said. "We have come out of this process with it
agreed upon that it's a darn good forecast."
He said he would characterize the Regional Council as a corporate board of directors,
"you're getting input and you've got to bite down hard on the bullet and make a decision..."
He said some would advocate waiting until the number of operations (takeoffs and landings)
at Sea -Tac gets to 400,000 to build -- "you know, and I know, we can't do that."
"It's true that no forecast is 100 percent," he said, adding that the reason for forecasting is
not to come up with an exact number, but to develop a range with which to plan. "By
2020,everybody will be shaking their heads affirmatively that...we will have run out of room
at Sea-Tac." He said that the committee looked at demand management and the potential of
such new technologies as a Microwave Landing System and a Global Positioning System,
and "we came out of that process believing that it might help, but it won't solve the
problem."
He said it is remarkable that the current commercial air system can land huge 747 airplanes
every 60 seconds at Sea -Tac, but there is a finite amount that can be improved upon, and
that new technology "may help at the margin, but it won't cure the problem."
"It's a certainty we will run out of capacity; the time to start making a decision is now." He
concluded by saying that the committee opted to include Paine Field in its recommendation
because it was closer for anyone from Highway 520 north to travel to Paine Field than to
Sea -Tac.
Also speaking with the Air Washington contingent was Robert Kapp, president of the
Washington Council on International Trade and executive director of the Washington
State China Relations Council. "Whether we like it or not, the State of Washington relies
for its survival on full engagement in international activity," Kapp said. The state is a
national resource, "particularly our ports and our gates of entry," funneling vast amounts of
cargo and people into the U.S. and overseas, Kapp said, adding that counting exports alone,
a 1987 study showed that one in six or one in five jobs in the state relied directly on trade,
and imports are also extremely important.
"In this state more than most, (trade) provides the jobs, it pays the rent, it keeps the
communities healthy," Kapp said. And while the state used to have a primarily natural
resource -based economy, and agriculture still plays a very major role, "the real engagement
in international economy is in advanced technology," movable businesses that rely on a
sound air transportation system, he said.
"For their businesses, it's not just the individual who goes to japan, but every person in that
company" who has a stake in and a job that relies on being able to get products and services
to overseas markets, he said.
"Failure of the infrastructure to keep up with the needs of the global economy can be very,
very damaging," Kapp said. "We live or die here on international trade." He said air
transportation is an "absolutely crucial requirement ", and "we are not alone in asking
ourselves these questions" about how to meet our commercial air travel needs. He lauded
the new administration in Washington, D.C., for recognizing as previous administrations
have not that "our domestic and foreign health are absolutely inseparable" and "you cannot
thrive in your domestic regeneration...if you're not making it in the global economy."
Dick Ford of Air Washington, who was executive director of the Port of Seattle until
1985, when he retired, and also chaired former Governor Booth Gardner's Growth
Strategies Commission, talked about some of the issues the Growth Strategies Commission
faced, including the need to able to site "essential public facilities...no matter how
controversial they might be," and the need for fair sharing of impacts. He said the concept
of regional approaches to important issues, and the need for some balancing of regional
requirements between communities, which is embodied in the work of the Growth Strategies
Commission and the state Growth Management Act, is applicable to the discussion of how to
meet the region's commercial air transportation capacity needs.
Those concepts are part of what led to the recommendation of the Puget Sound Air
Transportation Commission and the adoption of Resolution 3125, which calls for a regional
solution to the region's air capacity needs, Ford said.
That means that "some of the capacity required needs to be placed in some other facility than
at Sea -Tac," Ford said. "You can ask communities to bear only so much of a load..." which
is why a multiple airport system was recommended by the Puget Sound Air Transportation
Commission and endorsed by Air Washington; he added that multiple airports are being
developed in New York and other places around the country for some of the same reasons.
Ford said that when he was involved in the 1960s with developing the second runway at Sea -
Tac, "we made some projections (as to demand)..." and they were "remarkably accurate."
He said the one exception was that "we assumed people would be traveling in larger
aircraft...and the number of commuter aircraft has grown more than we projected."
Pierce County Councilmember Skinner asked Ford to describe who Air Washington is,
and he agreed to provide a list of member organizations, which will be available at the next
Flight Plan Workshop. He described the organization as "an advocate for meeting the needs
of adequate air capacity" and said "we believe the forecasts in Flight Plan are reasonably
accurate...." It's important to remember that forecasts are not designed to be absolutely on
the mark, and that debate over their exactness should not obscure the need for the region to
act to meet its projected air capacity needs, Ford said.
"We have plenty of examples of where we have failed to build adequate infrastructure...we
live with those daily," Ford said.
Regional Council President Jim Street said the Air Washington speakers had emphasized
the effect of air capacity needs on the ability of the region to compete internationally, and
asked if they had information on which specific portions of air traffic have the most value
and impact on the region's economy.
Kit Narodick of Air Washington said it would be difficult to disaggregate the economic
numbers to provide that kind of answer. He said one option that the Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee had initially found quite "seductive ", but that was later dismissed,
was moving all commuter traffic from Sea -Tac to other airports in the region. In looking at
commuter traffic, the committee discovered that nearly half the passengers on commuter
flights were connecting passengers who would have to go to Sea -Tac anyway to catch other
flights, he said.
He said this region depends on Sea -Tac being able to meet demand to compete
internationally, and that the airport accents advantages that help the region, including the fact
that it is the closest airport in the continental U.S. to Asia and the only airport that is
equidistant between Asia and Europe. Other airport operators around the country say "the
Asian traffic is for you guys to lose," Narodick said.
Street said that from the discussion, and from the point of view of adding value to the
economy, it appeared that connecting flights could be very significant.
Mike Feldman, manager of aviation for the Port of Seattle, said 70 percent of the
passengers using Sea -Tac are origin or destination passengers and 30 percent are connecting
to other flights, and the destination passengers and the connecting passengers are in the same
airplanes.
Save Our Communities
Bob Stahl, vice chair of Save Our Communities, said the organization was "founded a year
ago to protest the findings" of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Commission. He said
opponents of the recommendation have been characterized as NIMBYs (Not IN My
Backyard), a label that is "very offensive and incorrect."
"Our backyard is governed by the 15- year -old compact that the citizens and Snohomish
County agreed to," and which says that commercial air traffic would not be introduced to
Paine Field, he said. "Why is the PSRC (Regional Council) now trying to come between the
people and the county? Why are you trying to radically change a highly successful
relationship between government and the people ?"
He said Save Our Communities members have other questions, including whether there in
fact is an air transportation capacity problem; if there is, why the Regional Council has
"assumed lead responsibility to solve it;" and if there is a problem, and it's the Regional
Council's problem to solve, "why the rush ?"
Terry Mundorf of Save Our Communities, identified as an attorney with experience in
land use, talked about the issue of equity, which he said should include the continuity of the
relationship between Snohomish County and the people who reside near Paine Field. He said
that when Paine Field was deeded to the county it was "out in the sticks ", and there was a
conscious choice made that it would be used for general aviation and light industrial. At the
time, there were less than 30,000 residents in the area; in 1990 there were 42,000; by 2010,
there could be 74,000 residents in the area, he said.
Mundorf said Snohomish County is the fastest growing county in the state and the Paine
Field area is the fastest growing area in the county; that it has the highest density of
households to area of any of the options looked at during the Flight Plan project. It would
require the largest investment for noise mitigation, "by 10 times "; and would expose the
largest new population to high levels of noise while providing the least amount of available
undeveloped land, he said.
He characterized the area as "incompatible with commercial airplane use" and said it would
be very expensive to convert to such use. Calling it "the economic engine that drives
Snohomish County and perhaps the region," Mundorf said the area provides 34,000 jobs and
has the highest employment density of any sites considered; and that the introduction of
commercial air traffic would threaten rather than enhance Snohomish County development.
He said that while Flight Plan environmental analysis says that opening Paine Field to
commercial air transportation would bring new development, it would in fact displace
existing businesses and replace high technology /high paying jobs with lower paying service
industry jobs.
Mundorf also talked about existing access problems at Paine Field, saying all major arterials
in the area have severe congestion problems, and that even with planned improvements, eight
of the major arterials in the area will still have severe congestion problems in 1995. He said
the area is unique in that it has a "double peak" congestion problem caused by shift changes
at the Boeing facility, so that congestion starts earlier, ends later, involves more cars, and
lasts longer; the Mukilteo ferry dock and other developments in the area further exacerbate
congestion, he said.
He said the Flight Plan work don't say how much it will cost to correct traffic congestion
problems associated with opening up Paine Field to commercial air traffic; and that spreading
air traffic out in the region "on a superficial level makes sense," but there is no analytical
information sufficient to accept that assertion. He also said there was no examination of
"cross- haul" traffic between airports resulting from the multiple airport system alternative.
While use of existing facilities appears to be a rational approach, that doesn't mean it's the
cheapest choice, he said, adding that it could cost up to $600 million to add an additional 10
percent of air capacity to the region.
"The inclusion of Paine Field in any alternative causes that alternative to be the most
expensive in almost every case," he said. Mundorf also said that he works for a number of
public utility districts in the Northwest and that they relied on what turned out to be
erroneous forecasts to try to build the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
nuclear plants, resulting in "monuments at Satsop and Hanford" to show how erroneous the
forecasts were, and "I'm not suggesting that's what's being urged on you, or you will have
that result," but "don't take a forecast as being written in stone" and "use them and view
them with care."
Wayne Elsaesser of Save Our Communities said that "at SOC, we take the position that
Flight Plan is foundationless." He discussed the evaluation of Flight Plan forecasts by
Richard de Neufville and said the "national landscape is littered with the remains of
misguided long term forecasts." He said the FAA "mandates the tactics of airport
planning... (and) forces us to follow a flawed process" that involves forecasts, alternatives
and the preparation of a master plan, and "no single forecast of airport needs can be relied
upon...." He said that while the Flight Plan forecasts were up to industry standards, the
methodology "remains fundamentally flawed."
He said that if there is a capacity problem, "why not rely on governance structure to solve
the problem;" if there is a problem and it's up to the Regional Council to resolve it, high
speed rail should be considered, "since 40 percent of the traffic at Sea -Tac travels relatively
short distances such as Seattle to Portland;" and that if there is a problem, advanced
navigation might provide the solution. "It is not unreasonable to expect that what are now
dependent runways can become independent runways," he said.
He questioned the "share the pain" approach of a multiple airport system and said the region
around Paine Field "has neither the population level nor the demand to support commercial
aviation at Paine Field." He labeled the recommendation by the Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee a "smoke screen" to mitigate the concerns of Sea -Tac area
residents, said the economic feasibility of a multiple airport system was "endorsed but not
demonstrated ", that accommodating air transportation involves a "disproportionate impact"
on the communities directly affected and would benefit a relatively small number of people.
"I'm not saying there won't be demand increases...we're looking for a win -win situation."
Peter Beaulieu of the Regional Council said de Neufville's analysis of the forecasts
indicated the level of activity indicated by the forecasts is likely occur at some point,
although the date is uncertain, but that argues for planning or at least preserving options to
meet the forecasted activity levels as_they .occur._ . ,
Regional Council President Jim Street said an important question could be whether demand .
could be put off so that it would coincide with the implementation of a high speed rail
system, and if it could, that could significantly influence the Regional Council's decision and
could influence the decision on whether to build a high speed rail system.
Jim Shoemake of Save Our Communities, Mukilteo School District superintendent, said
the Flight Plan environmental analysis had given very little attention to the impact that
commercial aviation at Paine Field would have on the schools in the area and the students
who attend them; "it's important that students have an environment in which they can learn
to their greatest potential."
He said the Mukilteo School District totally surrounds Paine Field and would be impacted
greatly, that five schools are within 3,000 feet of the runway, and 7 or 8 will be by the end
of next year. It's an area of 26 square miles with the airport and Boeing 'in the middle, and
the student population is increasing at the highest rate in the state, he said. He said studies
have shown that noise can have significant detrimental effects on students' learning, and that
while dealing with the air capacity problem in some other manner could be expensive, the
Mukilteo School District will have invested $200 million in schools, from the end of 1988 to
the end of 1993.
Bob Rayborn of Save Our Communities, who is director of evaluation and planning for
the Mukilteo School District, cited work of consultants used by the Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee which he said showed noise impacts affect those with mental
illness and young students in the primary grades the most, noting that there is a mental
illness facility near Paine Field, and said the Flight Plan environmental studies provide no
analysis of the noise impacts on schools in the year 2000 or 2020 -- "the school issue . is
basically brushed aside in this report." He said that even if schools were insulated for noise,
homes would have to be insulated as well, and that still does not shut out noise when
children are outside.
Terry Lewis of The Boeing Company and a member of the Transportation Policy Board
asked how the impacts would be different with commercial air traffic at Paine Field since
there are flights over the area now related to the Boeing facility there.
Shoemake said "we can live with the Boeing activity," adding that Boeing and others have
been very good neighbors and there aren't many flights resulting from those activities.
SOC vice chair Bob Stahl said an Air Washington survey of area residents showing support
for commercial aviation at Paine Field is "skewed" and offered as evidence the large number
of school districts, individuals and others who are opposing the Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee recommendation.
Preston Schiller of the Sierra Club and the Transportation Policy Board asked whether
most ground transportation congestion in the area came from single- occupancy vehicles or
high occupancy vehicles; Mundorf of SOC said most vehicles are single occupancy now but
are likely to be high occupancy in the future, and Lewis of Boeing and the Transportation
Policy Board said there is difficulty in the area now getting bus capacity to meet current
demand.
J
Dick Mudge of Apogee Research resumed discussion of forecasting and said some
characterizations of the opinions of de Neufville regarding forecasting might be misleading;
he said he is part of de Neufville's "fan club" and that a central premise of de Neufville's
observations is that "if you don't know the future in detail, we need to keep the options
open."
Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
Jim Murphy, city manager of the City of Normandy Park and president of the Regional
Commission on Airport Affairs, said, "we are committed to finding a solution" and "we are
interested in keeping Sea -Tac Airport open." He said the airport was originally designed to
handle 260,000 operations per year; "we agree with the Port of Seattle that something must
be done...(but) there isn't room for expansion." He urged the Regional Council to "not rush
into a hasty decision."
John Gibson of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs and president of Gibson
Economics Inc., compared planning for airports with planning for electrical power plants
and said "air travel demand forecasting is crucial to efficient air capacity management and
planning."
He suggested the Flight Plan forecasts might be overstated by as much 20 to 25 percent, and
"the extent of the uncertainty in air travel forecasts requires a much more extensive and
careful evaluation of the range of demand uncertainty, relative to baseline forecasts, than has
been performed to date..."
He said there appear to be "several opportunities for demand -side management" at Sea -Tac;
and that the airlines could change their current method of operations, which could
significantly affect demand. He said electrical facilities have the luxury of being located
fairly far away from those benefitted, while airports are closer and affect a lot more people
directly. Also, there is a public review process for electrical forecasts and a lot of the
assumptions that go into such forecasts, and that does not occur with air capacity forecasts.
He suggested that air transportation capacity decisions should instead be based on a range of
forecasts, providing the ability to make different decisions by establishing a certain need for
meeting the lowest forecast and having other . steps in line should they be needed. He said
contingency planning of that kind, based on a range of forecasts, was much preferable to
using the baseline forecasts alone, as had occurred in Flight Plan work.
He characterized the current forecasts as creating a situation in which the decisionmakers are
driving down the road, with the windshield painted black, using the rear view mirror. He
said there are a number of reasons to question the forecasts, noting that fuel prices are the
lowest they have been in many years, and that experience elsewhere supports the use of
lower air travel forecasts, including declining numbers of airlines, an industry trend; a
general effort to eliminate unprofitable flights; and the use of larger capacity airplanes.
Lynn Michaelis, chief economist for Weyerhaeuser Company, said "one has to be very
careful when forecasting airline volume and traffic," noting that many airlines are going
bankrupt and saying the assumption that all Stage 2 aircraft will be replaced by quieter Stage
3 aircraft by 2001 is "questionable ". He noted that most of the growth in operations at Sea -
Tac has been commuter flights, said mitigating the costs of impacts has been underestimated,
and added that only 2 percent of the flights and 5 percent of the passengers are international,
that 35 percent of the operations, accounting for only 8 percent of the passengers, are
commuter flights. The result is that if a third runway is built, approximately $600 million
would be spent to take care of a small number of passengers, he said.
He said one problem is that there is no peak -hour pricing at Sea -Tac, and that commuter
operations generate only $4 million to $6 million annually, questioning whether that justifies
a $600 million investment. He said one issue that is not addressed in the Flight Plan
environmental studies is the effect of noise on property values, yet there is a "strong
correlation" between noise and property values and it would cost hundreds of millions of
dollars more than has been estimated to compensate for losses in property values. He said
the criteria should be which site has the lowest overall social cost with the highest long term
social benefits.
He said there "is not much of a capacity problem if the pricing were done right" and there is
time to come up with better solutions than have been offered. He suggested that putting
$600 million into ground transportation would benefit the region more than putting it into air
capacity expansion.
James Chalupnik of RCAA, professor and associate chairman of the University of
Washington's Department of Mechanical Engineering, said Sea -Tac is oriented "in a way
that will cause the most noise and most trouble for the people of this region." He said other
areas around the country are moving their airports out of population centers, citing the
example of Washington, D.C., and Dulles International Airport, and Denver's plans for a
new airport.
He said airplanes from Sea -Tac are so noisy that "it's ludicrous to think we would want to
put these things where people live and raise their kids." He said the Washington
Administrative Code establishes permissible noise levels in residential and industrial areas,
and aircraft from Sea -Tac "exceed these limits both day and night," and "by many tens of
decibels."
He said the method of measuring noise by averaging the amount of noise over a 24 -hour
period is not adequate for evaluating the impact of noise on people who live near the airport.
"For noises such as aircraft noise, each event is an affront to the individual who is required
to endure these insults; averaging schemes gloss over the impact of isolated intrusions." He
said that even the shift from Stage 2 aircraft to Stage 3 aircraft is not much of a solution
because the Stage 3 aircraft are still very loud and can actually be louder than Stage 2
aircraft, depending on how they are operated, such as how low they fly.
Kent Matheson of RCAA and superintendent of the Highline School District said his
district is the 9th largest in the state with 17,000 students and completely surrounds Sea -Tac
Airport. He said the Highline District is in a unique position to comment on the impact of
noise on student learning because of its experience with the airport and diligent monitoring of
research on the issue. He offered four conclusions: that expansion keeps expanding, that
aircraft noise "is cheating our children out of their right to an education ", that the problem is
big, and that noise costs money. He said the district had received a $3.6 million settlement
from the Port of Seattle based on the results of a 1973 study of the impact of noise on
instruction; at that time, there were on average 220 daytime flights per day; in 1992, there
were an average of 808 daytime flights per day, he said.
"Settlements do not settle the problem if impact continues to expand." He said studies have
found that the percent of children reading one year below grade level increased as the
school's noise level increased, and two key reasons were children living and learning in an
environment where aircraft noise masks the words they hear. Teachers have to contend with
aircraft noise when they instruct; they don't shout over airplane noise, they pause, he said.
When this happens, students and teachers lose school time, and those that do not pause report
that their train of thought has been disrupted. Also, children do not adapt to noise, he said,
citing a Los Angeles study of children who attended noisy schools. They had a higher blood
pressure than those from quiet schools, even if the students lived in quiet neighborhoods, he
said.
Matheson said that 23 schools are within areas of unacceptable noise levels around Sea -Tac.
He said better measures of noise impact are available (the decibel C scale instead of the
decibel A scale) and must be used, and said there would be health and safety costs associated
with moving "seven Kingdomes worth of dirt over the next three years" to build a third
runway. With all the required heavy trucks travelling to and from Sea -Tac, "what safety
considerations will be put in place to safeguard our youngsters as they walk back and forth to
school ?" He noted that the area is largely without sidewalks and that children sharing the
road with so many earth- moving trucks would be dangerous, and cited a need for extra
crossing guards and extra school bus runs because of congestion if the third runway is
constructed.
And he said that in the discussion to date, it appears that economic benefits associated with
expansion have received a higher priority than social costs, and there needs to be a balance
of those issues.
Dr. Dennis Hansen, a cardiologist at Highline Community Hospital and a member of
RCAA, said that a majority of the people who live near the airport are bothered by noise;
that studies show an increase in the use of tranquilizers, in alcoholism and in requests for
admissions to psychiatric hospitals from noise - impacted neighborhoods around jet airports.
He said noise also affects pregnancy and is associated with lower birth weight and a higher
rate or pre -term babies, that the Environmental Protection Agency has reported that people
working in noisy areas have five times as many stomach and duodenal ulcers as the general
population, and that prescriptions for medicine to relieve high blood pressure increase
dramatically. He said the proposed expansion would have "enormous impacts for tens of
thousands of people in that area... ", noting that noise levels as high as 85 decibels have been
recorded in classrooms in the Highline District, and noise levels reaching 100 decibels have
been recorded outside the schools.
Dr. Lee Sanders, pathologist at Highline Community Hospital and a member of RCAA,
said that a 1991 state Department of Ecology study identified the airport as potentially a
major contributor of air pollutants to south King County, contributing up to 8 percent of the
carbon monoxide to King County and releasing 13 tons of benzene, a known carcinogen, on
an annual basis. He said studies have shown that children in Los Angeles have 10 percent to
17 percent less lung capacity than others due to air pollution.
"It's a very small airport that is very busy and has a wide spectrum of health aspects that
effect thousands of people and will effect thousands more," Sanders said.
Jennifer James, a cultural anthropologist and futurist, said she studies quality of life and
travels up to a half million miles a year advising major corporations on how to adapt to
change and emerging trends. She said that while the Flight .Plan forecasts advance a need for
capacity based on significant increases in business travel, there in fact will be less business
travel due to conference calling and other technological advances. She said the projections
"have nothing to do with corporate reality," and "it is absolutely absurd that this region can't
commit to light rail."
She said that "ill conceived projects" such as the airport expansion alternative are hard to
stop once a process to consider them gets started, and there is a need for new ways of
thinking. She said Sea -Tac was built in the wrong place to begin with, that Seattle "is
absolutely under an umbrella of aircraft right now," that the Flight Plan efforts don't assess
the impacts of much of the non - commercial air travel in the region, and that expansion of
Sea -Tac would lead to increased crime and violence. She said such efforts "demoralize
communities" and create "industrial ghettos."
"Money is not the issue, common sense and equity is," she said, suggesting that the process
was an exercise in "who you can unload this on." She said it is unfair to expand the burden
"once you have broken faith," suggesting that the Port of Seattle had not lived up to previous
agreements to compensate affected communities.
"It's time to serve the daily concerns of the people who live in the community, not those
who come and go," James said. "There's more to life than increasing its speed."
(Note: Additional written testimony was provided by the Regional Commission on
Airport Affairs.)
General Discussion
Mike Feldman of the Port of Seattle asked Lynn Michaelis of RCAA if there was a
problem with the employment projections used in the forecasts, and Michaelis suggested that
growth may have been overstated.
Mary Gates, Federal Way City Councilmember and a member of the Transportation
Policy Board, said she would like a range of forecasts developed from which a decision
could be made and suggested there were additional uncertainties that should be looked at,
such as recent news that Boeing would be building new, larger planes. She also suggested a
further look at new technology to deal with poor weather conditions... "if that's the issue,
then Sea -Tac airport is in the wrong place," she said. She also said she would be interested
in an analysis of the economic benefits versus the social costs of constructing a third runway.
Regional Council President Jim Street said there were two issues that came to mind that
could most effect his thinking on the air capacity issue, one regarding the impact of aircraft
noise, specifically, the merits of average noise versus the number of incidents; and the
second regarding demand management, and whether there is one way to implement it that
potentially has the least economic detriment and provides the most time to plan.
On noise, he said that while the Port of Seattle indicates there will be less noise in the year
2000, what he's heard from the discussions is that there will be more aircraft, and the noise
from each of them will be less, so it appears that the overall noise level could remain
constant.
Sanders of RCAA said the conversion to Stage 3 aircraft might not occur as quickly as some
have stated due to the financial condition of the airline industry, and Michaelis of RCAA
said that at night, Stage 3 aircraft are still noisy, especially if they're heavily loaded.
Chalupnik of RCAA said "it doesn't matter if you're looking at Stage 2 or Stage 3, they're
loud" and that's why the technique of averaging noise over a 24 -hour period is wrong.
Terry Lewis of Boeing and the Transportation Policy Board offered to bring in some
noise experts from Boeing to discuss noise, if decisionmakers want to hear from them.
Stahl of SOC said that currently around Paine Field, there are about five flights a day
resulting from Boeing operations, but that commercial activity could push the number
eventually to 150 a day.
Mudge of Apogee said the move from Stage 2 to Stage 3 aircraft "is a very significant
change... (that it) largely means that the noise is not going to go up" but that it offsets the
growth in the number of flights. He said federal law mandates the change to all Stage 3
aircraft by 2001, but that airlines are deferring purchases of new aircraft because of
economic problems and "I would not be surprised if that deadline is stretched."
Street said perhaps one consideration for a decision package could be a link between
construction and a complete phaseout of Stage 3 aircraft.
Mudge said not all noise complaints are based on the average noise over a 24 -hour period;
"people complain not only because of loudness but frequency. There's a lot of things in this
that go beyond pure mathematics."
Chalupnik said measuring noise on a 24 -hour average would be like measuring the
electricity someone would experience over 24 hours on a day when they were struck by
lightning.
Mudge repeated that there is a large variation between Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft, and said
how they are used can help determine how much noise they generate -- "there's some art to
this as well."
Sanders said "there are silent killers involved here... the kinds of things that are going get
people over time" such as high levels of stress and the pollutants released from aircraft
• emissions.
Preston Schiller of the Transportation Policy Board asked whether it was likely that
technology could help reduce emissions and asked also whether the impact of noise from auto
traffic and high speed rail, as an alternative to air capacity expansion, had been analyzed.
Sanders said that with an additional 274 flight out of Sea -Tac each day, even if there are
increases in efficiency due to new technology, "improvement (in reducing pollutant emissions
and noise) would be,negligible. "
Street asked about the effect of commercial air traffic from Paine Field on north Seattle.
Stahl of SOC said Paine Field traffic on a south approach would "bisect Seattle at .130th
Northeast" and said such traffic would have Sea -Tac air traffic above it, "keeping it low and
loud until it gets out of the Puget Sound basin."
Jennifer James of RCAA said that while "we don't believe in divide and conquer," there
are 70,000 people around Sea -Tac airport experiencing high noise levels from commercial
aircraft right now and none around Paine Field. She reiterated that the region should move
to light rail.
Lewis of Boeing and the Transportation Policy Board said that for Boeing operations near
Everett now, "we don't fly a straight southern path out of Paine Field."
Rick Aramburu, attorney for RCAA, said one of the things the Regional Council needs to
consider is whether the FAA - imposed Four -Post Plan that establishes arrival and departure
routes for aircraft landing at Sea -Tac should be changed.
Transportation Policy Board Chair Bruce Laing said there needs to be consideration of
developing a dynamic strategy and planning approach so that a range of options could
perhaps be established to deal with a range of forecasts and events.
Transportation Policy Board Member Mary Gates said "we may have a flight pattern
that's causing havoc" and she would like someone to look at whether it is "cast in stone" or
could be changed.
Jennifer James of RCAA said the FAA assumes its laws supersede all others and she would
"love to see the Puget Sound region go toe to toe with the FAA."
Laing said that while a number of community groups have indicated they are not trying to
close Sea -Tac, the comments by some members seem to indicate otherwise.
James said the issue is not to close Sea -Tac but to not expand it.
Aramburu said one of the goals of RCAA was to get maximum operational efficiency at
Sea -Tac and "those are some figures we're going to be talking about next time."
Sumner Sharpe, Regional Council consultant from Cogan Sharpe Cogan of Portland,
Oregon, closed the day's session with a summary. He said that there seems to be general
agreement that a varying set of demand forecasts should be considered and that there needs
to be a way to deal with uncertainty. Also, that the region needs to be able to keep some
options open. He said there continue to be differences of opinion on the degree of impacts
that occur from various facility decisions. He said there needs to be some consideration on
how to frame a decision based on the level of uncertainty that exists, and also the point at
which impacts should limit decisions.
The next Regional Council Flight Plan Workshop will be from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on
Thursday, January 21, at the Bellevue Conference Center.
• - REPORT TO
the
LEGISLATIVE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
November 20, 1992
Al RT
Washington Stcrte Air Transportcrtion Commission
604 Evergreen Plaza, P.O. Box 40936, Olympia, WA 98504-0936 • (206) 753-4989
Constructing new infrastructure at existing or new airports
This category includes most physical approaches to meeting demand, malting 4ncremental
ements at existing airports, such as adding runways; creating news at presently
• mused airports; adding new airports in metropolitan areas with high traffic volume; or
dew.. ping airports at remote locations dedicated to serving as transfertioints, often referred to
aswa�
This option is
However, due to
options is often diffi
r`•
only of the three capable of providingajor increases in system capacity.
monetary costs and environmental impacts involved, implementing such
infeasible. ,s
Two options for preserving the state'
acity ire' also suggested in the report. They are:
• Ensure strong land -use controls to
One of the key issues in land ds? controls
approaches to improving this situation are (1) eith
needs, or (2) giving at ieaat partial authority to 1 •
• Separate comrnewt and general aviation at airports
The mixing of 1 aircraft with jets results in fewer planes being
thus redu ' the opacity. ° Separation of general aviation from
benefi ; , could be achieved through indirect measures, such as providing
gen -,; aviation at airports with little commercial activity.
adjacent to airports compat:We with aviation
e coordination of jurisdictions. Two possible
ation requiring consideration of airport
er adjacent land use.
to operate at an airfield,
cial activity, where
facilities for
1.41 ItI.:
m these areas would help preserve the existing air capacity in Washington state, and prevent
itions that would impair it in the future.
PROJECT II(b) — Review of Flight Plan Demand and Capacity Assessments
Objectives. ESHB 2609 mandates a review of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee's
Flight Plan assessment of demand and capacity. This represents a departure from the Commission's
adopted work program which includes an assessment of statewide demand, capacity, and industry and
technological trends (Commission Project II(a)). In order to provide an objective analysis, the
Commission, through the normal consultant selection process, engaged an independent consultant to
undertake the review.
It is important to note that the Commission has not been directed by the Legislature, nor has the
Commission asked its consultant, to judge whether Flight Plan's process, evaluation of alternatives, or
recommendations are "proper." Neither the consultant nor the Commission as a whole has studied or
deliberated the question sufficiently to justify other than individual opinion.
20
Findings. Future world and regional economic circumstances, airline policies, and aeronautical
technology have been changing at a rapid pace, and they inevitably turn out to be different from that
assumed. The fact that any single forecast is almost certainly wrong is fully demonstrated by experience
nationally and internationally.
The discrepancies to be expected between actual growth and that anticipated by any single forecast have
been compounded by airline deregulation, which has led to great instability in the patterns of traffic. This
phenomenon has been extensively documented nationally. The volatility of traffic in the Puget Sound area
is evidenced by rapid changes in local traffic, such as the surge of commuter operations in the past few
years.
The future capacity of the existing airport facilities is also uncertain. This is because the "capacity" of
an airport is not only sensitive to the types of aircraft using the airport and their patterns of daily and
seasonal variation, it is also sensitive to the level of inconvenience that is judged to be acceptable. The
ability of a set of runways to handle traffic cannot be established on the basis of purely technical
considerations. Ultimately, the capacity of an airport represents an arbitrary level of convenience and
comfort.
The Commission's review of Flight Plan's forecast and capacity analysis methodology, base data,
assumptions, and results concluded that they. were conventionally and professionally prepared and are
reasonable within the standards of the industry. However, the fact is that no single forecast of future
airport needs can be relied upon.
Taking the inevitable unreliability of forecasts into account, the Flight Plan study correctly indicates that
there is a real risk that the existing airfield facilities at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport will
inadequate. The need for additional capacity is not absolute, since the forecasts cannot be certain. It is
possible that further facilities might not be required. Conversely, however, it cannot be demonstrated
that no facilities are needed. The real risk that new airfield facilities are needed is inescapable.
Given the unreliability of any single forecast, the report concludes, the proper basis for airport planning
is thus a broad range of forecasts, both of the level of traffic and of its range of requirements. These
need to be matched with an equally realistic broad range of estimates of the capabilities of future airport
facilities to serve traffic. As in any risky situation, the full range of possible scenarios has to be
recognized.
For Seattle - Tacoma International and the regional airports, there appears to be a strong possibility both
that there will be a real need to provide major new additions to airport capacity in the region, and,
alternatively, that current facilities could be made to cope with future needs with only modest
improvements. Specifically, the future traffic in the year 2010 might be estimated at 30 million plus or
minus 10 million passengers a year. This implies a "opacity gap" of anywhere from 0 to 20 million
passengers a year that might have to be provided for by additional runway capacity.
V(a)— Governance Authority and Key Policy Issues:.Z:: =: -
+r.
Objectives. The purpose of studyjs to examine how air transportation is currently governed in
Washington. Its intenti provide the Comnussiorrr-with- anearly assessment of governance issues and
an anal is (the key governance issues which the Commission wil=seed to address as part of policy
opment.
21
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
DRAFT WORKING PAPER NO. 1
AIRPORT DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
January 1993
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Puget Sound Regional Council is scheduled to amend the 1988 Regional Airport
System Plan in April 1993. This action will culminate a three -year effort, known as the
Flight Plan project, to examine and address the commercial air transportation capacity
needs of the central Puget Sound region. The amendment may consist of a range of
management and expansion actions.
As part of the Flight Plan effort, on October 6, 1992, the Regional Council released the
Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement which assesses the impacts of a range
of alternatives for meeting the region's commercial air transportation capacity needs.
This draft working paper on airport demand management and system management, and
two other working papers, on impact abatement and mitigation, and implementation of
decisions, are provided as supplemental information to previous Flight Plan reports and
the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Responses to all of the working
papers will help to shape the Regional Council's amendment to the Regional Airport
System Plan, last updated in 1988.
The elements of this paper are:
• the Summary, which includes this Introduction; an Overview, which defines
demand management, system management and airport capacity, and the potential
role of demand management and system management in the meeting the region's
commercial air transportation capacity needs; and Issues and Options, which
presents demand management issues and options in general terms;
• an Issue Index, which is a guide to the detailed text that is the major element of
this paper; and
• Working Paper No. 1, which provides detailed information and discussion on
demand management and system management issues, including timing and
implementation.
This document is a draft working paper and will be corrected and updated as new
information is presented. Contact: Peter D. Beaulieu, Project Manager, (206) 464 -7537.
216 First Avenue South • Seattle, Washington 98104 • (206) 464-7090 • FAX 587 -4825
OVERVIEW
Forecasts and public policy
Forecasts of future commercial air transportation needs show that the efficient capacity
of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport will be exceeded by the year 2000. This is partly
due to the closure of one of Sea -Tac Airport's two runways during bad weather,
approximately 44 percent of the time.
This working paper presents specific issues and possible options for airport demand
management and airport system management, to help public policy makers determine
what role these management actions might have in meeting future needs. An important
consideration throughout is the nature of the market and airline financing, and the need
for cooperation from the affected and federally deregulated airlines.
What are demand management and system management?
Demand management and system management strategies seek to manage the existing
airport(s) more efficiently and expand the capacity of the existing system of airports.
Through incentives or regulations, demand management shapes the demand side of the
air transportation equation, rather than only the supply side (e.g., construction actions).
System management considers a more integrated use of Sea -Tac Airport with other
airports in the region and other transportation options such as high speed rail.
What is airport capacity?
Airport "capacity" is the rate at which users of a facility can be accommodated. Capacity
relates to both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules, is usually expressed in
annual service volume, and is explained further in the Flight Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement (Sections 1.1 and 2.3.) Airport capacity factors generally fall into
three categories:
• airside factors, including weather, airspace, airfield layout and coordination of
airfields, peaking requirements, and aircraft mix;
• terminal capacity, which recently was expanded at Sea -Tac Airport; and
• landside capacity, which is the capacity of the ground transportation system to get
traffic to and from the airport.
2
What is the potential role of demand management and system management?
Demand management and some system management approaches were examined during
Flight Plan research prepared for the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
(PSATC Draft Final Report, Appendix B -11).
Based on experiences in Minneapolis -St. Paul and in Boston, rather than a more site
specific analysis for Sea -Tac Airport, it was estimated in this earlier Flight Plan work
that demand management could delay the need for capacity improvements by five years.
The maximum demand management alternative was defined as including:
• variable pricing of gates, terminal space, and /or landing fees to discourage
use during peak hours;
• greater control on gate use and scheduling;
• technological advances to reduce aircraft separation, and other
transportation improvements such as high speed rail; and
• demand forecasts that already assume the use of larger average aircraft
size, and no further increase in the number of commuter operations.
A working paper on demand management and system management was completed and is
available, as part of the Flight Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as an
attachment to the Draft Final Report of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
(Appendix B -11). This working paper was critiqued by a panel of experts from Boston,
Washington D.C., and a major airline manufacturing representative. A verbatim
transcript of the critique is available from the Regional Council.
The summary recommendations from the expert panel were:
• Develop a clear understanding of airport proprietor rights. Work within
these rights and expect complex legal challenges of implementing measures
which extend beyond these rights.
• Treat demand management measures as one element of a comprehensive
program. Acknowledge this is not a long term solution, but rather a
strategy to delay and possibly help finance capacity improvements which
ultimately will be required.
• Evaluate demand management measures in terms of their effects on
different users, including the airlines, airports, community, passengers, and
cargo. Identify current "cross subsidies" (from the major airlines to the
commuter airlines, or from one airline route to another) within overall
system and industry user groups.
All of the Flight Plan alternatives are assumed to include some degree of demand
management and system management, including technological improvements such as
navigation equipment. The demand management and system management options that
are adopted, and their likelihood of success and actual success, can influence whether
and which additional capacity alternatives are adopted for the longer term (the year 2020
and beyond). Decisions for the near term and the long term are interrelated.
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
I. Demand management
• What are the demand management options?
Market solutions. This would include dependence on trends toward larger
aircraft, an assumption that is incorporated in the Flight Plan forecasts of aircraft
operations, and possible increases in ticket prices, which could moderate demand
trends.
Changing the aircraft mix at Sea -Tac Airport. This would focus on the recent
consumption of operational capacity at Sea -Tac by commuter planes.
Reconfiguring airspace. This could involve changing the Four -Post Plan, which
established arrival and departure routes and climb rates for Sea -Tac Airport.
Influencing the decisions of the airlines through peak pricing and other
incentives or regulations, including landing fees. This would gain some benefits
by shifting flights from peak periods, when congestion occurs, to other times of
the day. Local airport controls on aircraft access to airport gates could be used to
help regulate the size of aircraft or load factors. Load factor is the percent of
seats used by passengers.
• What demand management activities could occur with construction of a third
runway?
This could involve imposing restrictions on the third runway, if it is part of the
regional decision, and might include restricting the total number of operations
(takeoffs and landings) at Sea -Tac airport.
4
• What demand management activities could occur under the no- action alternative?
A no- action decision could prompt certain demand management adjustments by the
airlines.
II. System management
• What are the system management options?
Using the airports in the region more as a system. This might include shifting
general aviation activity farther away from the Sea -Tac area, joint use of military
facilities, and other coordinated activities. General aviation includes corporate jets,
emergency medical flights and small aircraft used for recreation and other purposes.
Improved technology. This could include airport navigation equipment and high
speed rail transportation.
• How should general aviation be considered in a regional airport system plan for
commercial air transportation?
This could include preserving a range of site options or sequencing a general aviation
amendment to follow an amendment for commercial air transportation.
III. Additional options under federal review
• What new airspace management approaches relevant to this area are under
review at the national level or by federal agencies?
These include new technology, new federal standards and expanded use of existing
systems.
IV. Timing and implementation
• When should demand management and system management actions be
implemented?
Options include acting on demand management first, making capital construction
contingent on local demand management or system management, deciding demand
management effects are uncertain and proceeding with capacity expansion, or working
toward an integrated strategy.
ISSUES INDEX to WORKING PAPER NO. 1
DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
ISSUES PAGE(S)
I. DEMAND MANAGEMENT 8 -19
ISSUE 1: Can airport and air system capacity be
increased without construction 8
ISSUE 2: Broad demand management options 9 -10
Market Solutions 9
Changing aircraft mix 10
Reconfiguring airspace 10
ISSUE 3: Peak pricing and other incentives 11 -14
Peak pricing 11
Operations -based pricing 12
Resource -based pricing 12 -13
Gate controls 14.
ISSUE 4: Demand management specific to
commuter flights 15 -17
ISSUE 5: Demand management related to a third runway
at Sea -Tac Airport 17 -18
Restrictions on the runway 17 -18
Restrictions on total operations 18
ISSUE 6: Demand management under no- action alternative.. 18 -19
II. SYSTEM MANAGEMENT 20 -25
ISSUE 7: Managing the airports in the region
as a system 20 -21
McChord Air Force Base 21
Boeing Field 21
ISSUE 8: New Technology 22
Microwave Landing System 22
Continuing improvements 22 -23
ISSUE 9: High speed ground transportation 23 -24
Assume it will be built 23
Accept as a bonus, but not a
substitute for air capacity 23 -24
Access to a replacement airport 24
ISSUE 10: General Aviation 24 -25
Preserving a range of site options 24
Follow commercial amendment with
general aviation amendment 25
III. ADDITIONAL OPTIONS UNDER FEDERAL REVIEW.... 26 -29
ISSUE 11: Airspace management approaches 26 -29
New Technology 27
New Standards 27 -28
Expanded Central Flow Control System 29
IV. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION 30 -31
ISSUE 12: Should action occur before, as part of, or
after capacity expansion 30 -31
Demand management first 30
Construction contingent on demand
management 30 -31
Demand management first in a regional
system 31
Assume demand management is an uncertainty
with capacity expansion 31
Work toward an integrated strategy 31
7
WORKING PAPER NO. 1
DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
I. DEMAND MANAGEMENT
ISSUE 1:
Without new construction, can the effective capacity of Sea -Tac Airport and the
regional airport system be increased toward a {higher limit than has been
assumed?
The Flight Plan consultants suggested that demand management at Sea -Tac
Airport could defer capacity expansion needs only by five years.
This conclusion was based on experience at other airports. However, local
circumstances and opportunities for demand management and system
management can vary widely. For example, while the high ratio of commuter
air operations at Sea -Tac is identified as a possible opportunity for improved
efficiencies, this is already factored into the Flight Plan forecasts of future
operations. Growing commuter passenger demand is forecasted to be handled
for the long term on a generally fixed number of commuter operations.
If demand management is imposed at Sea -Tac Airport, activity levels
forecasted in Flight Plan for possible supplemental airports would appear
later than shown. The benefit from demand management was not used to
adjust the timing of operational levels forecasted for supplemental airports,
under the multiple airport alternatives.
The actual effect of demand management on the region's commercial airport
capacity will depend significantly on the feasibility and selection of demand
management alternatives, and how successfully they are implemented.
The question then is, should demand management be chosen alone, betting
that it will resolve the capacity issue, or should it be chosen as part of a more
comprehensive regional alternative, and if so, when and how. For further
discussion of this issue, see Issue 12, pages 26 -28, regarding implementation.
8
ISSUE 2: What are some of the demand management options that could be applied to the
current air transportation system in the central Puget Sound region?
ISSUE 2 OPTIONS:
A. Market solutions.
The principle market solution effecting passenger demand for commercial air
transportation would be increasing ticket prices, which would be up to the
airline industry.
Nationally, passenger demand has risen in recent years largely through
discount pricing, even as airline costs have increased. The Air Transport
Association reports that by 1991, 94.9 percent of the expanded total number
of passengers enjoyed discounts averaging 65.6 percent off full fare (Airline
Business, September 1992, p. 41). Recently, overcapacity in the system has
been acknowledged as airlines announce substantial cuts in planned aircraft
acquisitions.
The three major factors driving the 1990 Flight Plan passenger forecasts were
population growth, regional economic growth, and constant yields.* (Past
trends in per capita airline use reflect a declining cost for airline tickets in
recent years.) For the future, if it is assumed that average yields will rise (in
real dollars), then this could directly moderate the passenger demand
forecasts. If instead, the airlines continue to manage to lower yields (move
more toward cost control policies), demand management (e.g., peak pricing)
or system expansion supported by airline landing fees may become even more
difficult.
*Note: Yields are revenues per revenue passenger mile, and serve as
a measure of the cost to fly. The FAA forecasts that yields will
increase slightly in future years.
Uncertainty within the airline industry is one argument for separating airport
system decisions from actual implementation steps which could be based on
monitored trends. (See Working Paper No. 3 on timing and implementation.)
9
B. Changing the aircraft mix at Sea -Tac Airport.
This involves accommodating increasing passenger demand in larger average
airplane sizes (e.g., new large planes and replacement of the smallest
commuter planes.)
Although it is very difficult to control aircraft size through public policy, this
market trend is built into the Flight Plan forecasts. Passenger demand may
increase by 178 percent between 1990 and the year 2020, but the operational
forecast increases by a lesser amount (48 percent). This moderated trend in
operations - -from 355,000 annual operations in 1990 to 524,000 in 2020 - -is the
trend used for developing the airport system alternatives presented in the
Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Comment: After the regional alternatives were defined in
Phase II of the Flight Plan Project, it was reported by the final
Phase III consultant that the passenger capacity of Sea -Tac was
about 35 million annual passengers, rather than the 25 million
figure used earlier in the study. This is a result of an assumed
increased aircraft size and acceptance of increased aircraft
delays. (The passenger level in 1990 was 16.2 million.) This
passenger activity level tests community capacity for noise
unless Stage 3 aircraft are as effective in reducing noise as is
modeled by the Integrated Noise Model (used for the Flight
Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement).
C. Reconfiguring airspace.
This could involve changing the Four -Post Plan, which was introduced in 1990
by the FAA. Changes could modify flight tracks, climb rates and turning
points. (If possible, these changes could modify noise impacts on the ground.)
The Four -Post Plan established a four - cornered pattern of airplane arrival and
departure routes and climb rates for Sea -Tac Airport. This improves
efficiency for the current level of operations, and incidentally, increases the
restricted bad weather arrival capacity in the south flow from 42 arrivals per
hour to 56.
Note: This action could increase annual capacity by perhaps 9 percent:
(56- 42)/42 x 44 percent of year x 70 (annual share that is
southflow) = 9 percent. (Working Paper 2 suggests that the Four -Post
Plan might be refined as a mitigation step. Present airspace capacity
might be affected.)
10
ISSUE 3:
What about using peak pricing and other incentives to influence the decisions of
the airlines and restore /adjust rising aircraft operational demand to existing
airport capacity?
Instead of responding to forecast - driven statements of need, decision - makers
could attempt to define and select a desired service level for the region. A
constrained demand curve could be based in part on a landing fee price
structure that reflects a broadened definition of airport and community
capacity.
ISSUE 3 OPTIONS:
A. Peak pricing.
Peak pricing would be charging a premium price in landing fees for
operations during peak hours. This would tend to spread operations to other
times beyond peak hours.
However, peak pricing might be especially difficult at Sea -Tac since the
peak period is affected by periodic weather conditions and the loss of one of
the two existing runways. Another difficult aspect of peak- spreading (moving
operations off of present peak periods) is that arrival times at Sea -Tac are
established by departures times from other parts of the country and the Far
East. Distance from travel origination points tends to create the morning,
noon, and evening peak periods at Sea -Tac. In addition, there is a risk that
evening peak flights could be displaced into later, and now quieter, evening
hours.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has drafted guidelines regarding peak -
hour based landing fees. These are under review by the federal Office of
Management and Budget.
Commuter and major airlines would react differently to peak pricing, based
on experience elsewhere. Landing fees account for only 2 to 4 percent of the
total operating costs of major airlines. The major airlines probably would
average the varied landing costs over all flights, and continue as usual, which
could negate the incentive effects of peak pricing.
Because landing fees and peak prices would be a larger share of commuter
operating costs, the commuter airlines would be forced to either stop service
or to improve toward greater efficiencies (assumed in the Flight Plan
forecasts) over the long term. In either case, these would likely have a
detrimental impact on service to smaller communities.
11
B. Operations -based pricing.
Operations -based pricing would charge landing fees based largely on
operations rather than only on airplane weights.
Typically, landing fees are based on aircraft weights, such that large planes
and small planes pay differing amounts. Yet, the resource in short supply is
airspace, and the airspace or slot, which is the required separation between
aircraft as they approach and land at an airport, can be as large or larger for
small planes as for large planes. Small planes often need a larger slot than
large ones, to avoid the air turbulence from larger planes they may be trailing.
The MASSPORT program in Boston (Logan Airport) arrived at a landing fee
based two - thirds on airspace consumption and one -third on aircraft weight.
This approach was not accepted by the federal Department of Transportation
because it did not closely link the fee structure to the peak periods
(congestion) of the airport. However, earlier programs at New York (1968)
remain in place and were successfully defended in court even though the
landing fee is uniformly applied across the full day (not only peak periods).
Comment: The MASSPORT program consisted of three parts: landing fees
(eliminating the subsidy for smaller aircraft and the related
congestion); federal support for dispersal of a larger share of jet
flights, and for high speed rail; and a request for national
improvements in the Air Traffic Control system and other
technical and personnel improvements.
Important details on the MASSPORT program were reported
to the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee by
MASSPORT officials and are available to policy makers
in our region through the Regional Council.
C. Resource -based pricing.
A similar but more comprehensive approach to operations -based pricing
would be resource -based pricing. This would include charging airlines larger
landing fees that more accurately reflect the airport's operations and
maintenance costs. Revenue collected from other sources might then be
released to cover new costs such as mitigation.
12
Currently, the Sea -Tac landing fees are based on landed aircraft weight and
are set each year (and adjusted at mid year) at such a level that operating
costs, plus debt service x 135 %, are covered. This margin assures debt
repayment.
However, the operating and maintenance costs passed on to the airlines are
net costs; other revenues, significantly, are considered first for payment of
these costs. In effect, aircraft landings are subsidized by both federal grants
(Airport Improvement Program under the Airport and Airways Act trust
fund), and other airport revenue sources.
The result is that the fees do not convey actual costs of operations and,
therefore, do not encourage -- directly through the market -- needed
efficiencies.
Airport Operating and Maintenance Costs are amended in the following way
(typically and at Sea -Tac) before being passed on to the airlines:
Subtract - the portion of police expense allocated to
marine security,
Add + telecommunication equipment and other
costs,
Add + allocated administrative expenses of the Port of
Seattle,
Add + 135 % of debt service on airport revenue bonds,
Subtract - The airport revenues exclusive of airline
landing fees (i.e., property rentals, transient airline
landing fees, concession revenues, etc.)
Equals = landing fees required to support the
airport.
Source: "Paying for the Puget Sound Regional Airport System ", Rodwell
Research, May 1987, p. 15.)
D. Gate controls.
Gate controls would be more a regulatory action rather than a price -based
action. A gate is a terminal parking space for an aircraft at an airport.
Gate controls would be the primary option under the full control of the
airport operators, and not subject to the authority of the Federal Aviation
Administration.The Federal Aviation Administration does not assume
responsibility for aircraft operations until after they pull away from gates at
the airport.
Airline gate access is defined in contracts between the airport operators and
the respective airlines. As direct regulations of the airport terminal facility,
gate controls could be used to require airlines, before their planes can depart,
to use larger and fewer planes and achieve identified load factors (percent of
seats filled).
For example, municipal ordinances controlling gate use have been used in
the Los Angeles area, but not at the primary airport. These kinds of
management tools used at secondary airports are less vulnerable to rejection
by the courts because they do not restrict citizen access to the region.*
The risk is that in a highly competitive market, airlines may simply select
other nearby airports, depending upon possible relative advantages.
*Note: An analogy can be seen between successful growth management
at the city level, and a more stringent constitutional review that
might be imposed at the regional level. In the latter case of
regional growth limits, this could restrict access to a region,
rather than simply redistributing growth to relatively less
restrictive cities in the region.
Comment: Through a local ordinance, Long Beach Airport has imposed a
cap on aircraft operations. Recent case history and passage of
the National Aviation Noise Policy in 1991 (generally requiring
transition to all Stage 3 aircraft in 2000) impose these
constraints: limited or no restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft, daily
number of commercial flights, and curfews. The current limit
of operations at Long Beach was assigned through Federal
District Court. Airline decisions and economic conditions have
reduced real operations to below this level. There are no plans
for airport expansion. Long Beach is one of three airports in
the nation having only Stage 3 operations.
14
ISSUE 4: Are there additional ways, specific to commuter flights, that total airport
operations (airplane arrivals plus departures) could be handled more efficiently
in the near term, thus extending the existing airport efficient capacity?
The Flight Plan demand forecasts anticipate a trend toward larger planes,
but the assumed rate at which this takes place is not assured. One major
difference between two of the forecasts reported in the Flight Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement is the 88,000 difference in commuter
operations in the year 2020.
The FAA reports that the number of commuter flights /per hour does involve
the periods of peak use, and is almost uniform between 6:00 a.m. and 8:30
p.m. (FAA Aviation Forecasts, Seattle - Tacoma HUB, October 1992, Table,
p. 76.) Discussion before the Port of Seattle (October 27, 1992) suggested
that the benefits of controlling commuter aircraft might be minimal since
commuter traffic reportedly accounted for only 10 to 15 percent of total
operations during peak periods.
Commuter Aircraft Forecasts (in thousands of operations)
1995 2000 2010 2020
Flight Plan 158 136 124 126
Update 138 148 182 214
(Difference) (12) (58) (88)
Source: Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, Table 2 -4
Over the long term (2020), this difference is equivalent to 25 percent of the
total operations at Sea -Tac in 1990, or at least five years of operations growth
(at 5 percent per year).
Comment: Commuter flights are 42 percent of the annual total at Sea -Tac.
This is the highest ratio among major airports in the United
States, where the average is 20 -25 percent. (FAA Statistical
Handbook of Aviation, Calendar Year 1990, Table 2.17)
15
The alternative forecasts (Flight Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Table 2 -4, summarized above) show that this
will either diminish in the future to 23 percent (Flight Plan), or
only slightly to 38 percent (under the "Update of Passenger and
Operations Forecasts for Seattle- Tacoma International Airport ",
P & D Aviation, March 11, 1992).
Flights of 150 miles or less accounted for 38 percent of all
operations in 1991 (1991 Airport Activity Report, Port of
Seattle, p. 14).
ISSUE 4 OPTION:
A. Rely on the market, through ticket prices or other factors, to influence
passenger demand or airline policies.
The principle issue is that the airline industry tends to provide cross subsidies
to commuter airlines, making commuter flights cheaper than actual costs and,
therefore, more prolific. It's important to note, however, that changing these
cross subsidies is largely an option left to the airlines, and dependent on
market forces, and therefore is not likely to be affected by public policy.
Airline registration code sharing* and mergers, especially since 1985,
improved commuter marketing and coincided with the rapid increase in
commuter flights at Sea -Tac and elsewhere. Commuter flights at Sea -Tac
Airport increased by nearly 150 percent between 1985 and 1989, to 42 percent
of the total operations. Commuter flights at Sea -Tac declined by nearly one
percent in 1992.
Considering another market force, increasing airline use between 1978 and
1988 coincided with a 10 percent reduction nationally in "yields" (see Issue 1,
Option A) during this same period. However, further market expansion into
middle income groups is uncertain. Declining ticket costs have been a factor
in rising per capita demand and, therefore, total demand.
*Note: Through code - sharing the major airlines give to commuter
airlines visibility on computerized ticket reservation systems,
which is designed to increase ticket sales.
Comment: Airline ticket prices are mileage -based rather than cost - based.
This tends to underprice commuter flights. A resulting cross
subsidy from major carriers to their subsidiary commuter feeder
lines may account, in part, for commuter related congestion at
hub airports.
16
Commuters serve as feeders to the major airlines. From the
Flight Plan research it appears that only 8 percent of total
passengers at Sea -Tac Airport are commuter passengers, but that
roughly half of these (44 percent in 1988) transfer to other
planes. Therefore, commuter passenger transfers may account
for 3 -4 percent of total passengers at Sea -Tac Airport, while
commuter flights account for nearly half of all operations.
ISSUE 5: What demand management activities could occur specifically related to the
construction of a third runway at Sea -Tac Airport?
At Sea -Tac, a possible new third dependent runway would solve reduced
operating capacity (one- runway operations) during bad weather. This will
reduce delays in flights already scheduled. But, this action would also
increase capacity during favorable weather conditions as well, and therefore,
should be reviewed in part as a system -wide decision.
A new runway would mitigate existing delays, including ground taxiing before
takeoff. However, policy makers may choose to try to limit the total number
of operations that the airport could handle in the future.
The existing second runway, now not used for bad weather arrivals, could be
used for departures. (The original eastern runway and the new third
dependent runway would be used for arrivals.) Restored bad weather capacity
and increased overall capacity also would result in the ability to handle 30
percent more total operations per year, according to the Port of Seattle.
In addition to the possible new runway, the experimental Microwave Landing
System could support more than two arrival streams. (For more information
on this technology, see Issue 8, page 22, of this working paper.) This possible
combination of new technology and runway capacity would increase the
capacity of the existing facility in good weather, and the expanded facilities
during all weather conditions.
ISSUE 5 OPTIONS:
A. Impose restrictions on the new third dependent runway.
Vancouver International Airport restrictions on its scheduled new third
independent runway will include these elements:
■ a revised landing fee structure,
17
• use primarily for aircraft arrivals,
• departures restricted to Stage 3 aircraft,
• prohibition on nighttime departures,
• prohibition on reverse thrust operations (to slow planes after landing)
during nighttime hours.
A variation on this alternative would be to segregate smaller aircraft into a
separate stream using a different runway. This option is part of the proposal
submitted by the City of SeaTac in its response to the Flight Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. This involves a 5,000 foot runway for
commuter aircraft (not to be confused with a possible 7,000 foot third
dependent runway for larger aircraft).
The City of SeaTac has identified a list of requested mitigating actions for
such a runway, including use only by smaller commuter aircraft, restricted
hours of operation, no take -offs, and several noise abatement actions (Letter,
March 5, 1992).
B. Restrict the total number of operations consistent with good access, other
regional decisions, and the results of demand management actions.
If legally permissible, this standard would pay more attention to constraining
regional factors: single event noise and overflights (as well as average daily
noise nearest the airport), public facilities, and especially increasing surface
transportation congestion.
ISSUE 6: What demand management activities could occur under the no- action
alternative?
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee assumed that some
demand management would be part of all possible regional alternatives. The
Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement includes a no- action
alternative.
A no- action decision could force certain "demand management" adjustments
by the airlines. Over the long term, a declining level of service could perhaps
be economically damaging to the region.
18
This cautious statement is based in part on the inconclusive research of the
Washington State Air Transportation Commission. A survey of other airports
discloses these possible adjustments by the airlines:
• Add flights during off peak periods,
• Operate earlier or later in the day,
• Increase aircraft size,
• Increase scheduled flight times to include more allowance for delays,
• Shift flights to other airports within the region (in this region, this
could involve either a nearby airport for commuter flights, or for the
major airlines, could involve routing of airplanes to Vancouver, B.C.
or Portland rather than Seattle),
• Coordinate schedules among airlines to "de- peak" operations, and
• Increase average load factors.
(Source: Analysis of Maximum Passenger Limits at Sea -Tac Airport
Under the No New Runway Alternative, P and D Aviation, Draft, May
19, 1992).
Flight Plan research stresses that activity will increase at Sea -Tac, with or
without new investments. One perspective is that the resulting impacts
without accommodating investments will be greater than if rising demand is
adequately served.
II. SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
ISSUE 7: What is the best way to manage airports in the region as a system, with Sea -Tac
Airport as an important component of this system?
While it is difficult to control aircraft use, design can encourage higher use of
selected facilities by preferred aircraft. System management actions would
involve the distribution of different kinds of operations to different airports.
Examples of a systems approach are listed together, with attention drawn
below to two of these options.
• Specialize more exclusively in long haul travel 'and international travel
at Sea -Tac Airport, following the model of San Francisco and Los
Angeles, by shifting some other traffic such as general aviation to
supplemental airports. General aviation is already minimal at Sea -Tac.
Note: This is the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
recommendation of June 17, 1992.
Or,
Retain all major activity at Sea -Tac, but increase major air carrier
capacity by managing the level of commuter aircraft demand (this
market assumption is built into the Flight Plan forecasts).
• Shift cargo flights and some other traffic to Boeing Field if legally
possible, by first removing from Boeing Field, a share of the general
aviation activity. Roughly one -third of Boeing traffic during the critical
instrument flight rule periods (bad weather) has been small aircraft of
12,500 pounds or less.
For background, see: Sea -Tac International Airport /King
County International Airport Airspace Study, Port of
Seattle /King County, January 1983, Table 5 -6. More recent
priority status for Sea -Tac operations already may have reduced
Boeing operations during poor weather.
• Utilize part of the existing McChord capacity, by first redistributing
some military operations to other military sites (Gray Field or possibly
a shared new military runway that could be suggested for Fort Lewis)
or other sites (use of Moses Lake for C -141 touch - and -go traffic).
• Build a second runway at McChord to better enable use of a joint
operating agreement with the military.
20
ISSUE 7 OPTIONS:
A. McChord Air Force Base, operated jointly for military and commercial
operations.
This could entail construction of a second runway east of the present one.
Landing fees from commercial operations might be shared with the military.
A report to Congress on joint operation of nine airfields around the country,
including McChord, is being prepared by the Department of Defense and the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Noise impacts east of McChord could affect a major university. Airspace
factors would include the direct alignment of any new McChord runway with
Sea -Tac Airport. Generally, airport siting possibilities in the larger region are
constrained within the north -south trough defined by the Olympic Mountains
to the west, and the Cascades and Mount Rainier to the east.
B. Use of Boeing Field.
This was studied in depth by the Flight Plan advisory committee (the Puget
Sound Air Transportation Committee). In general, it was concluded that in
the critical south -flow condition, the interaction with Sea -Tac is such that for
each landing that might be routed to Boeing Field, a slot would be lost at
Sea -Tac (no net gain in system capacity).
Issues meriting further review are:
• whether this situation would change if general aviation (80,000 to
90,000 instrument landings per year at Boeing Field) were removed
from Boeing Field,
• whether a Microwave Landing System could support curved flight paths
to Sea -Tac Airport that would not intersect with Boeing Field traffic
to limit system operation benefits, and
• whether the operational capacity of Boeing Field then could be
improved if north -south aircraft transit corridors on Puget Sound were
adjusted within a system -wide airspace solution.
21
ISSUE 8: What system management options are available through new technology?
ISSUE 8 OPTIONS:
A. Use new Microwave Landing System technology and reconfigure airspace.
Improved navigational technology can be used to fit more flights into the
existing airspace and Sea -Tac International Airport.
The microwave landing system, to be tested at Sea -Tac beginning in
1993, could eventually enable equipped aircraft to use both runways in the
limiting . bad weather southflow condition. Southflow is restricted to one
runway 44 percent of the time. Of this total restriction, one -third (15 percent
of the year) would be corrected. (Draft Environmental Assessment, FAA,
January 1992, page 3.4).
Other potential benefits include curved approach patterns into Sea -Tac from
the north. Over the long term, this might help solve the problem of
overlapping airspace with Boeing Field. If intersecting flight paths can be
avoided in this way, then the combined capacity of the two airports could
increase from what it is today. However, greater airport efficiency achieved
in this way could mean more noise impacts from operations at Sea -Tac
Airport. (See working paper No. 2 regarding noise abatement.)
Comment: Airspace interaction is addressed in the Flight Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B -1), but did not
specifically consider the possibilities if general aviation using
Boeing Field were first moved farther from Sea -Tac Airport
(and its airspace) to other more distant airports within the
potential regional system.
B. Continue to implement and then monitor and fully consider airport /airfield
improvements at Sea -Tac Airport.
The Port of Seattle and other agencies completed the Sea -Tac Airport
Capacity Enhancement Study in 1991. Many of the recommended actions
such as high speed runway exits have been completed or are underway. The
resulting benefits to delay have not yet been comprehensively reported.
The modeled Sea -Tac annual "capacity" (Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Figure 1 -2) is based on consultant work completed in February
1991.
22
ISSUE 9:
Subsequent work based on the Capacity Enhancement Study, and other
benefits from the improved federal Air Transportation Control Center, might
improve this existing capacity above the originally reported 380,000
operations.
What are the likely capacity benefits of high -speed ground transportation affecting
forecasted air travel, and how should this be factored into a long -term regional
airport decision?
The Flight Plan research suggests that high speed rail could eliminate 40,000
operations from Sea -Tac Airport (half of the north -south operations) in the
year 2020. This is only one -third of the new operations forecasted for the
1990 -2020 period.
The Washington State High Speed Ground Transportation Commission
independently forecasts an even smaller impact on air travel between 1990
and 2020. Total north -south air passengers of 1.579 million would decline to
1.414 million (High Speed Ground Transportation Draft Final Report,
September 18, 1992, Table IV -14.) Rail travel would continue to grow after
the year 2020.
ISSUE 9 OPTIONS:
A. Assume that high speed rail will be built and will serve a significant
share of forecasted commercial air transportation passengers.
If a north -south high speed rail system is built, this could serve a small share
of total forecasted air passengers, and substitute for a share of aircraft
operations. It could enable location of an accessible replacement airport away
from impacted urban areas, assuming consistency with the Growth
Management Act, and acceptance by the traveling public and the airlines.
Whether the airlines would help pay for new facilities, instead of rerouting
slightly farther south to Portland, is a major question.
B. Accept completed rail research, and regard possible long -term rail capabilities
as a bonus to airport capacity decisions, but not as a substitute.
The Report of the High Speed Ground Transportation Commission
was completed on October 15, 1992, following completion of the Flight Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
23
This option dismisses rail as inadequate to affect the . selection of airport
actions. It could affect timing, or to some degree, the intensity of use once
facilities are built or placed into service.
High speed ground transportation research points to limited substitution of
riders, to high costs (perhaps $11.7 billion for a north -south corridor), and to
environmental costs.
C. Consider rail as a means of ground access to a remotely located replacement
airport that otherwise would be relatively inaccessible to the user population.
This assumption could support a planning decision based on a very long term
planning horizon. In this case, intermediate actions at Sea -Tac would be
scaled to not preclude replacement later.
Considerations are the likelihood of rail (an 11.7 billion dollar cost), timing
of rail elements, and timing of forecasted air transportation needs, and the
possible role and limitations of system management and demand management
in the interim. Working Paper No. 3 addresses some of these factors.
ISSUE 10: How should general aviation be considered in a regional airport system plan
amendment for commercial air transportation?
General aviation accounts for nearly 70 percent of all aircraft operations in
the region (although less than 5 percent at Sea -Tac Airport). General
aviation, which includes corporate jets, emergency medical flights and small
aircraft used for recreation and other purposes, is key to a functional aviation
system.
ISSUE 10 OPTIONS:
A. To protect general aviation interests, include a range of site options in the
regional system alternatives for commercial air transportation.
This will enable rejection of sites that are judged to be fatally flawed (for any
reason, including adverse impacts on general aviation) without necessarily
jeopardizing the regional -scale decision. This is the approach developed in
the Flight Plan non - project Final Environmental Impact Statement.
24
B. Sequence any general aviation regional plan amendments to follow those for
commercial air transportation.
This clearly places priority on commercial air transportation, but at the
possible expense of general aviation. If more commercial use of Boeing Field
is technically possible and part of a regional solution, or of a mid -term system
management phase, then general aviation might have to be encouraged to use
other airports. In recent years general aviation has been moved out of Sea -
Tac to Boeing Field, but not farther.
In a similar case, about 10 to 15 years ago, most general aviation was moved
a farther distance out of San Francisco Airport to Oakland and San Jose.
Statewide air system policies to be prepared by the Washington State Air
Transportation Committee to the Legislature, scheduled for July 1993, could
address this issue.
25
III. ADDITIONAL OPTIONS UNDER FEDERAL REVIEW
ISSUE 11: What new airspace management approaches relevant to this area are under review
at the national level or by federal agencies?
New efficiencies are associated with high precision navigational equipment
such as the Global Positioning System (satellite navigation) and Microwave
Landing Systems.
At the level of the national airport system, some management actions are
already in use, such as the designation of reliever airports, establishing slots
at four major airports (1968), specification of terminal -area airspace rules, and
national Central Flow Control.* The FAA is also pursuing actions that are
highly site specific. Preferential runway use and noise mitigation are two site -
specific actions that usually reduce airport effective capacity.
*Note: Under Central Flow Control, airplanes are held on the ground
at departure airports until their landing is assured at the
destination airports.
If national airspace management actions affect Sea -Tac capacity, then these
management actions can be compared to the 30 percent capacity increase
attributed in the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement to a
capital construction alternative, e.g., to a new third dependent runway. (This
runway would accommodate a change from 380,000 annual operations to
about 480,000 operations.)
Over the shorter term, expanded facilities (a new dependent third runway)
would improve safety in the air * by solving airspace congestion during what
are now periods of one - runway operation. Airspace safety impacts (reduced
margin for error) and noise impacts could also return over the long term as
aircraft operations approach the new and increased airport capacity.
Comment: A larger 50 to 70 percent increase in capacity (created by a
dependent third dependent runway) was estimated in earlier
work (Airspace Study: Draft Summary Report, P & D
Technologies, June 1988, pp. 2 -2, 3 -13, A -11). The greater
increase probably does not reflect operational restrictions
assumed in the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact
Statement on a possible new third dependent runway.
26
*Note: Site specific studies, following the approval of expanded
facilities, would need to address possible safety concerns on the
ground associated with a third dependent runway. Aircraft
would have to cross two runways to reach terminal facilities at
their present location.
ISSUE 11 OPTIONS:
A. New Technology: Install new navigational and airspace equipment.
The Sea -Tac region is the first in the country to receive the most advanced
Terminal Air Traffic Control automation. This technology enables more
efficient use of the airspace throughout the Puget Sound region.
Nationally, the Global Positioning System will be officially declared
operational in 1993 (with 24 navigation satellites in orbit), but equipping of
commercial aircraft will only begin then. The Global Positioning System will
be used initially for only enroute navigations. The possible important
advantages for airports will not be realized until precision approaches to
runways are authorized by the FAA, and this is not expected for five to ten
years. Advantages at airport equipped with Instrument Landing Systems will
be less than for other airports (e.g., Renton Municipal southflow approaches).
Remaining operational bottlenecks are often at the airports themselves,
particularly aircraft time on the runways.
Another new technology, Microwave Landing Systems, offers more navigation
radio channels, and more precise and varied flight path opportunities onto a
runway. Navigation signal interference from nearby geography is also
reduced. See Issue 8 for a discussion of Microwave Landing System
technology as it relates to Sea -Tac Airport.
B. New Standards.
■ Reduce runway separation standards.
The FAA is actively pursuing ways to reduce the required spacing between
parallel runways for conducting simultaneous independent instrument
approaches from 4,300 feet to as low as 2,500 feet (1991 -92 Aviation System
Capacity Plan, FAA, Section 3.1.3).
27
If successful, and not constrained by future mitigation and operational rules
at Sea -Tac, this could enable a new dependent runway to be operated as an
independent runway, at some time in the future. A separation of 3,400 feet
is possible now using Precision Runway Monitoring. The Global Positioning
System could enhance this capability.
• Reduce diagonal aircraft separation, for example, from 2 nautical
miles (1 nautical mile = 6,000 feet) to 1.0 nautical miles on dependent
parallel runways.
Aircraft separation standards at Sea -Tac Airport have not been addressed
directly in this paper. At the national level, a 1.0- nautical mile standard could
increase national runway capacity by possibly 25 percent (Estimates of
Potential Increases in Airport Capacity, National Technical Information
Service, FAA- DL5 -87 -1, October 1987).
• Reduce aircraft minimum longitudinal separation standards.
At the national level, a reduction from 3 to 2.5 nautical miles (with a 1-
nautical mile reduction in other wake vortex separation rules *) would
generally increase capacity by 15 percent (see previous source, above.)
*Note: If smaller planes were reduced in number, operational
efficiency improves. Separation of small planes is often greater
than for large planes, due to wake vortex hazards caused by
larger leading planes. Microwave Landing Systems allow
reduced spacing because smaller planes could then approach at
a different elevation than larger planes.
Flight Plan does not consider the combined capacity advantages of a third
dependent runway and reduced intrail spacing between aircraft (e.g., from 3.0
miles to less than 2.5 miles with runways having 2,500 feet separation).
Reducing the minimum longitudinal separation standards could affect all
airports in the nation, and generally increase national system capacity by 23
percent (see previous source, above.)
System management of this kind would result in increased operations at Sea -
Tac Airport, and increased impacts. System management is not necessarily
noise reduction. (See Working Paper No. 2, Impact Abatement and
Mitigation.)
C. Expand use of the Central Flow Control system as congestion increases
nationwide.
This assumes that airspace congestion is not addressed adequately through
improved technology, e.g., upgrading of all Air Traffic Control systems.
Therefore, forecasted congestion at individual airports will not fully
materialize, because departures are limited at all other airports. Airline
responses (scheduling, size of aircraft, load factors) at the national level would
affect operations at all airports.
29
IV. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION
ISSUE 12: Should selected demand management and system management actions be done
before possible capacity expansion, as part of possible capacity expansion, or after
capacity expansion?
Demand management actions involving federal authorities are legally
vulnerable unless a capacity crisis is imminent (not simply forecasted).
Therefore, an expert panel (on institutional issues) to the Flight Plan project
recommended several steps including the use of gate controls which are fully
under the authority of airport operators.
The dilemma is that once new facilities are constructed, the operational need
for demand management will no longer be apparent, but if demand
management is imposed too early (for reasons of either efficiency or impact
abatement), it may not be supported at the federal level.
ISSUE 12 OPTIONS:
A. Act on demand management and system management first, enabling regional
needs to grow to where a new direction -- a replacement airport -- might be
considered.
Assuming the validity of the passenger forecasts, the multiple airport system
might not be viable until after 2005, and later if demand management is used
at Sea -Tac. If a replacement airport could he located, and could be accessed
by high speed ground transportation over the long term, this direction would
be more likely than if a third dependent runway is constructed at Sea -Tac
Airport. A shorter runway for commuter traffic would be less preemptive.
A wide range of factors arguing against this option include uncertainties about
future levels of demand, the possibility of prolonged public inaction, the costs
of new construction and ground access, and uncertainty about demand
management, the rail distance and inconvenience of mode transfer, and rising
near term needs.
B. Make capital construction actions contingent upon selected and locally
enforced demand management actions.
Enforcement of this approach could be achieved directly by the airport
operators, or indirectly by conditions applied to airport development elements
under the control of other entities.
30
An example would be a Regional Council policy not to assign funding priority
to airport access roads until conditions are met. Another would be for the
City of SeaTac to control the permit review and approval process under the
Growth Management Act. The transportation element of the SeaTac
comprehensive plan is under the certification authority of the Puget Sound
Regional Council.
C. Within a regional airport system, require demand management prior to
possible capacity expansion.
The regional action would consist of three phased components, possibly with
expanded revenue - producing service phased first to help finance staged
abatement actions.
• Selection of an airport system plan (e.g., a multiple airport system,
or a replacement airport in the long term, combined with demand
management),
• Demand and system management,
• Impact abatement and mitigation,
■ Start landbanking sites for future consideration.
D. Decide that demand management is so uncertain that efforts in this direction
should not obscure or delay a facility response to forecasted long term
demand and present airport capacity problems during bad weather.
E. Instead of focusing on which comes first (efficiency or capacity expansion),
work toward an integrated strategy.
Develop an integrated package of demand management and capital
investment options.
31
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Interested Parties
FROM: Mary McCumber
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Flight Plan Briefing Packet
December 30, 1992
RECEivE.D
JAN 0 41993
0 E vE OPM Y
MEW.
Enclosed is a briefing packet with information on Flight Plan, the region's process for
considering and meeting its long -term :commercial air transportation capacity needs. The.
Regional Council, as the Metropolitan Planning and Regional Transportation Planning
Organization for King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties, is responsible under
federal and state laws for maintaining the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Action by the Regional Council on Flight Plan will be in the form of an amendment to
the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP), an element of the RTP.
The first Flight Plan Workshop for the Regional Council's Executive Board and
Transportation Policy Board will be from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, January 14, at
the Bellevue Convention Center, 505 106th Ave. N.E., Bellevue.
I hope you find this information helpful. We've tried to put it together in a way that is
useful, so that you can easily find information on any aspect of the upcoming Flight Plan
decision.
In the packet you should find basic information on Flight Plan and its relationship to the
RTP and RASP; a brief history of Flight Plan; and descriptions of current and projected
commercial air transportation and airport capacity, the regional alternatives, an
economic and environmental overview, and key concerns and questions. It also should
include a brief organization chart and contact sheet, a list of other Flight Plan Resource
Material available, a four -page description of the Flight Plan Decision process that
includes a schedule of events, and other supporting materials.
Additional materials will be provided before, during, and following the upcoming
workshops and other meetings.
If you have questions or need more information, please call any of the Regional Council
staff members listed on the contact sheet in this packet.
216 First Avenue South • Seattle, Washington 98104 • (206) 464 -7090 • FAX 587-4825
The Regional Air System Plan (RASP)
Decision Process Overview
Introduction
The General Assembly of the Puget Sound Regional
Council is scheduled to make a decision on proposed
amendments to the Regional Airport System Plan
(RASP) on April 29, 1993. Their decision culminates
over three years of concerted efforts by governments in
the Puget Sound region to develop policies for meeting
our future air transportation needs. The RASP is an
element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
PSRC, as the designated Regional Transportation Or-
ganization (RTPO), is responsible for maintaining the
RTP that includes regional transportation policies af-
fecting a) the direction of development in the region,
and b) the regional allocation priorities of state and
federal transportation funds.
A decision process has been developed to help guide
the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) as it pro-
ceeds to amend the Regional Airport System Plan
(RASP). This decision process will:
• Provide focused information to the Transportation
Policy Board (TPB), the Executive Board, and the
General Assembly;
• Provide opportunities for consultation and exchang-
es with the public, community groups and member
agencies; and
• Provide a framework to help the Regional Council
amend its Regional Airport System Plan (RASP).
In developing this process, PSRC has received input
from governments and community groups throughout
the region and responded to as many suggestions as
possible. The TPB and Executive Board reviewed and
revised an earlier draft at a joint meeting on December
3, 1992. The decision process tries to make optimum
use of board members' time and staff /consultant
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
resources, while providing opportunities for focused
and general community participation. The decision
process is designed to allow the boards to address a
logical sequence of key questions in working toward
their decisions.
The sequence of questions is:
1. What are the criteria, related to economic, envi-
ronmental, health and livability issues, to be
considered in reaching a decision? Will there be
a problem in meeting the region's commercial avi-
ation needs in the future, given projected demand
and capacity analyses?
2. How can system management actions, such as
new uses for existing facilities or new non - airport
facilities (e.g., high speed rail),and /or demand
management actions such as pricing mecha-
nisms, help satisfy the region's needs in the
short (2010) and long term (2020 to 2050)?
3. If management approaches are not sufficient to
address short and long term needs, what facility
improvements and mitigation should be select-
ed for future action, either in the short or long
term? Conversely, which of the alternatives pre-
sented in the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) should be discarded at this time?
Are there combinations of the FEIS alternatives
that should be considered?
4. How should these decisions be implemented?
Who should monitor actions and make decisions?
Are new forms of regional airport governance and
financing needed? What are the trigger points for
implementing selected actions? What are appro-
priate conditions of approval or standards for
mitigation? Should provision be made for ongoing
dispute resolution?
Who Decides
The RASP decision process builds on previous efforts
of "Flight Plan", which include:
• The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee's
(PSATC) recommendation, and
• An October Flight Plan 1992 FEIS, which does not
recommend a preferred altemative.
Prior to the General Assembly decision in April 1993,
there will be joint TPB/Executive Board workshops.
The TPB, in its advisory role to the Executive Board,
will make a recommendation to the General Assembly
for discussion at its March 11 meeting. This recom-
mendation also will be the subject of a public hearing
on March 24. The Executive Board, following the pub-
lic hearing, will meet to develop a final RASP
Amendment recommendation based on consultation with
the community and technical consultants. The Board's
recommendation will be forwarded to the General As-
sembly for consideration and action on April 29.
The Decision Process
The RASP Decision process has been developed with
careful consideration of the following requirements:
• An open process which provides opportunity for
public review and comment and gathers informa-
tion efficiently from many points of view;
• An understanding that organized community -based
groups speak generally for their constituent mem-
bers. This also assumes that timely review of any
consultant reports contracted by these groups is
possible, so that these comments can be considered
by the PSRC boards and General Assembly;
• A focus on regional policy and programmatic deci-
sions, considering options which retain some
management and improvement alternatives or
possible combinations, while clearly dropping
others; and
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSPC
• Use of existing information and findings devel-
oped for Flight Plan which includes the FEIS; new
supplemental working papers on the timing of de-
cisions, system and demand management, and
mitigation and abatement; and other information
gathered from experts, community groups and oth-
er sources during the decision process.
The RASP decision process is a three part process
Preparation activities focus on development of infor-
mational materials for the community and decisio n
makers about issues relevant to the RASP amendments
Dialogue/Exchange activities are designed to provide
decision - makers with the opportunity to come to a
common understanding of RASP alternatives and en-
gage the community in a dialogue about those
altematives and related concerns. During the final
phase, called RASP Recommendations, decision mak-
rs consider community input, environmental and
economic issues, and projected demand in shaping a
final decision about the RASP. A formal public hear-
ing, scheduled for March 24 will be part of this phase of
the decision process.
pecific decision process activities are described be-
ow. Codes are keyed to the Decision Process Schedule
included in this packet.
•
•
e
S
1.
A briefing packet will be mailed to the TPB, Exec-
utive Board and General Assembly prior to the first
Workshop (see item 8) and to other interested agen-
cies and stakeholder groups.
2. The PSRC newsletter, Regional View and updates,
come out monthly. Each issue from January through
April, will have a column describing the status of
the RASP amendment process and coming events.
3. Working papers on a) timing, b) system and de-
mand management, and c) mitigation/abatement
are being prepared by PSRC staff. These are in-
tended to serve as discussion papers and will remain
in a "working" paper format.
4. Early in January, PSRC will hold a briefmg for
local government" staff members.
S. Continuing consultation with RASP stakeholders, in-
cluding community groups, and member agencies.
6. The initial TPB/EB combined briefing and work-
shop in mid - January has two parts: a two -hour
briefmg session and a four -hour workshop. The
Briefmg will review the project background and
issues to be considered during the decision process.
Issues for Consideration
• Environmental quality and livability, including
noise - related health issues and equity in the dis-
tribution of impacts (access, noise, air quality,
land use, and property values) that may be neces-
sary, and including impact abatement and
mitigation;
• Regional growth and rising passenger needs, and
long -term regional economic vitality;
• Integration of transportation systems, including
costs and accessibility, and airspace issues in-
cluding general aviation and overflights;
• Short and long -term operational projections and
capacity analyses, system alternatives (including
no -action and demand management) and phas-
ing of decisions and actions, including
coordination with the airline industry;
-- Demand management alternatives;
-- Implementation questions, including gover-
nance and continuing conflict resolution
processes.
The purpose of "Workshop P" is to discuss
demand issues, such as forecasts and regional
air transportation needs. A summary report of
each workshop shall be prepared shortly after
and mailed to the General Assembly members
and other stakeholders. Interested parties will
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
also be encouraged to call the PSRC project
manager for further information.
7. Workshop II focuses on regional alternatives,
including elements addressing system management,
demand management, facility improvements and
timing issues --
8. Workshop III focuses on impact mitigation/
abatement and implementation /governance is-
sues.
9. If the TPB/Executive Board decides that a fourth
workshop is needed, the option has been included
in this schedule.
10. Four informal open houses in Snohomish, King,
Pierce and Kitsap counties provide an opportunity
for the public to learn more about regional air
transportation issues, the PSRC decision process
and provide input to elected officials. This oppor-
tunity to ask questions complements the more formal
public hearing (items number 16, 17). Open house
input will be summarized and reported at the first
TPB decision meeting.
& 12. TPB Meeting 1 focuses on the commercial
air transportation needs and the extent to which
system/demand management can help meet short
and long -term needs. Alternatives will be identi-
fied and debated.
11.
TPB Meeting 2 narrows the alternatives and rec-
ommends an action package, e.g., timing of facility
and demand/system management decisions, trigger
points, conditions /preconditions, implementation
strategy, process for future decision making and
who makes decisions.
At these two TPB decision meetings, stakeholders
present at the meetings will serve as resources to
the committee and be available to respond to ques-
tions that may be asked by TPB members.
These two meetings result in a TPB recommenda-
tion to the Executive Board and serve as the basis
for a public hearing to be conducted under the
auspices of the Executive Board. This hearing will
follow the General Assembly's March 11 work-
shop on the TPB recommendations.
13. The General Assembly March 11 workshop on
the recommended RASP amendment will occur
prior to the regular business meeting. This work-
shop will brief General Assembly members on the
TPB's recommendation and decision process. It
also is an opportunity for General Assembly mem-
bers to discuss the recommendation and to identify
additional concerns to be considered by the Execu-
tive Board in its decision meetings.
14. & 15. General public notice will be given for a
public hearing to be conducted by the Executive
Board on March 24 on the TPB recommendation.
Members of the General Assembly are encouraged
to attend this full -day public hearing.
16. & 17. Executive Board then will hold two deci-
sion meetings to develop its recommendation to
the General Assembly.
18. A special General Assembly meeting on April 29
is scheduled to consider the Executive Board's
recommendation and adopt a RASP amendment.
Puget Sound Regional Council
PsRc
Meeting Schedule
1.14 TPB/EB Flight Plan Workshop ................... 10am-4pm
Bellevue Conference Center
505 106th Ave. N.E.
Bellevue
1-21 TPB/EB Flight Plan Workshop. ».. ». ».. ».. »...9am•lpm
Bellevue Conference Center
1 -28 TPB/EB Flight Plan Workshop. ».. ». ».. ».... llam -3pm
Bellevue Conference Center
2-4 TPB/EB Flight Plan Workshop ................ ».9am -12pm
Bellevue Conference Center (optional)
2-8 Open House ...»................... -
Mariner High, 200 120th S.W.
Everett
5:30 -8pm
2 -10 Open House ..._ .._.._. ».. ».. ».. ».. ».. ». »......
Kennedy High, 140 S. 140th St.
Baden
2 -16 Open House .......»..».»..»..» ... .......... ».. ».. ».. »...4:30.7pm
St. Helens Plaza, 47 St. Helens Ave.
Tacoma
2-18 Open House ........... ». ».. ».. ».. ».. ».. ». »......
......4:30 -7pm
Silverdale on the Bay Hotel
Kitsap County
2 -25
3-4
3 -11
TPB Decision Meeting ....... .... .... ... ».......12:30- 3:30pm
Bellevue Conference Center
TPB Decision Meeting ....... . ....... ... »...... .......9am -12pm
Bellevue Conference Center
General Assembly Workshop ».. »... »...... ».. ». ». 1.3pm
St. Helens Plaza
Tacoma
3 -24 PUBLIC HEARING . ». .... .... .. ... 3.10pm
Seattle Center Flag Pavilion
4-1 Executive Board Decision... ...... 9am -12pm
Meeting #1
Bellevue Conference Center
4 -8 Executive Board Decision..... .. .. ..... ............... 10am -2pm
Meeting #2
Bellevue Conference Center
4.29 General Assembly Decision Meeting ................. 3 -6pm
Seattle Center Flag Pavilion
71 Flight Plan Resource Material
Phase I: Demand Forecasts, July 1990
This report develops detailed passenger and aircraft operational forecasts for future years through the year 2020.
(The reported commuter aircraft forecasts were reduced during Phase II.)
Phase II: Development of Alternatives (and Appendix), June 1991.
This report develops regional alternatives, and identifies a range of possible sites as a means for comparison of the
regional alternatives. All of these alternatives, including the multiple airport system alternatives, are reported in the
Flight Plan FEIS.
Phase III: Draft Final Report (and Appendices), January 1992.
This report consists of the draft recommendation from the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee. The PSATC
chose to recommend a system level solution, and beyond this, it suggested siting preferences. The attached
appendices consolidate the twelve working papers used by the PSATC in developing and evaluating the regional
alternatives.
Appendix A: Evaluation Methodology
Appendix B: Operation/Technical Elements
Appendix C: Economic/Financial Elements
Appendix D: Institutional Elements
Appendix E: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - -DEIS.
Final non - project Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Appendices, October 1992.
This report evaluates the regional airport system alternatives. It assumes a range of siting options for each regional
alternative and identifies those that are most likely at the regional level of analysis. It does not identify a preferred
systemwide alternative and defers siting decisions to a later stage in the decision process.
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
PSATC Findings and (final) Recommendation
Puglic Agency Decisions and Institutional Needs
Noise Assessment Study
Air Quality Assessment
Supplemental Responses to Public Review of DEIS
Public Comments: FEIS Supplemental Volumes, October 1992.
These volumes collect public testimony from eleven public hearings conducted in the spring of 1992 (the hearings
were held on the PSATC recommendation and on the related agency DEIS), and 2200 pieces of written testimony.
Supplement 1: Snohomish and Island Counties
Supplement 2: King County
Supplement 3: Thurston, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
Puget Sound Regional Council
Operations
Committee
Executive
Board
(All general purpose local govemment officials
in King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties)
(21 voting members)
Transportation
Policy Board
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
Officers:
Jim Street, President
Chair, Executive Board
Member, Seattle City Council
Bill Brubaker, Vice President
Chair, Operations Committee
Member, Snohomish County Council
Bruce Laing
Chair, Transportation Policy Board
Member, King County Council
Staff /Flight Plan Contacts:
Mary McCumber 464 -7515
Executive Director
Sylvia Nelson 464 -7518
Executive Secretary
Gerald Dinndorf 464 -6663
Director, Growth Management Planning
King Cushman 464 -6174
Director, Transportation Planning
Mark Gulbranson 464 -7524
Director, Administrative Services
Steve Fitzroy 464 -6411
Director, Technical Services
Peter Beaulieu 464 -7537
Project Manager, Flight Plan
Richard Milne 587 -5060
Communications Manager
Schedule of RASP Amendment Activities*
December 1992 I January 1993
11/291 12/6 1 12/1311220112271 1/3 1 1/101 1/17 1 1/24
February 1993 1 March 1993 I April 1993 I
1/31 12n 1 2/14 12/21 1 2/28 1 3 / 7 1 3/14 1 3/21 1 3 / 2 8 14/4 1 4/11 1 4/18 1 4/25
Preparation
"I. Briefing Packet for RASP Decision
3. Working Papers
4. Staff Briefing
2. PSRC Newsletters
January Newsletter
February Newsletter
March Newsletter
April Newsletter
with groups
5. Consultation
tn' P
Dialogue/Exchange
6. TPB/EB Briefing & Workshop I
7. TPB/EB Workshop II
8. TPB/EB Workshop III
9. TPB/EB Workshop IV
10. Open Houses
RASP Recommendations
11. TPB Meeting 1
12. TPB Meeting 2
13. General Assembly Workshop
14. Notice of Public Hearing
15. Public Hearing
16. EB Decision Meeting I
17. EB Decision Meeting II
18. General Assembly Meeting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
Meeting/Action • Progress >.. > »:. '':<° .. Summary
* All dates shown suggest a general timeframe. See meeting schedule in "Decision Process Overview" for specific dates and times of workshops, open houses, etc.
** Numbers correspond to steps in "Decision Process Overview" document.
Puget Sound Regional Council Flight Plan/RASP Decision Process
Timeline
Key Participants
1989 -1992
January 1992
June 17, 1992
October 1992
December 1992 - March 1993
January 14, 21, 28 & February 4
February 8,10,16,18
February 25, March 4
March 11
March 24
April 1, 8
April 29
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
Flight Plan Studies
PSATC Draft Recommendations
(Draft Environmental Impact Statement)
submitted to PSRC and Port of Seattle
Completion of public review process (including 11 public
hearings) and completion of PSATC fmal
recommendations to Port of Seattle and PSRC
1
Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement
issued by PSRC
Flight Plan /RASP Decision Process
Dialogue and Exchange
1
TPB Briefings and Workshops (up to four) to discuss
the following issues: demand, regional alternatives,
impact/abatement, and implementation/governance
1
Discuss regional air transportation issues and
RASP decision process with public at four Open Houses
RASP Recommendation
1
TPB Decision Meetings (two)
to develop TPB recommendation to the Executive Board
General Assembly Workshop
to brief on TPB recommendation .
1
Present TPB recommendation to public
at Executive Board Public Hearing
1
Executive Board Decision Meetings (two)
to develop final recommendation to the General Assembly
submit to
General Assembly Decision Meeting
to amend the RASP.
PSRC, Port of Seattle
and Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee
Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee
PSRC, Port of Seattle
and Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee
PSRC/Port of Seattle
PSRC
Transportation Policy Board,
Executive Board
and ,c tizP!. groups
PSRC
Transportation Policy Board
General Assembly
Executive Board
Executive Board
General Assembly
Puget Sound Regional Council
Agenda
PSRC
FLIGHT PLAN BRIEFING /WORKSHOP I
Thursday, January 14, 1993 • 10:00 a.m. • Bellevue Conference Center
505 106th Ave. NE, Bellevue
10:00 a.m.
1. Welcome /Description of the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) and the
RASP Amendment Decision Process - Councilmember Jim Street, Regional
Council President /Executive Board Chair
10:10 a.m.
2. Context: Regional Council's Role and Responsibilities - Mary McCumber,
Regional Council Executive Director
10:20 a.m.
3. Characteristics of the Region's Air Space - Sarah Dalton, Federal Aviation
Administration
10:30 a.m.
4. Flight Plan: Review of Activities /Actions to Date and Questions and
Answers
• An overview of key events in the Flight Plan effort to date: initiation, analysis
and major findings, draft recommendation /Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, public hearings, recommendation - Jerry Dinndorf, Regional
Council Growth Management Planning Director (10 minute presentation)
• The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) mission statement,
findings, conclusions and recommendation - Robert Wallace, PSATC Chair
(10 minute presentation)
• The Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement: no preferred
alternative /presentation of the alternatives - Peter Beaulieu, Regional
Council Flight Plan Project Manager (10 minute presentation)
• Port of Seattle action: hearing and Resolution - Gary Grant, Port of Seattle
Commissioner (5 minute presentation)
• Washington State Air Transportation Commission (WSATC) review of Flight
Plan demand projections - WSATC representative, to be announced
(5 minute presentation)
11:10 a.m.
5. Brief presentation and initial discussion of issues - Apogee Research Inc.,
Consultants
• Environmental quality and livability, including noise - related health issues,
impact abatement and mitigation;
• Regional growth, projected increases in passengers and commercial air
traffic, and Tong -term regional economic vitality;
• Integration of regional transportation systems, including costs and
accessibility;
• Short and long -term operational projections and capacity analyses;
216 First Avenue South • Seattle, Washington 98104 • (206) 464 -7090 • FAX 587 -4825
• System alternatives, including:
No- action and demand management alternatives;
Phasing of decisions and actions, including coordination with airlines;
Implementation questions, e.g., governance and conflict resolution
processes.
11:50 a.m.
Break
WORKSHOP I: 12:00 Noon - 4:00 p.m.
12:00 noon
A. Preparation for Community Discussions: Brief Description of Workshop
Purpose and Procedures (see attached) - Councilmember Bruce Laing, Chair,
Regional Council Transportation Policy Board
12:05 p.m.
B. Introduction to Workshop I Issues - Apogee Research Inc. and Peter Beaulieu
• The economy of the region and the relationship of the airport system to the
regional economy.
• Short and Tong -term demand projections and capacity analyses.
• Regional and local quality of life concerns, such as:
- access
- noise
- air quality
- health
- land use
- other
• Equity issues related to alternative choices.
12:25 p.m.
C. Community Presentations /Dialogue with Community
1. Air Washington
2. Save Our Communities
3. Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
3:25 p.m.
Break
3:35 p.m.
D. Discussion among board members and with community, staff and consultants
to assure issues /concerns are understood - Councilmember Laing
4:00 p.m.
E. Wrap Up /Summary - Sumner Sharpe, Regional Council Consultant; and
Councilmember Laing
Next Workshop Date, Time, and Location
January 21, 1993, 9:00 a.m., Bellevue Conference Center
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
WORKSHOP PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES
The joint Transportation Policy Board and Executive Board Flight Plan workshops, scheduled for
January 14, 21 and 28, each have a different focus. The general focus and topics for each of the
three workshops is as follows:
January 14: Regional issues that frame a decision - the economy, projections, and quality of
life /equity concerns
January 21: Management and facility alternatives for responding to the problem
January 28: Implementation of decisions - timing and sequencing of actions,
mitigation /abatement and governance
A fourth Flight Plan Workshop, if necessary; will be convened February 4 at the Bellevue Convention
Center.
The purpose of the workshops is three -fold:
1. To provide information to the decision makers by allowing board members to explore, in an
orderly and efficient manner, those topics and issues that affect this regional decision, with
community organizations; and
2. To engage in a dialogue and an exchange of viewpoints with experts and representatives from
community groups. A specific objective is to avoid debates while considering and discussing
divergent views on different topics and issues; and
3. To avoid confrontations or position statements that do not add new information to the discussion.
Statements of individual or group positions can be voiced at the open houses, scheduled for
February, or at the March 24 public hearing.
To be most effective, all presentations should be focused on and speak to the topics identified for
each workshop. If possible, written materials covering the presentations should be made available
before or at the workshops. There will be mailings prior to each workshop; interested parties can
submit reports or summaries beforehand to Peter Beaulieu, Regional Council Project Manager, and
these will be mailed to Transportation Policy Board and Executive Board members or handed out at
the workshops. If other groups are interested in making presentations to the Transportation Policy
Board /Executive Board at subsequent workshops, please notify Peter Beaulieu as soon as possible.
A total of 180 minutes is allocated at each workshop for presentations from and discussions with
three identified community groups; other presentations are possible, time permitting and at the
discretion of the workshop moderator, Bruce Laing. Each of the three groups, in the sequence
indicated on the agendas for the workshops, will have no more than 50 minutes for its presentation.
Following each presentation, there will be up to 10 minutes for questions between the board
members and the presenters from each group. Any remaining time could be devoted to
presentations from others or additional discussions with the three groups, at the discretion of the
moderator.
After the presentations are over, there will be an opportunity for discussion among board members,
with presenters and with staff or Regional Council consultant. The goal is to clarify issues or data
presented. The wrap up /summary will identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and areas where
more information may be needed.
216 first Avenue South • Seattle, Washirsgton 98104 • (206) 464 -7090 • FAX 587 -4825
DRAFT:FOR DISCUSSION ONLY (12/2/92)
PSRC RASP DECISION PROCESS
Introduction
This decision process is centered on providing timely and focused information to the
Transportation Policy Board (TPB), the Executive Board, and the General Assembly to
assist them in developing an amendment to the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP). It
includes opportunities for consultation and exchanges with community groups and member
agencies.
In developing this process, we have asked for and received input from representatives of
cities and counties and involved community groups throughout the region. We have tried
to respond to as many suggestions as possible, but given the limited time frame, we have
tried to make optimum use of board members' time and staff /consultant resources.
Following review by the TPB and the Executive Board on December 3, revisions to this
process will be made, schedules will be firmed up, and the final version of the decision
process will be mailed to Regional Council members, community and other interested
groups, and will be summarized in the January issue of Regional View, the Council's
monthly newsletter.
The process is mostly framed between two events: the FEIS issued in October 1992, which
does not recommend a preferred alternative, and the scheduled March 11, 1993 meeting of
the General Assembly. Joint TPB /Executive Board sessions are recommended; the TPB has
an advisory role to the Executive Board, and the Executive Board will make a
recommendation to the General Assembly.
The decision process for the RASP amendment should address concise criteria that
comprehensively yet simply frame the issues, and should follow a logical sequence of key
questions. These questions will help the TPB, Executive Board (EB), and General
Assembly (GA) work toward an action recommendation on March 11, 1993.
The questions are:
1. What criteria, related to economic, environmental and quality of life issues,
should be considered in reaching a decision? Will there be a problem in meeting the
region's commercial aviation needs in the future, given the current airport facilities?
2. Can short and long -term system and demand management actions, including new
uses for existing facilities or new non - airport facilities (e.g. high speed rail), satisfy
the region's needs in the short (2010) and long term (2050)?
3. If not, then what facility improvements should be kept open for future
consideration, either in the short or long term? Conversely, should any of the FEIS
alternatives be discarded at this time? Are there combinations of alternatives that
should be considered?
4. How should these decisions be implemented? How and who should monitor
actions and make decisions? Are new forms of regional airport governance and
financing needed? What are the trigger points for implementing selected actions?
What are appropriate conditions of approval or standards for mitigation? Should
provision be made for ongoing dispute resolution?
This PSRC decision process for amending the RASP should be characterized by:
1. An open process designed to gather information efficiently from as many points
of view as possible within the limited time available;
2. An understanding that organized community -based groups can speak efficiently
for their constituent members. This also assumes that these groups will allow for
timely review of their consultant reports, so these can be considered as part of the
information given to the boards and assembly;
3. A focus on regional policy and programmatic decisions which may focus future
decisions on some alternatives or possible combinations, while clearly dropping
others;
4. Use of existing information gathered during Flight Plan: the FEIS; new working
papers on timing of decisions, system and demand management, and mitigation and
abatement; and supplemented by information gathered from experts and other
sources during the decision process; and
5. Early agreement on the format for the RASP amendment and a framework for
future decision - making, i.e. should the decisions follow a single, linear track approach
driven by either facility or management choices, or should they follow a parallel, dual
track process?
To arrive at a decision by March 11 requires the following preconditions to be met:
1. A commitment of at least four hours per week from each of the TPB and
Executive Board members from January through the end of February;
2. Two General Assembly meetings, one on March 11 and the second in mid to late
April;
3. Commitment of PSRC staff and consulting resources to ensure timely and
thoughtful communications with the General Assembly, interested parties, and the
public; and
4. Agreement reached between December 3 and December 15 on the schedule and
specific events, and roles and responsibilities for implementing the decision process.
A recommended schedule of activities is proposed on the following page. The balance of
this description of the RASP decision process provides comments on each of the specific
activities identified in the schedule.
Descriptions of RASP Amendment Activities
1. The workbook will be in the form of a folder with inserts which can be added to as time
goes on. It will be mailed to all interested parties and stakeholder groups, particularly to
the TPB, EB and GA in mid to late December. Initial inserts could include: 1) an overview
paper describing what the RASP is, the decision to be made, questions to be addressed, and
suggestions on how to use these and future information; 2) the decision process and a
schedule of events (places to be announced ?); 3) the briefing paper and a brief description
of the major policy issues identified during the consultation process.
2. PSRC news letters come out monthly; each issue from January through April, should
have a column which describes progress made in the RASP amendment process. Each issue
requires about 10 days lead time to prepare copy.
3. Between 12/15/92 and 1/1/93, PSRC will hold a briefing for local government and
stakeholder staff members. At this meeting, the guide materials will be reviewed, and
ideally, the working papers should be available in draft form for review, if that has not
already occurred.
4. Three working papers on timing, system and demand management, and
mitigation /abatement are being prepared by PSRC staff. Preliminary drafts will be reviewed
by experts, community groups and others. These are intended to serve as
working /discussion papers and will probably remain in a "working" paper format. If not
available for the staff briefing, they should be distributed during the first week in January,
prior to the TPB /EB meeting briefing session.
5. At the same time the workbook is being prepared, a similar briefing packet should be
prepared for a series of press briefings, which should be held in early January.
6. Continuing consultation with community groups, member agencies and other interested
parties. Though not detailed in this schedule, the goal is to have an open process which
provides closure and responses to questions and concerns. To accomplish this, consultation
will be continuous. In addition to the events identified below, the process should include:
Schedule of RASP Amendment Activi #es
Name
Duration
PREPARATION 24d
1. Mail Guide to RASP Derision
1.5d
3. Staff Briafbug
Od
4. Working Papers
22d
5. Press srieangs Development
18d
Press Brlefling One
3d
Press Briefing Two
Od
2. PSRC Newsletters
60d
January Newsletter
Od
February Newsletter
Od
March Newsletter
Od
April Newsletter
Od
6. Oousulaticn with tamps
DIALOOUE/EXCHANOE
1063
December 1992 1983 !' .. 1993 Plumb 2903 • . 1 1
12/6 12/1''12/ -•12/2 1/3 1/10 1/17 1/24 1/81 2/T 2/14 4/21 2/28 3/7 3/14 3/21 3/28 4/4 4/11
7. TPB/EB Briefing & Workshop 1
Od
6. TPB/EB Workshop 2
Od
9. TPB/EB Workshop 3
10. Open Houses
RASP RECOMMENDA DONS
61d
11. 1PB Meeting 1
3d
12. 7 B Meeting 2
Od
13. Notice of Public Hearing
lOd
14 Public Hearing Od
1 KB Meeting Od
16. General Assembly Meeting (we ohshe9)Od
17. central Assembly Meeting (1!130) Od
3
MA-n°— M iD
• 1/
•
•
•
Project PSRC RegionealAtrpeat Plea
Date: 12/2/92
Meettng/At tion • Progress
dt
- contact with PSRC Project Manager to help ensure timely and useful flow of
information;
- staff contacts with and offers to brief the four county growth management groups;
- staff availability to brief member organizations and associations of cities, if
requested to do so; and staff resources to prepare materials and mailings, and
- all mailings to PSRC bodies go to interest groups and others.
7. The purpose of the initial TPB /EB combined briefing and workshop in early January is
to:
a) clearly frame the issues and to provide background on the RASP amendment
process, including discussions and presentations on:
- the context for this decision, e.g. VISION 2020, the role of commercial air
transportation in the region's economic future, RTP, GMA, Flight Plan
recommendation, Port resolution, WSATC review of demand projections,
working papers, etc.
- a concise description of the Regional Airport System Plan, i.e. what it
addresses, what it says now about commercial aviation, where this amendment
fits in, and the format for this amendment; and
- discussion of optional approaches to implementation such as a single or
parallel track approach; and
b) hold the first workshop discussion focusing on two general topics: 1. Identification
of criteria,e.g. economic, environmental, and quality of life impacts, that should be
considered in arriving at a decision; and 2. demand projections, and alternative
system and demand management techniques for accommodating this demand.
The briefing /workshop and subsequent workshops should be moderated /facilitated to ensure
that they stay on track and to allow member representatives opportunities to participate
freely in the discussions.
Following the briefing and all subsequent TPB /EB workshops and meetings, a summary
'journalistic" report shall be prepared within one day and mailed to the General Assembly
members and others so that they are kept informed of what is going on. They also should
be encouraged to call the PSRC project manager if they have any questions or want more
detailed information.
As a general principal, the purpose of the workshops is not to reach decisions but to explore
topics and other issues raised during the consultation process, and engage in a dialogue and
;Id
an exchange of viewpoints. The workshops (4 - 6 hours long) should have the following
general format (small discussion groups are possible but don't seem to fit at this point):
a. Brief presentation and discussion of working papers and issues with staff and
experts;
b. Focused presentations and ample opportunities for exchange with community and
other interest group members and experts;
c. Wrap -up opportunities for board members to ask questions of experts and each
other.
8. Workshop 2 could focus on the regional alternatives and timing issues -- i.e. what
facilities may be needed, why and when is the need likely to emerge given what we know
about system and demand management possibilities?
9. Workshop 3 could focus on mitigation /abatement and implementation /governance issues
with special emphasis on traffic and access issues, noise, and air pollution. This discussion
could include consideration of abatement /mitigation actions as preconditions to facility
actions.
10. Four informal open houses in Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap counties provide an
opportunity for the public, particularly those that have not been actively involved, to learn
more about the PSRC decision process and provide input. These open houses kick off the
activities leading to a recommended RASP amendment. These open houses should involve
elected and other officials from member agencies in each of the counties as well as PSRC
staff; board members should attend, time permitting. Open house input should be
summarized and reported on at the TPB /EB meeting.
11 & 12. These two TPB decision meetings are 4 hours long, with outside facilitator
assistance available to the chair. Stakeholders present at the meetings will serve as
resources to the committee and are available to respond to any questions from TPB
members.
Meeting 1 focuses on decision questions 1 and 2 -- will there be a problem in the future and
will system /demand management be sufficient to meet short and long -term needs?
Meeting 2 focuses on alternatives (which to keep, which to dispose of), timing of facility
decisions, trigger points, conditions /preconditions, implementation strategy, process for
future decision making and who makes decisions.
These two meetings result in a TPB recommendation to the Executive Board and is the
basis for a public hearing to be conducted under the auspices of the Executive Board.
13. General public notice of at least ten days will be given for one public hearing. The
TPB recommendation will be the subject of a full -day public hearing, to be held in about
the third week of February.
14. Members of the General Assembly will be encouraged to attend this full -day public
hearing on the TPB recommendation; the Executive Board will conduct the hearing.
15. Following the public hearing and before the March 11 General Assembly meeting, the
Executive Board will meet to arrive at a recommended RASP amendment. This
recommendation will be presented to the General Assembly in a workshop format at the
March 11 Assembly meeting.
16. General Assembly workshop on the RASP amendment. The purpose of this workshop
is to give General Assembly members an opportunity to be briefed on the Executive Board's
recommendation and discuss the issues and concerns that lead up to the recommendation.
It is also an opportunity for General Assembly members to identify any other matters or
concerns that they feel should or must be considered prior to a special General Assembly
meeting in April to reach a decision.
17. A special General Assembly meeting in April to adopt a RASP amendment gives
member agencies an opportunity to consider the recommendations and testimony they have
heard; it allows time for a mediated conflict resolution process to occur, if there is
agreement that this approach will be helpful.
DEC- 2 -92 WED 14:11
.1. RICMARC ARAMBURU
JEFFREY M. 'UJSTIS
FAX NO. 2066821376 P.02
J. RICHARD ARAMBURU
ATTORNEY AT LAW
mime-BOO, COLLAGE CLUB BUILDING
806 MADISON STREET
SEATTLE, WASIi1N07ON 96104
(206) 625 -9515
December 2, 1992
Ms. Mary McCumber
Executive Director
Puget Sound Regional Council
216 First Avenue S.
Seattle, WA 98104
RE: PSRC RASP Decision Process VIA FACSIMILE
Dear Mary:
The Regional Commission on Airport Affairs ( "RCAA ") and Jim
Murphy have asked me to comment on the draft discussion -only
proposal for the RASP Decision Making Process. We will not
repeat those comments on the process found in Jim Murphy's
letter of November 30, 1992 to you.
1. Time for Consideration.
In examining this proposal, it appears that insufficient
time has been allotted to consider the numerous difficult issues
involved in this decision. As we indicated in our prior
correspondence to you, this is a critical decision for virtually
thousands of people in the Puget Sound Region. As we have
suggested, the process needs to be driven by allowing adequate
time to consider the issues, rather than a set time table. This
of particular concern given that Transportation Policy Board and
Executive Committee members have full time obligations other
than air transportation planning.
2. Workshops.
The main element of constituent input to this process is
three "workshops" currently scheduled for January. However,
allowing only three workshops is plainly inadequate for the task
at hand. I attach again our list of appropriate topics for your
review. We believe that each topic deserves a separate workshop
of its own. The need for additional workshops is not only
because of the subject matter, but because there are several
constituent groups with interests in each subject. Adequate time
must be allowed for each of them to participate, particularly if
they are to "speak efficiently for your constituent members,"
DEC 2 '92 14:10
2066821376 PAGE.002
DEC- 2 -92 WED 14:11
December 2, 1992
Page 2
FAX NO. 2066821376 P.03
which is one of the premises indicated for this process. We
note particularly that there is not even a workshop on your
question #4 (page 2) regarding implementation, financing and
governance. Indeed, there is also no workshop which would
consider important issues of environmental impacts from the
airport, including noise and air pollution.
3. TPB and EB Meetings (Items 12 and 13). ,
Items 12 and 13 appear to be key elements in the process
inasmuch as they are designed to "arrive at a recommendation" to
the general assembly. This is in contrast to the workshops
which are indicated to "explore topics and other issues" raised
during the consultation process. However, during the time the
plan is actually formulated, participation by constituent
interested organizations now appears to be very limited, as is
the time allowed by the TPB and EB for such meeting.
Much of the criticism from the public and our constituent
members of the PSATC process was that it was dominated by staff,
and public input was given only lip service. A process which
does not involve meaningful input at this stage is certainly
likely to engender the same kind of criticism.
We suggest at this stage that additional meetings be scheduled
and that constituent organizations be given a greater role in .
the input and the discussion process.
4. Topics of Meetings,.
I note the proposed process includes several suggested
topics for consideration at the workshops and meetings.
However, we feel strongly that the items considered here must be
expanded to consider all issues involved in this decision. We
feel strongly that our list of topics represents the minimum
number of issues to be considered.
Finally, the importance of this decision must be considered.
The plan is intended not only to resolve short term, but also
loll term air transportation plans. We can see no reason for
artificially compressing these decisions into an inadequate time
simply for the sake of meeting a deadline. Provision of
additional workshops, dealing with appropriate topics and an
appropriate time for consideration of a plan would likely only
extend the process for another two or three months. Such
limited additional time seems entirely appropriate to not only
reach a proper deoision, but to maintain public confidence one
of the first (of many) important decisions that PSRC will make.
DEC 2 '92 14:10
2066821376 PAGE.003
DEC- 2 -92 WED 14:12
December 2, 1992
Page 3
FAX NO 2066821376 P. 04
Thank you for your opportunity to comment on these matters.
JRA /py
cc: Peter Beaulieu
DEC 2 '92 14:11
Sincerely yours,
2066821376 PAGE.004
'DEC- 2 -92 WED 14:12 FAX NO. 2066821376 P.05
•
■
APPENDIX A
ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED IN THE RASP PROCESS
I. ISSUES TO BE CONS DERED.
A. DEMAND FOR AIR TRAVEL IN THE FUTURE.
1. Current demand for air transportation and its history.
2. Assessment of future demand based upon economic and
other indicators.
B. NATURE OF EXISTING RESOURCES.
1. Airside capacity - especially including runway
capacity, airspace conflicts, the 4-post plan, etc.
2. Landside capacity - especially terminals, cargo,
peripherals, airport ingress and egress, including
expansion areas
C. NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AIRPORTS (including
abatement and mitigation)
1. Review of noise levels and measurements
2. Impacts of noise on residential, commercial, schools
etc., including health
3. Review noise mitigation, including benefits from new
aircraft.
4. Other environmental impacts
D. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AIRPORT OPERATION AND EXPANSION
1. Impact of airport on local and regional economy.
2. Costs of airport on local community and government
D. ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR MEETING FUTURE AIR TRANSPORTATION
NEEDS.
1. Short Term.
a. Traffic management and airfield improvements.
b. Demand management
o. Boeing-Field
d. Additional runways at STIA
DEC 2 '92 14:11
2066821376 PRGE.005
DEC- 2 -92 WED 14:13
FAX NO. 2066821376 P. 06
2. Mid Team - second major airport in region.
a. Looational issues
b. Minimum needs for feasible second airport.
3. Long Term.
a. Way port
b. High Speed Rail
E. COST AND FINANCING OF AIRPORT EXPANSION; GOVERNANCE ISSUES.
1. Cost of various alternative plans.
2. Means of financing alternatives.
3. Governance; approvals and operations responsibility.
F. CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSALS WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND
OTHER LOCAL /REGIONAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANS.
G. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE PREFERRED PLAN.
DEC 2 '92 14:12 2066821376 PAGE.006
II Flight Plan, the RTP, and the RASP
Flight Plan is the process for considering and fording an appropriate way to meet the region's long -term
commercial air transportation capacity needs.
The Puget Sound Regional Council, as the Regional Transportation Planning Organization for King, Kitsap, Pierce
and Snohomish counties, is responsible for maintaining the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). State and
federal laws require that all major transportation improvements in the region must be consistent with the Regional
Transportation Plan.
The current Regional Transportation Plan and Growth Strategy for the central Puget Sound Region is VISION 2020,
which was adopted by the Puget Sound Council of Governments in 1990, and by its successor agency, the Puget
Sound Regional Council, in 1991.
Part of the RTP is the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP); the Regional Council's decision on Flight Plan will
be an amendment to the RASP, which was last amended in 1988. The Flight Plan Project serves as input for an
amendment to the RASP and RTP. These functional plans, in turn, are part of the broader comprehensive planning
required by Washington's Growth Management Act.
Objectives
The objectives of Flight Plan and the RASP amendment are:
• to comprehensively address regional commercial air transportation capacity issues;
• to develop air capacity solutions that consider and achieve, as much as possible, a balance between
complex and sometimes conflicting community goals such as community character and regional economic
vitality, and ways to preserve livability; and
• to identify an appropriate airport configuration, as well as other interrelated demand management, impact
mitigation and abatement, and implementation elements (such as the timing of management and construc-
tion actions) to meet the region's long term needs.
The Regional Council is committed to an open, well - informed and fair decision process leading to a RASP
amendment.
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
History of Flight Plan
Flight Plan began in 1989 as a joint effort by the Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound Council of Governments
(PSCOG), which was the forerunner to the Puget Sound Regional Council.
These two agencies jointly appointed the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC), a 39- member
volunteer group of citizens, local and state elected officials, and representatives of business, aviation and environ-
mental interests from King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish and Thurston counties, to look at the region's long -term
commercial air capacity needs, and to develop possible solutions to meet those needs.
The PSATC produced a draft recommendation, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which
contained a specific proposal for meeting the region's needs, was completed in December 1991.
While the DEIS was being developed, the local governments that made up PSCOG decided to disband the
organization and create the Puget Sound Regional Council. The Regional Council, with more authority under state
and federal laws than its predecessor, is designated by the state and federal governments as the Metropolitan
Planning and Regional Transportation Planning Organization for King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
Thus, the Regional Council took over and expanded PSCOG's role in the Flight Plan process.
Extensive public review of the PSATC draft recommendation and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) was conducted in February and March 1992. The information derived from this review provided input for
the development of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which was released by the Regional Council on
October 6, 1992.
The FEIS examines the regional impacts of a range of system -level alternatives and does not identify an
agency preferred alternative.
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
—more —
Information in the FEIS is included specifically in response to issues raised during the public review process:
• No agency "preferred" alternative is identified.
• A clear distinction is made between the level of analysis done for the system -level FEIS and the need for
specific analyses that would be needed in subsequent project -level EISs once a system -level alternative is
selected.
• A range of alternative capacity actions is presented for Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, and multiple
site options are considered for supplemental and replacement airports.
• A No- Action alternative and a more developed Demand Management alternative are included.
• Supplemental information is provided on agency decision making, institutional needs, project forecasts,
impacts for the years 2000 and 2010 as well as 2020, integration with other regional transportation and
land -use activities, mitigation, phasing of program elements, and safety and energy.
• Comments received during the public review process are produced in three Supplements.
Following the release of the FEIS, the Regional Council, independent from the Port of Seattle, began developing its
decision - making process leading toward an amendment of the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP).
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
71 Commercial Air Transportation and Airport Capacity
Information developed for Flight Plan compares the capacity of Seattle - Tacoma International Airport to the
forecasted future regional demand for air travel.
Airport capacity is a measure of the rate at which airplane arrivals and departures can be accommodated. Capacity
is commonly measured in operations per year (aircraft arrivals and departures). Capacity for aircraft arrivals and
departures is not a fixed number and varies with several technical and policy factors. These include weather, the
combination of runways in use, the mix of aircraft, airspace rules, noise abatement requirements, and technology.
Generally, the regional demand for commercial air travel increases with population and employment. The number
of annual commercial air transportation passengers at Sea -Tac Airport is expected to increase from 16.2 million in
1990 to perhaps 45 million in the year 2020 (a 178 percent increase).
Larger average aircraft sizes are expected to accommodate most of this increase in passenger demand.
However, the number of aircraft operations is still forecasted to increase by about half, from 355,000 in 1990 to
524,000 in the year 2020. Delays will begin to increase at Sea -Tac when the number of annual aircraft operations
(arrivals and departures) exceeds 380,000.
State Report on Flight Plan Forecasts
The Washington State Air Transportation Commission has researched air transportation needs statewide. In
commenting specifically on the Flight Plan forecasts, the Commission acknowledged the uncertainty of any
forecasts. The Commission concluded that Flight Plan's forecasts and capacity analysis methodology, base data,
assumptions, and results were conventionally and professionally prepared and are reasonable within the standards
of the industry.
The Commission reported that the "Flight Plan study correctly indicates that there is a real risk that the existing
airfield facilities at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport will be inadequate," but also suggested that a range of
forecasts and airport capacity options be used in policy making and implementation. (Report to the Legislative
Transportation Committee, November 20, 1992).
Net Sound Regional Council
PSRC
714 What Are the Regional Alternatives?
Five alternatives have been identified .to serve expected long -term (year 2020 and beyond) commercial air
transportation capacity needs in the central Puget Sound region. The alternatives are not equally effective in
serving demand and have varied impacts on the community and natural environment. Detailed Environmental
Impact Statement work on specific siting options would follow a regional decision on the system alternative (the
Regional Council action scheduled for April 29, 1993).
1. Sea -Tac Airport Enhancement Measures:
• Sea -Tac with Broad System Management: This alternative attempts to meet the region's future travel
needs without building any new runways. It includes the use of demand management, new'technologies,
and high -speed rail; or
• Sea -Tac in conjunction with a remote airport: A remote airport is a second airport such as Boeing Field
or Moses Lake (Grant County) Airport that would serve either connecting passengers or a share of long
distance passengers otherwise served at Sea -Tac alone; or
• Sea -Tac with a new dependent ( *) runway: This runway would be able to accommodate both landings
and takeoffs of commuter and jet aircraft, and would enable consistent two - runway airport operations
during all weather conditions.
(note *: A dependent runway is one that is not sufficiently separated from an existing runway or runways
to operate at its full capacity.)
2. Two - Airport Multiple Airport System:
One supplemental passenger - service airport would be located either north of Sea -Tac in Snohomish
County or south of Sea -Tac in Pierce County. Sea -Tac would either retain its current airfield configuration
or would add a new third dependent runway.
3. Three- Airport Multiple Airport System:
Two supplemental passenger - service airports, one located north of Sea -Tac (Snohomish County) and one
located south of Sea -Tac (Pierce County), would be developed. Sea -Tac would either retain its current
airfield configuration or would add a new third dependent runway.
4. Replacement Airport:
Sea -Tac Airport would be closed and a new, larger airport with three runways would be constructed in a
new location.
5. No Action:
Sea -Tac would continue to be the region's only passenger - service airport. No capacity improvements
related to commercial passenger service would be made to any Puget Sound area airports.
Demand Management would be part of all alternatives, especially the first option for Sea -Tac Airport enhancement.
The Regional Council has developed a draft working paper on Demand Management and System Management for
consideration during the RASP decision process. (Two related working papers address Impact Mitigation and
Abatement and Timing of Decisions and Actions.)
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
Economic and Environmental Overview
The alternatives being considered for serving the central Puget Sound region's commercial air traffic demand
distribute airport- related growth in different ways across the region. Economic factors should be considered along
with the environmental impacts addressed in the Flight Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and
subsequent project -level EISs.
Air Transportation and Economic Vitality
The economy of the Puget Sound region is closely tied to transportation services, including commercial air
transportation. In 1990, more than 32,000 jobs in the region were directly or indirectly the result of operations at
Sea -Tac International Airport. Other visitor - related activities may have accounted for another 84,000 jobs.
Airport- related and visitor - related jobs are expected to double by the year 2020. Earnings may more than double
from $2.1 billion to $5.6 billion in the year 2020. .
In addition, reliable air access is related to the emerging role of the region in Pacific Rim development, and support
of specific high employment industries within the region. These include the Boeing Company and a. growing
number of high -tech industries linked to global markets.
The Washington State Air Transportation Commission has not found hard evidence linking delays in airport
capacity expansion to negative effects upon regional economic development. However, the Commission notes that
there is a general concern that prolonged capacity deficits and congestion would lead to such effects.
Air Transportation and Environmental Quality
The regional alternatives for meeting forecasted air capacity demand involve different kinds of impacts and tradeoffs.
• Noise. Average daily noise will be reduced at Sea -Tac due to improved aircraft technology being phased
in under federal legislation (generally by the year 2000). However, the number of overflights will continue
to increase. At outlying airport sites suggested as supplements to Sea -Tac Airport, a significant increase in
noise from individual overflights would occur; the amount and location would vary depending upon the
alternative selected.
• Air Quality. Contaminant emissions from aircraft can be moderated by demand management or airport
capacity actions that improve airport efficiency. Automobile emissions are less for those alternatives that
reduce travel distance to airports (the multiple airport systems).
• Transportation. Ground travel to airports will account for 2 to 5 percent of total ground travel in the region
in the year 2020, depending upon the alternative selected. The replacement airport alternative (Fig. 9)
generates the greatest amount of ground travel, while the multiple airport systems probably generate the
least. However, increasing local congestion will be aggravated at any site(s) actually selected for increased
or new airport service.
• Land Use. The major land use tradeoff is between the protection of residential communities in urban areas
from airport impacts, or conversely, the protection of sparsely developed areas outside urban growth areas
from airport impacts. Within urban areas, a major tradeoff is between airport capacity and surrounding
residential property values and quality of life. Economic activity will be stimulated by airport develop-
ments; however, the assumed closure of Sea -Tac Airport under the replacement alternative involves a
dramatic shift of economic activity from south King County to another location.
The FEIS also discusses public services, natural environment, earth (landfill requirements), energy and public
safety. The regional airport system alternatives in the FEIS each include more than one site option. Detailed
analyses are deferred to site specific studies. These future analyses could lead to Flight Plan FEIS amendments.
Puget Sound Regional Council
P$RC
71 Key Concerns and Questions
In developing a RASP amendment, the Regional Council will work with member governments and`consult with
citizen groups in preparation for a March 24 public hearing and a subsequent General Assembly decision. Key
concerns include:
• Environmental quality and livability, including noise - related health issues and equity in distribution of
impacts (access, noise, air quality, land use and property values) that may be necessary, and abatement and
mitigation of impacts;
• Regional growth and rising passenger needs, and long -term regional economic vitality;
• Integration of transportation systems (including costs and accessibility), and system airspace issues
(including general aviation and overflights);
• Short and long -term operational projections and capacity analyses, system alternatives (including no-
action and demand management), and phasing of decisions and actions, including coordination with the
private airline industry;
• Demand management and system management alternatives;
• Implementation questions, including governance and continuing relationships, and conflict resolution
processes.
As part of its decision process, the Regional Council will supplement existing information (e.g., the FEIS) with
issues -and- options papers addressing concerns raised during the public review process in early 1992.
The following sequence of questions will help organize the Regional Council deliberation process.
1. What are the criteria, related to economic, environmental, health and livability issues, to be considered in
reaching a decision? Are current facilities adequate to serve long term needs, or will there be a problem in
meeting the region's commercial aviation needs, given projected demand and capacity analyses?
2. How can system management actions, such as new uses for existing facilities or new non - airport facilities
(e.g. high speed rail), and/or demand management actions such as pricing mechanisms, help satisfy the
region's needs in the short (2010) and long term (2020 to 2050)?
3. If management approaches are not sufficient to address short and long term needs, what facility improve-
ments should be selected for future action, either in the short or long term? Conversely, which of the
alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) should be discarded at this
time? Are there combinations of the FEIS alternatives that should be considered?
4. How should these decisions be implemented? Who should monitor actions and make decisions? Are new
forms of regional airport governance and financing needed? What are the trigger points for implementing
selected actions? What are appropriate conditions of approval or standards for mitigation? Should
provision be made for ongoing dispute resolution?
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
Port of Seattle
SOUTH
AVIATION
SUPPORT
AREA
BACKGROUND:
On March 13, 1992 the Port of Seattle and
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) on the Port's proposed South Aviation
Support Area (SASA) project. The DEIS,
prepared under both national and state
environmental laws, evaluates several project
designs and the impacts of each.
The project is intended to serve existing demand
for airport support facilities, such as aircraft
maintenance. The SASA site could cover
portions of the area north of S. 200th St., south
of S. 188th St., and west of 28th Avenue S.. At
its maximum about 100 acres could be
developed, depending on which alternative is
ultimately chosen.
The purpose of this flyer is to provide
more information about the issues surrounding
the project. This flyer cannot provide a
complete summary of the DEIS; instead, it is
intended to highlight the key issues and identify
possible mitigation proposed in the study.
Anyone wishing to comment on the
project is urged to obtain a copy of the document
by calling 728 -3193. Written comments may
be sent to Sarah Dalton, Federal Aviation
Administration, Seattle Airports District
Office, Suite . 250, 1601 Lind Ave. SW, Renton,
WA 98055 -4056.
HIGHLIGHTS
of the
DRAFT
1]* f1.
MAP. 3 9 1992
vJ.' \r 1, ,t6Le\
-! rI'9,:s G
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
STATEMENT
Key dates:
March 13 through April 27: Public
comment period
March 24: Briefing for the SeaTac City
Council and Planning Commission
(5:30- 6:15p. m.)
April 9: Public hearing at Tyee High
School, 4424 S. 188th (Open House 5:30;
Hearing 7 p.m.)
More Information may be obtained by
contacting Port staff:
Environmental /Barbara Hinkle: 728 -3193
Planning /Gerry Poor: 248 -6866
Communications /Rosie Courtney: 433 -5342
NEED FOR THE PROJECT:
* The Port of Seattle has twice in the past two
years been requested to consider locating a base
maintenance (major overhaul) facility here.
These requests have prompted the Port to plan
and design to allow for these facilities at
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport.
* Improvements to the terminal areas will be
required to accommodate the increased number
of airline passengers using existing facilities.
Terminal improvements to accommodate these
passengers -- especially those on international
flights - -will require relocating some or all of
the existing line (routine) maintenance
facilities presently located south of the
passenger terminal to a new location with direct
access to the airfield.
OVERVIEW OF THE
ALTERNATIVES:
* The DEIS analyzes three "build" alternatives
providing varying levels and types of aircraft
maintenance, as well as a No- Action
Alternative. Under any of the "build"
alternatives, the Port would prepare the site
and extend utilities to it; the airlines
themselves would typically construct the
structures on the site.
* None of these alternatives would increase the
number of flights at Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport, since aircraft due for
maintenance are generally routed here on
scheduled flights. All operations at the site
would be subject to the existing Noise Mediation
Agreement.
* The site, located south of the Airport, is on a
hillside separated from the Airport by a ravine,
with Des Moines Creek running at the bottom of
the ravine. All "build" alternatives would
require extensive earth work and varying
amounts of retaining wall to develop the
platform for aircraft hangars and parking and a
taxiway bridge to connect to the airfield.
* All alternatives propose relocating portions
of Des Moines Creek north of 200th to the west
of its present location. In most alternatives
this design creates a more natural stream with
fewer culverted portions than currently exist,
improving water flow control and quality.
* Because SASA development would occur in an
area where several other major projects are
proposed, the DEIS considers these projects and
their physical layouts, cumulative impacts, and
construction timing. Some of these projects
are the South Access Roadway /SR 509
Extension, 28th /24th Avenue South Arterial,
potential runway safety area extension, and the
City of SeaTac's Aviation + Business Center.
* Each of the alternatives assumes a different
mix of aviation support uses and commercial
development. This allows for the total impact to
be analyzed. However, future commercial
development would be considered a separate
project, requiring its own environmental
review.
DESCRIPTION OF THE
ALTERNATIVES:
* No- Action Alternative. SASA would not be
developed now or in the near future (neither
line nor base maintenance facilities) and no site
preparation would occur. While this
alternative does not confirm that commercial or
any other type of development would occur
here, it does assume current underlying zoning
would prevail. This alternative reflects the
City of SeaTac's assumption that approximately
1,750,000 s.f. of commercial development
could be built on the site itself and in the
project impact area by 2003.
* Alternative I. Three existing line
maintenance facilities are relocated from their
present locations south of the passenger
terminal to the SASA site, and an area large
enough for two additional future line
maintenance facilities is set aside.
Approximately 1,835,000 s.f. would be
available for possible future commercial
development. Construction costs for this
alternative would be approximately $73
million.
Under Option 1A, the southern part of the site
would not be acquired by the Port for the SASA
project and would be left for possible future
commercial development. This would not,
however, change assumptions about the amount
of commercial development that would occur by
2003.
* Alternative 2. In addition to relocating the
three existing line maintenance facilities, this
alternative also includes construction of a base
maintenance facility comparable to that
envisioned by Alaska Airlines. Area would also
be set aside for future expansion of that base
maintenance facility. A "hush facility" to
mitigate engine testing noise would be built, as
outlined in the 1990 Noise Mediation
Agreement. Approximately 925,000 s.f. would
be available for possible future commercial
development. Construction costs for this
alternative would be approximately $111
million.
* Alternative 3. This alternative relocates the
three line maintenance facilities, accommodates
a base maintenance facility and the "hush
facility" covered in the previous alternatives,
but adds additional hangars and hardstands for
future expansion. Approximately 319,000 s.f.
remain available for future commercial
development in the project area. Construction
costs for this alternative would be
approximately $110 million (lower than
Alternative 2 because Tess retaining wall is
proposed).
PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS:
* Water Quality and Flow:
-- Overall improvement in Des Moines Creek
-- Relocation of the creek channel from its
existing, man -made path is designed to improve
stormwater detention, water quality and fish
habitat.
- -The stream relocation would require some
wetland restoration and provide an enhanced
new habitat.
-- Lengthening of the stream would maintain
existing levels of oxygen. There is a net
increase of 1,315 feet in Alternative 1; 1,445
in Alternative 2; and 195 feet in Alternative 3.
- -Since the existing Airport Industrial Waste
System (IWS) is nearing capacity, an auxiliary
IWS would be necessary for SASA development.
The alternatives each provide a two-celled
covered pond system to hold operating area
water runoff before routing it to the new IWS
treatment facility.
- -A new regional stormwater management
facility is proposed for mitigation. Ponds would
be north of the Alaska Airlines Training Facility
(currently located at 28th Ave. S. and 192nd)
to provide water quality enhancement, detain
SASA runoff, and provide a replacement
floodplain for the existing creek.
* Employment and Revenue Aspects:
- -The study assumes that City zoning would
prevail to the extent the site is not utilized by
the Port for aviation purposes. The DEIS
recognizes the City's desire to encourage a
denser, more pedestrian - friendly environment,
and to create an Aviation Business Center
including a mix of land uses: government
facilities, hotel, office, parking, retail, light
industrial, aviation related, and other uses.
- -All alternatives project significant sales tax
revenues for the region - -from $13 million to
$38 million between now and 2003. And many
new permanent jobs for the region would be
created, ranging from about 4,400 to 9,400.
Significant construction employment would also
occur, ranging from about 2300 to 5,000.
- -All the alternatives also generate property
tax and leasehold revenues for state and local
jurisdictions. Property tax revenues tend to
lessen as more of the area is in public
ownership, and is therefore lowest under
Alternative 3. Leasehold taxes, which are paid
by private parties who lease publicly -owned
property, tend to increase with the amount of
SASA development, more than offsetting the
decrease in property tax revenues.
- -The major revenues the City of SeaTac would
receive are from property and leasehold taxes.
The highest total revenue to the City between
now and 2003 is projected to be from
Alternative 1: about $6.3 million; the lowest
total revenue to the City is projected to be from
the No- Action Alternative: about $3.2 million.
In addition, the City will benefit by receiving a
portion of the sales tax revenues and a share of
the positive impacts from the new jobs created
by the project.
* Noise:
- -The Port remains committed to the goals set
out in the 1990 Noise Mediation Agreement.
- -SASA would not increase operations, as
aircraft needing service are generally routed
on scheduled flights.
-- Engine runups would not occur on site,
unless within the "hush facility" included in the
base maintenance facility.
-- Aircraft would be towed on site but would
generally taxi under power between SASA
hangars and passenger loading gates.
- -There would be temporary periods of truck
and equipment noise during construction. The
Port would comply with the King County Noise
Ordinance and work closely with the City of
SeaTac to minimize impacts.
* Surface Transportation:
- -Under the No- Action Alternative heavy
congestion will occur at three intersections by
1994 and at nine intersections by 2003, based
on City of SeaTac development assumptions for
the project area and surrounding vicinity.
- -All SASA alternatives would significantly
lower the site - generated traffic compared with
the No Action Alternative because of the lower
density created by aviation uses. Where the No
Action Alternative generates 35,000 trips per
day, each SASA alternative generates less than
half that level of traffic.
-- During construction, truck trips are
expected for earthwork activity. Delays at
three to six nearby intersections could be
reduced by storing excavated soil on site.
* Air quality:
-- Construction would produce dust from earth -
moving activities and heavy equipment.
Proposed mitigation measures could include
spraying exposed sites with water, cleaning
construction equipment to minimize deposits on
roads, and paving roads and parking lots
promptly to reduce dust.
- -Once the base is operational, emissions would
be generated by aircraft taxiing to and from
SASA site; however, these emissions would
represent only a small fraction of total airport
emissions. Minimizing the duration of taxiing
and aircraft engine runups could provide
mitigation.
* Recreation:
- -Many improvement projects currently being
considered by the Port of Seattle, the City of
SeaTac and the Department of Transportation
may impact the Tyee Valley Golf Course, owned
by the Port of Seattle.
- -All SASA alternatives require the golf course
to discontinue operation, although a 9 -hole
course could be considered in the future.
March, 1992
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
March 6, 1992
Sarah Dalton
Puget Sound Planner
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue S.W.
Renton, Washington 98055 -4056
John W. Rants, Mayor
Subject: Environmental Assessment - Microwave Landing System
Dear Ms. Dalton:
On behalf of the City of Tukwila, I hereby request an extension of
the comment period for the Microwave Landing System (MLS)
environmental analysis.
Because the proposed flight tracks will be over the City of
Tukwila, we are interested in reviewing the information provided in
as much depth as possible. This information is highly technical in
nature, and additional time is needed for us to conduct a thorough
analysis. Without an extension of the comment period, we will not
be able to do the kind of research we feel is necessary.
We appreciate this opportunity for review, and look forward to your
favorable consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
cc:
Tukwila City Council
Moira Bradshaw, DCD
Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
To: John McFarland
From: Moira Carr Bradshaw
Subject: Commercial Air Transportation
Date: 19 February 1992
I have passed on the City's copy of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Draft Environmental Assessment on the Microwave
Landing System to Steve Lawrence. I have also notified him of an
FAA briefing on the MLS in the SeaTac Airport Auditorium on 20
February 1992.
My understanding is that at this time staff will not be spending
any time on any SeaTac airport proposals, including Flight Plan and
the MLS system.
Please let me know when the status changes or if there is a issue
of concern to the Mayor's office.
Public Notice
Extension of Comment Period
The deadline for public and agency comments on the draft programmatic
environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Draft Final Report of the Puget
Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) is hereby extended an additional 30
days. The DEIS was circulated for comment on January .7,1992, pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW) and the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC 197 -11).
The original 45 -day deadline of Friday, February 21, 1992 is replaced by the new
deadline of Monday, March 23, 1992. (Responsible Public Official: Mary
McCumber, Executive Director, Puget Sound Regional Council. For further
information contact Peter Beaulieu, Project Co- Manager, (206) 464- 7537.)
%\c.
C ES 2 0 19 2.
Uri NN1NG DEPT .
za A�rpvr Sys'temY : S �T mould �e the re n's p
eres.ser'srierp snd ski ettberrerat s orbave
ter nwa ctr p�rn€ett
zt ofone axzpore m iegio • w sup aIement Seo »`Tae v. isaTtr.a new s� u�ae tom: _n
* Replacement Airport: Close Sea -Tac and build a new airport capable
of meeting the region's long -term air travel needs.
Packaged with the above two alternatives were Demand Management
Techniques and New Technologies used to the maximum extent pos-
sible.
* Sea -Tac in conjunction with the maximum feasible package of: a)
demand management techniques, b) new technologies, and c) alternate .
modes of transportation. This package of previous solutions would
attempt to meet future demand without additional runways.
* Boeing Field as a Close -in Remote Airport: Earlier analysis of this al-
ternative by the FAA and the consultants to the PSATC concluded that
increased air traffic interaction between Sea -Tac and Boeing Field
would result in unacceptable operational reliability at Boeing Field
with no net capacity gain for the region. Additional analysis of the
airspace situation was requested to determine if it could be resolved. If
the airspace issue could be resolved, the Committee could consider this
-a-s--an-additional alternative warranting further study. ; '
.ly6iL,lti ���lCfl1�1l1VCS
Base Case A: No major facility improvements at any Puget Sound air-
ports, except for those already underway
Base Case B: Short-term capital projects and policies that may be imple-
mented at Sea -Tac before the year 2000
Expand Sea -Tac: Full development of the existing airport site, roughly
within the current boundaries
Replacement Airport: Close Sea -Tac and build a single new airport .
designed to meet the long -term aviation needs of the region.
ultiple Afrp ort System: , Dne airport serving as the primary conainerei aj
airport forthe region, with one or more smaller supplemental cornrrmercial
airports.
Remote Airport: Development of a second airport operated in tandem
with Sea -Tac, with direct ground transportation connection to Sea -Tac
(either a close -in airport like Boeing Field, or a distant airport like Moses
Lake /Grant County). This alternative differs from a multiple airport
system in that the airports would be functionally linked.
Demand Management: Pricing and/or regulatory techniques which en-
courage the use of larger aircraft, flights during non -peak hours, and the di-
version of passengers to other travel modes.
New Technologies: New aircraft, air traffic control procedures, and other
technologies which enhance airport capacity
High -Speed Ground Transportation System: Development of a high-
speed ground transportation system (such as steel wheel or magnetic -
levitation trains) linking major urban areas to each other and the airport,
replacing a number of trips now taken by air and automobile
r
To: City Council
From: Mayor Rants
Date: February 18, 1992
Subject: Commercial Air Transportation
Prior to contributing $50,000 to the City of Des Moines to fight
all planning and building efforts by the Port. of Seattle at Sea -
Tac, the following issues are raised.
There are a number of airport related proposals before the City.
Before the City Administration can respond, the Council's scope of
concern and intentions needs to be clarified. The following
options are being suggested in order to gather more information and
to maximize options and flexibility prior to decision making.
* Reserve the $50,000 contribution until final action on state
legislative bill to prevent Port action prior to and contrary
with recommendations of the Washington State's Air
Transportation Commission (WSATC.) Legislative action
expected by 30 April; WSATC Recommendations due in 1993.
* Review Tukwila air transportation policies; proposed action is
contrary to adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan policy of
encouraging an efficient air transport system.
Use second Vision Tukwila meetings (February 25 - March
17) to assess community opinion regarding commercial air
transportation and budget transfer /allocations.
* Dedicate a portion of the $50,000 to a Tukwila airport fund to
study the technical aspects of an efficient air transport
system and specific impacts to Tukwila in order to develop an
alternatives response and comprehensive mitigation package.
* Review and decide expectations, work products, and potential
future liabilities for expenditure of $50,000 in interlocal
agreement with Des Moines /Regional Commission on Airport
Affairs (RCAA.) Specifically,
o retain right to comment on any other federal or local
proposals for improvements to the air transportation
system.
o require a full review of potential mitigation and provide
timely comment on Flight Plan Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS.)
FROM: CITY OF DES MOINES
TO:CITY OF TUKWILA 41, FEB 12, 1992 3:40PM #065 P.02
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
IN ACCORDANCE with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Revised
Code of Washington Chapter 39.34), the City of Tukwila
(hereinafter "Tukwila"), a Washington municipal corporation, and
the City of Des Moines (hereinafter "Des Moines ") hereby enter
into this agreement based on the following facts and assumptions:
RECITALS
1. Tukwila and Des Moines have expressed their opposition
to the development of a third runway, and other system
improvements leading to increased air traffic, inside the current
boundaries of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport by resolutions
duly passed by the respective city councils.
2. The City Councils of Tukwila and Des Moines have
expressed the need to create a coalition of interested
jurisdictions to oppose the above- referenced development and
authorizing transfer and expenditures of funds for such purpose.
3. The parties believe that a collective effort including
pooled resources is the most effective method of achieving the
goals stated herein; and further, that such collective effort
should include other interested jurisdictions and certain other
public and private non - profit groups wishing to participate in
achieving goals consistent with those expressed herein.
4. Tukwila and Des Moines are willing to have policy expressed in this agreement administered by an executive
committee known as the "Regional Commission on Airport Affairs"
(R.C.A.A.). By entering into this agreement, Tukwila and Des
Moines agree to promote the following goals:
A. To defeat the construction of any
additional runways at Seattle - Tacoma International
Airport.
B. To limit the number of flight operations to
a specific level and to ilinl rnTC, night flights.
C. Limit the airport : expansionso a.m n
assiMMIONIMEMAIMPloallm
D. Continue opposition to the recently
installed "Four Post Plan ".
WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOREGOING, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
FROM: CITY OF DES MOINES TO:CITY OF TUKWILA OFEB 12, 1992 3:41PM #065 P.03
Interlocal Agri lent - G.A.N.C.
Page 2
1. Tukwila hereby joins the "Government Aircraft Noise
Coalition ( r o . oNoC0) , apt adm+ n3�s:trastiTue .._ nt�ity comprised of
interested jurisdictions tRdlpart4e opposing the development of
a third runway at_Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, which is
d 'a'dmtfnti4atraFtion og` Des ;M i ide.. WAs a member of G. A.N. C.
Tukwila shall be entitled to representation on the executive
committee.
2. Membership to G.A.N.C. shall remain open to other
public governmental organizations. aF�a hNaou ior' rganization
joining G.A.N.C. shall subscribe to the statement of policies and
purpose set forth herein and ratify the same through its
respective legislative or executive authority.
3. As members of G.A.N.C., the parties recognize the
desire of certain other public and private non - profit groups to
participate in achieving goals consistent with such organization.
G.A.N.C. also recognizes that the federal tax code status of some
groups prohibits the use of funds for particular activities.
Therefore, G.A.N.C. agrees to recognize the Aircraft Noise
Coalition (A.N.C.), an association of activist groups, by equal
representation on the executive committee; provided, that A.N.C.
or any successors thereto, shall subscribe to the policies and
goals set forth by G.A.N.C.
4. Parties agree that G.A.N.C. and A.N.C. will share a
ro-ommor,� exeeWive comet tee known as the W3egtio a1 Gomiuiss qn ornf\
is i rpta A•fTfYaims , a413t G�A� Ay.- =)1 to guide formulation and
implementation of policies and strategies to achieve the goals
set forth herein; provided, however, that G.A.N.C. and A.N.C.
shall each maintain separate accounting and auditing structures;
and provided further, that such [executive committee. ,shall:
r omit admire"istra►tAior k f fiff ds h''e�1rd y ewe or aniz,attio '`
_�_- � � Wig, lthr- �ough�a
(common bu7$tg.. = - —
5. Tukwila and Des Moines agree that any funds transferred
as contemplated by Tukwila Resolution No. shall be
maintained in the City of Des Moines "Airport Defense Fund ",
established under Ordinance No. 924, which shall have a separate
accounting and identity from other monetary resources in the City
of Des Moines. The diplu, pose of the Airpo ti 4D;efens,e F i dj as
established is for receipt and expenditure of monies for any
action taken t-( prevent the# . planning and con struct lton iaf *5any
improvements trot .Seattle Tacoma Internation Air�plort thfat woul ;
nc.- _ease._air tr,;a ifti'c� abov ex �stxngA- levels
6. Tukwila and Des Moines agree that any member of
G.A.N.C. may restrict the type of disbursements to be made from
its contribution; to the organization and such restrictions shall
be duly noted in accounting for any funds. Further, in the event
that G.A.N.C. dissolves or a member withdraws, each member shall
be entitled to a pro rata refund of any unused portion of its
contribution to the organization. An annual audit of G.A.N.C.
FROM: CITY OF DES MO•S TO :CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 12, 1992 3 :41PM #065 P.04
Interlocal Agreement - G.A.N.C.
Page 3
funds shall be prepared by the administrative coordinator and
presented to the R.C.A.A. executive committee for approval.
7. Tukwila acknowledges that the R.C.A.A. executive
committee is charged with policy development and implementation
necessary to forward common goals, to adopt and administer a
budget, and seek outside professional assistance as necessary to
achieve the purposes set forth herein. The R.C.A.A. executive
committee will be guided in its work by the executive director,
whose duties shall include administration of the budget, policy
�_plementati.on and,^sta ff ';management. The R.C.A.A. shall adopt
1�`(( y carry goals expressed
such bylaws as are neces�s r to carr out the
O�ti� ` . herein.- ---The_ City Manager of Des Moines shall act as the
%administrative coordinator ;for activities carried out by G.A.N.C.
8. A quorum for the conduct of business by the R.C.A.A.
executive committee shall exist whenever a majority of such
l�/j , , committee can be assemble•tCeofany meeting shall be
�(Ni/ irculate• o a 1 members of such committee. Meetings of the
organization as a whole ( G.A.N.C. and A.N.C.) may occur at the
direction of the R.C.A,A. executive committee. The
administrative coordinator will give notice to all G.A.N.C.
members of the organization of the meeting place, date and time.
A quorum for the conduct of regular business of the organiz tion
as a whole shall exist when one -third (1/3) or more the
membership are present at any meeting properly called. M flutes
will be maintained of every meeting of either the R.C.A.A.
executive committee or the organization as a whole. If no quorum
is present for the conduct of regular business, the minutes shall
so reflect and no action shall be taken on any proposal scheduled
for such meeting; provided, however, that G.A.N.C. and A.N.C.
members present who do not constitute a quorum may informally
discuss policy matters and strategies subject to ratification by
the R.C.A.A. executive committee or general membership prior to
implementation. ' Meetings of the R.C.A.A. and its member
organizations shall be held in accordance with the Washington
State Open Public Meetings Act and any exceptions provided by
statute.
d, .e5
9. The parties hereto agree
their respective officers, agents,
any claims which might arise
participation in activities related
to 'hold harmless each other,
employees and volunteers for
due to staff or official
to this interlocal.
10. G.A.N.C. shall continue in existence only so long as is
authorized by the legislative or executive authority of each
member. The initial term of this interlocal agreement shall be
for three (3) years from January 10, 1992 through January 10,
1995.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the agreement has been executed by each
party on the date set forth below:
FROM:
CITY OF DES M0•
Interlocal Agreement - G.A.N.C.
Page 4
TO :CITY OF TUKUILA
CITY OF DES MOINES
Greg Prothman
City Manager, By direction
of the Des Moines City
Council taken
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
"FEB 12, 1992 3 :42PM #065 P.05
CITY OF TUKWILA
John McFarl d
City Adm strator, By direction (V{geZ
of t ukwila City
C oil taken
ATTEST:
James B. Gorham
City Attorney
Date:
W700 /MODELMIS /91/958
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Date:
ISSUE:
DEMAND EXCEEDS FACILITIES CAPACITY
1960 - 1.6 MILLION 81,000 OPERATION
1990 - 16.2 MILLION 355,000
2020 45. MILLION 470,000 OPERATIONS
similar to current situation at multiple airport systems in chicago
and SFA
1 operational runway 45% of time here
RECOMMENDATION:
A phased MULTIPLE AIRPORT SYSTEM
a. scheduled service on existing runway at PAE
b. new runway at SEA
by the year 2000
c. implementation after 2010 of a south airport utilizing McCord,
Fort lewis or Olympia /Black Lake
Secondary alternatives /�__rr
without PAE ; S1L `�
arlington with 2 runways cn 2.
central pierce with 2 runways
Without SEA addition
1 at pae and pierce each
Without SEA and PAE
arlington with 2 runways
1 each at arlington and central pierce
1 each arlington and olm
WHO:
PSATC - PSRC AND PORT
PROCESS:
FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT
PHASE 1 - Mission statement
PHASE 2 - forcast analysis and broad alternatives
PHASE 3 planning analysis of 34 alternatives
ALTERNATIVE AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPLEMENTATION:
REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN
COUNTY POLICY FRAMEWORK PLANS
LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
AIRPORT MASTER PLANS
RECOMMENDATION
CITY'S EXISTING OBJECTIVES & POLICIES
FORWARD TO CAP TO DEVELOP A CITY RESPONSE TO PROPOSAL by 21
February 1992.
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN
AIRPORTS
OBJECTIVE 4: ENCOURAGE AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF AIR
TRANSPORT WHICH SERVES BOTH THE PEOPLE
AND INDUSTRIES OF THE PLANNING AREA.
OBJECTIVE 5: PROMOTE A HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND SURROUNDING LAND
USE.
POLICY 1: ENCOURAGE THE REDUCTION OF NOISE FROM THE
JET AIR TRAFFIC ON BOEING FIELD.
POLICY 2: PROMOTE AIRPORT - RELATED AND OTHER
COMPATIBLE LAND USES AROUND AIRPORTS.
POLICY3: ENCOURAGE FLIGHT PATTERNS AND
LANDING/TAKEOFF METHODS WHICH MINIMIZE
NOISE IMPACTS ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
POLICY 4: DEVELOP GUIDELINES TO REGULATE THE USE AND
LOCATION OF HELIPORTS.
POLICY 5: DISCOURAGE HELICOPTER TRAFFIC FROM FLYING
LOW OVER RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
POLICY 6: CREATE A FUNCTIONAL, SAFE, AND CONVENIENT
SIDEWALK OR PATHWAY SYSTEM.
February 10, 1992
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
COUNCILMEMBERS
PRESENT
OFFICIALS
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
(Future of SeaTac Airports)
Puget Sound Air
Transportation Cmte.
Amend Agenda.
CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MINUTES
Council President Ekberg called the Committee of The Whole Meeting
of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN
HERNANDEZ, DENNIS ROBERTSON, CHARLIE SIMPSON,
STEVE LAWRENCE, STEVE MULLET
JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; MICHAEL KENYON,
City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; MOIRA
BRADSHAW, DCD; ROSS EARNST/RON CAMERON/DOUG
MICHEAU, Public Works.
Pete Boleo, Staff Project Manager of the Puget
Sound Regional Council; and Mike Fellman, Port of Seattle, gave a brief
overview of the proposed third runway at SeaTac Airport. The Puget
Sound Air Transportation Committee (a 39- member board appointed
by the Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound Regional Council) was
selected to review airport expansion alternatives. The committee has
included various governmental agencies, citizens, businesses and the
environmental council to establish the best approach to this issue. Mr.
Boleo stated the deadline for further comments has been extended to
March 23.
Greg Prothman, City of Des Moines, requested that the Council donate
$100,000 to the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA),
toward the hiring of independent airport experts to examine the draft
environmental impact statement produced under the direction of the
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee.
Dennis Lensegrav, Vice- President of government Affairs, Southwest
King County Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber does
support the Flight Plan Committee's preferred alternative --a third
runway. Dennis Olson, an airline employee, elaborated that if there is
no third runway, and the projected population growth is realized, the
demand will exceed capacity. This will result in cutting flights in various
fashions and will have diverse impacts on air service to citizens in the
Seattle vicinity.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA BE AMENDED
TO ADD 'DISCUSSION OF A THIRD RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE"
AS AN ADDITIONAL ITEM UNDER "SPECIAL ISSUES" OF
TONIGHT'S AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
Violet Buchanan, 12560 51st Place South, commented that a beauty
bark pile, located about 50 feet from her front door, continues to grow
and she wants help in abrogating the situation.
City Attorney Mike Kenyon informed Ms. Buchanan that he will discuss
this matter in more detail with her after he reviews the court records.
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
February 10, 1992
Page 2
Citizen's Comments (Con't)
Recess
8:45 - 9:00
SPECIAL ISSUES
Discussion of a
third runway
alternative.
Councilmember Robertson commented that the Council was also
looking into this matter and will combine efforts with the City Attorney
to provide a valid explanation to Ms. Buchanan.
Ms. Thelma Larson, 12522 51st Place South, commented that the City of
Tukwila is in the process of putting fill on the corner of South 124th and
Slst Place South. Since its beginning, water has been seeping onto her
property. She's afraid that in a few years the water will reach her home.
What is the City going to do about this problem, Ms. Larson asked.
Ron Cameron, Public Works, responded that the Public Works
Departments is currently working on a design to appropriately handle
this drainage problem by spring of this year.
Ms. Mabel Harris, 14301 Interurban Avenue South, expressed her
delight and pride in the Council's decision to select Charlie Simpson to
serve on the Council.
Council President called the Committee of The Whole Meeting back to
order with those present as noted above.
John Maclntire, 4458 South 160th Street, spoke
against the third runway stating that the monies
could be put to better use such as community, road and street
improvements.
Ms. Elizabeth Springer, 13325 Macadam Road South, commented that
the third runway will not comply with FAA requirements of 4300 lineal
feet between two planes when they land simultaneously. The third
runway provides for only 2500 lineal feet. She shared a map with the
Council which showed the proposed flight paths. The planes will fly
faster but won't fly higher. They will only reach 800 feet which means
Tukwila will catch the brunt of the consequences.
Joan Merryhew, 4431 South 148th Street, commented that the City
hasn't solved its other transportation needs such as street congestion.
She recommended the City investigate all transportation avenues before
deciding on the third runway.
Bill Scheffler, 14710 59th Avenue South, expressed concerned as to the
costs involved (approximately 900,000,000 dollars), and wanted to know
who will be asked to pay for this project in bond issues.
Mike Fellman, Port of Seattle, responded that the costs are 80% by the
FAA trust fund; and, 20% local match and would be supported by the
Port of Seattle's own revenues.
MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO
AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE A BUDGET
TRANSFER OF $50,000, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, TO BE
CONTRIBUTED TO THE COALITION OF CITIES CALLED THE
REGIONAL COMMISSION ON AIRPORT AFFAIRS, WHO WILL
HIRE INDEPENDENT AIRPORT EXPERTS TO PURSUE MEANS
OF STOPPING A PROPOSED THIRD RUNWAY AT SEATAC
AIRPORT, AND FORWARD TO THE NEXT REGULAR
COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL*
• •
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
February 10, 1992
Page 3
Special Issues
Third runway (Con't).
Christensen Road
street vacation.
Councilmember Hernandez commented that after reading the Flight
Plan Project Report which is very technical, it lists thirty-four different
options and alternatives. Her concern is that nowhere in the report
does it address what will happen to neighborhoods, communities or
schools that are impacted. She stated support should be provided both
morally and financially to the local governments to come up with some
other evaluations that will benefit and address the concerns of the
Tukwila community.
Council President Ekberg commented that the City's budget situation
must be considered prior to making any agreements, and suggested the
administration determine the funding availability. He also suggested a
public hearing be held within the next several weeks (at a C.O.W.
meeting) to afford public input.
Councilmember Robertson commented that while he believes in air
transportation, he does not see the proposed third runway project as
being a meaningful solution to the problem; it is merely, at best, a short
gap. There's only a certain amount of noise and air pollution a certain
area can absorb without health impacts. The Tukwila area has reached
a point where adding more capacity would add more air pollution, more
noise. It's time to build a second airport somewhere else in the region
where others could share the impact, he added.
Councilmember Simpson agreed with Robertson that it's time someone
else shared in the burden of progress.
Councilmember Duffle directed his concerns to the citizens of Tukwila,
asking the question: "What are we going to cut out now ?" Will the
citizens have to wait on the water and the sewer lines in the Allentown
area? Duffie encouraged a public hearing to hear from the citizens
prior to making a decision.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
DUFFLE NO
HERNANDEZ YES
ROBERTSON YES
EKBERG NO
SIMPSON YES
LAWRENCE YES
MULLET YES
*MOTION CARRIED 5 to 2.
Mayor Rants informed the Council that the necessary documents would
be prepare for Council review and/or approval by next Regular Council.
Ross Earnst, Public Works, reviewed a petition that
had been submitted to vacate Christensen Road right -of -way which lies
immediately south of I-405 and east of the Green River. The right -of-
way dead -ends on the north at the I-405 right -of -way and is bounded on
the east and west by properties owned by Helen B. Nelsen, petitioner,
and the City of Tukwila, respectively.
It was the consensus of the Council not to vacate at this time, and to
retain the Christensen Road right -of -way to use as possible open space.
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
February 10, 1992
Page 4
Council 1992 Work
Plan.
CIP Work Plan.
REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
10:20 P.M.
The Council reviewed and discussed the Workplan
priorities, and requested administration review the list and be prepared
at the next Committee of The Whole Meeting to discuss timelines.
City Administrator McFarland presented the CIP Workplan to the
Council and commented that the workplan is an articulation of the
projects that administration identified would be funded in 1992, and the
ones that could realistically be initiated. He informed the Council that
the Plan is a working document and it should be treated as such. -He
continued that there are some projects listed that have been added for
informational purposes. These are anticipated activities associated with
development, but have not been identified. However, they do take a
good deal of staff time. He asked only that the Council look at the
Work Plan from the perspective of a work year for staff as the review
process begins.
The Council agreed to forward the CIP Work Plan to Council
Subcommittees.
Councilmember Hernandez reported she had recently attended a
dinner in Olympia with the state legislators and she appreciated that
Mayor Rants was in attendance also.
Council President Ekberg reported that a thank -you letter (under the
signature of the Mayor and Council President) had been sent to the
three legislators who met with the Council last week. He also reported
that the centennial celebration of the South Central School District was
held last Thursday. Mayor Rants delivered a well received speech at the
occasion.
Councilmember Simpson reported he and Councilmember Lawrence
had participated in a meeting at the Duwamish Improvement Club
regarding the sewer line Metro is installing from Alki to the Renton
Treatment Plant. Lawrence commented that Ross Earnst and Ron
Cameron were also in attendance and did an excellent job in imparting
information.
MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED.
MOTION CARRIED.
Allan Ekberg, Council President
Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
AGENDA
DATE:
MOnday, Feb. 10, '92
TIME 5:00 p.m.
. ACTION TO BE TAKEN
t,//1. Puget Sound Regional Council
L2.Growth Management Planning Council
Agreement
3. Mr. Aliment Property Purchase
4. Committee work plan for 1992
5. Airport Runway Report
v V Miscellaneous
1. Discuss agreement; if you agreE
to suport it, pass it to the Regu:.
Councilfor a motion for the mayor
sign the agreement.
2. Discuss the Planning Council :
whether or not you agree to join.
If so, refer to Regular Council.
3. Mr. Aliment wants to meet wit:
the committee to discuss his prop,
by the river.
4. Plan the year's work.
5. Staff will brief the. committe,
on the 3rd runway issue before th.
COW discussion.
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
To: Mayor Rants
From: Rick Beeler
Date: 6 February 1992
Subject: Commercial Air Transportation System Alternatives
BACKGROUND
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) as part of the
Flight Plan project, is requesting comments on its preferred
alternative for a multiple airport system which would include a
third runway at Sea -Tac, use an existing runway at Paine Field and
a Central Pierce County airport.
A programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS.) has been
issued on the project to review and recommend alternatives for the
commercial air transportation system. Any specific construction
improvements would be evaluated in a project specific environmental
review by the agency responsible for the - facility.
ANALYSIS
At the Council's direction, due to time constraints, the issues to
be reviewed will be those raised by concerned citizens in the area
including noise, air quality and economic impacts. Staff added
transportation impacts.
NOISE
In Tukwila, the Cascade View neighborhood is the only area with
airport incompatible land . uses (residential, school,
hospital /nursing home, historic site) experiencing significant
aircraft noise levels. Due to the noise mediation agreement and
the trend toward quieter aircraft,: the noise impact areas (or
contours) are shrinking. By 1996, only a portion of the Riverton
Hospital property will remain within the significant noise impact
area.
The DEIS shows projected populations for the year 2000 but used
expected noise impact contours for the year 2020. (The analysis
assumes that population /land use restrictions will be in place by
the year 2000 to prevent any incompatible land use encroachment
into the air traffic areas. As most of the areas around Sea -Tac
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Far (206) 433 -1833
and Paine are already platted and predominately developed this
assumption would not be accurate.) See attached table.
Suggested mitigating measures on the new
runway although Sa -Ta not pear
to slightly increase the noise impact
noise contour (651dn,) within the Cascade View area.
Population summaries of noise effected population summaries are
has an
shown for the alternatives in table 12-4.
e within the significant
noise
estimated population of 66,000 expected 7,000 .0 by the year 2020.
contour compared to an exp
Annual operations have been projected for the alternatives e studied.
Sea -Tac currently has 355,000 operations and expected a estimated e to atha have
of ex
a practical capacity of 380,000. A summary p p
in shown in Table A -1 attached.
AIR QUALITY
Carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (TSP), hydrocarbons (HC),
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (N0x) emissions were
calculated , separating aircraft from automobile emissions.
Aircraft produce CO and HO during taxi and idle queues, SO2 and
NOx during takeoff and approach. Aircraft emissions were found to
be comparable for all alternatives due to the same level of
expected operations. Emissions would be less for those
alternatives which would not meet capacity demand. (Alternatives
1,2,3,6,7 and 34)
Differences in aircraft emissions would be due to aircraft delays.
Delays become progressively worse in the following order - in a
replacement airport situation, in a three airport system and in a
two airport system. If no action were taken, facility deficiencies
would limit the number of aircraft operations and aircraft
emissions would be lesser than all the alternatives.
The assumptions in the DEIS are that the farther people have to
travel in their cars to reach an airport, the higher will be the
emissions. Sea -Tac and Paine field have the shortest average trip
lengths of the alternatives reviewed. According ttotends to be
Sound Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA), air quality
worse in congested areas than along roads with continuous streams
of traffic.
The benzene and xylene mentioned during citizen •comment was
discussed with the PSAPCA. Benzene is a toxic compound that
results from incomplete combustion. Xylene is also a byproduct of
combustion. There are no air quality standards regarding these
products, they are also expensive to test and testing has not
occurred.
TRANSPORTATION
Working Paper #11 Capital Costs and Funding addresses some of the
Flight Plan
November 15, 1991
Page 3
transportation concerns. For Sea -Tac, under any alternative except
replacement, there are expected access improvements which include:
widen SR 518, and widen 1 -5 and revise the SR -518 and I -5
interchange.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Working Paper # 8 Economic Impacts and Strategic Economic Issues
is a comparative analysis for ranking the alternatives. It does
not address devaluation of property due to the airport nor does it
calculate the indirect costs of the growth. The airport influence
area in terms of hotels and office is within 1.5 to 3 mile radius
around the airport. It says that the costs for the expected
growth will be part of the concurrency analysis required by state
law (GMA). The Working Paper states that property revenues will
return to the city of SeaTac if the airport were removed. However
the City would lose the airport tenant leasehold possessory
interest taxes and this tradeoff would reduce or eliminate the
revenue impact. The author concludes that there are positive
economic benefits of any well functioning system and the "do
nothing" alternative produces the smallest economic benefit.
SUMMARY
In general, the type of impacts are known but not the details.
However, we do know there will be no area within the City inside
the significant noise contour. The preferred alternative will
limit the shrinking trend of noise impacted areas and therefore the
total number of people effected by noise.
The study concludes that if you increase capacity for aircraft you
will decrease overall emissions by eliminating delays or aircraft
congestion on the ground. If you locate airports close to your
population centers you reduce aircraft emissions by reducing the
amount of passenger travel getting to the airport. The automobile
analysis did not take into consideration the congestion or existing
air quality conditions in the subject areas.
Therefore, the city should support a more thorough analysis in
order to ensure air quality is accurately ranked in the
alternatives analysis. In addition, we could support all efforts
to get people out of single occupant vehicles - reducing the number
of vehicle trips.
We should be anticipating the transportation changes and
considering potential impacts and mitigation.
Table A -3
Population Estimates for Sea -Tac
Alt Airport System Alemalives
Total
Population
55 LDN
(000)
Population
Newly Exposed
to55LON
(000)
Total
Population
65 LDN
(000)
Population
Newly Exposed
l0 65 LDN
(000)
Total
Population
80 SEL
(000)
1 Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
2 Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
3 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
6 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 Alternate 1 +Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
8 'Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia /Block Lake 2 R/W
13 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
17 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Olym. /Bik. Lake 1 R/W
18 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
20 Seo -Tac w /Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
22 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Otym. /Bik.lake 2 R/W
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym. /Bk. Lake 1 R/W
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olyrn./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W
28 Alternate 14 +Central Pierce 1 R/W
29 Alternate 13+ Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Alternate 14 +Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W
32 Olympia /Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce /fort Lewis 3 R/W
34 Alternate 1 + Demand Management
112
119
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
112
112
112
112
122
122
124
124
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
91
94
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
91
91
91
91
95
95
95
95
112 7 91
Table A -1
ANNUAL COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS (Air Carrier & Commuter)
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
Alt. Airport System Alternatives OPERATIONS (X1000)
Sealac Paine Arling Pierce McCord OBL TOTAL
No R hayj 1 Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
2 Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
3 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
5 - Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
6 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Alternate l + Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia /Black Lake 2 R/W
13_ Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
17 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Olym. /Bik. Lake 1 R/W
18 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
20 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
22 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Olym. /Bik.lake 2 R/W
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym. /Bik. Lake 1 R/W
'26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W
�resr y�� 41+- -28 Alternate 14 +Central Pierce 1 R/W
29 Alternate 13 +Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Alternate 14 +Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W
32 Olympia /Block Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce /Fora Lewis 3 R/W
34 Alternate 1 + Demand Management
356
386
356
356 133
356
356
356
356
356 133
356
356
356
456
454 35
456
455
456
456
454 35
456
455
456
356
356
356
356
430
416
453
439
356
112
112
133
133
33
34
33
34
60 73
67
72
78
23
35
23
35
67
34
500
356
386
468
489
133 489
468
112 468
489
489
133 489
489
133 489
489
489
33 489
489
33 489
489
489
33 489
489
33 489
489
489
61 489
55 489
486
484
13 488
13 487
500
500 500
500
356
09-dcoot (aticx,
/wo al
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: c7Z/ V /54e..•
MON TUE WED THU
FF;I SAT SUN
TIME: ;
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference 1'felephone— Incoming OOutgoing
Name of person(s) contact d or in contact with u:
Aia Organization (office,,ip , burpauetc��) , r ��
Location of Visit/Confer ce:
SUBJECT:
01.41,4
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Telephone No.: 3.(30 4i6- �� �
-
SUMMARY:
oter19,41k)
/a 1 erg /.f.
11444 0.1.61/fr
cAad44 40-46
_639,/b/y)
Signature:
Date:
3 l hoc) r a
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE:
CONVERSATION RECORD
MOON TUE WED THU
FRfI SAT SUN
TIME:
A.M.
P.M.
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— 0Incoming OOutgoing
Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you:
Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.)
Telephone No.:
Location of Visit/Conference:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY;
Signature:
Title: •
Date:
NN M. BONNEY
816 South 105th Street
Seattle, Washington 98168
January 22, 1992
Mr. Tim Hill, King County Ececutive
King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue, Roan 400
Seattle, Washington 98104
Dear Mr. Hill:
RECEIVES
JAN 8 ?;?
CITY�v!
M Y #; : t LA
Thank you for your letter of January 3, 1992. I was very surprised to see you
state that it is not mandatory for planners to be represented at the contours.
This week we checked with the FAA to see if the Advisory Circular on Noise Control
and Compatibility Planning for Airports -AC 150/5020 -1 is still in force and they
assured us that it was. Under Section 301 of the Advisory Circular it states,
"Section 103 of the ASNA Act requires that noise exposure maps be prepared in
consultation with public agencies and planning agencies in areas surrounding the
airport. FAR 150 requires consultation with the users and the agencies with land
use control jurisdiction or planning responsibilities lying within the airport's
65 Ldn contour." (copy enclosed)
Under Section 350 it states, "FAA will not inject itself into the essentially
local responsibility for consultation imposed directly on the airport operator by the
ASNA Act, but will rely upon the airport operator's certification under penalty of
18 U.S.C. 1001, that such consultation has occurred." (copy enclosed)
What the community is looking for is the certificate that you and the other government
agencies signed in 1985 stating that consultation had taken place and that the
contours were true and correct. We would also like to know why you would approve
the Port's Part 150 in 1985 when it did not cane close to meeting the Federal
minim um standards of FAR 150? Also, are you comfortable signing a certificate
that the contours are true and correct for 1991 and 1996 if you had no representation
at the meetings most of the time?
We have another interesting dilemma. Federal law requires preventing the introduction
of incompatible land. So the question is, haw will the City of Seattle, the City
of Kent, the City of Des Moines, the City of Normandy Park, the City of Federal
Way, the City of Sea -Tac, the City of Tukwila and unincorporated King County
prevent the introduction of incompatible land created by the 3rd Runway? Are you
going to issue bonds to remove a strip of hares (under the new flight path) 12
blocks wide from Seattle to Kent?
We were hoping that we could figure out the number of hares that would be impacted
from the PSATC's Environmental Impact Statement for the 3rd Runway. The consultant,
for some reason, based the new noise (jets that will be flying out 12th Avenue)
on the old radials (jets that are flying out 19th Avenue -- 338 to the north and
158 to the south) so in actual fact we have no idea haw many actual hares will be
impacted above the 1.5 db. One would assume that this should be the very first
piece of information needed if Sea -Tac airport was to be expanded.
Sincerely,
Ann M. Bonney
cc: City of Seattle; City of Kent; City of Normandy Park; City of Federal Way;
City of Sea -Tac; City of'It kwila;VCity of Des Moines; Unincorporated King Co.
ZIIPNIE 0. BRASHER
846 South 136th Street
Seattle, Washington 98168
January 24, 1992
Sarah P. Dalton, Planner
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue S.W.
Renton, Washington 98055 -4056
Dear Ms. Dalton:
After attending the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting of January 22, 1992
and having attended the previous meetings, I was appalled at the lack of knowledge
of the Con¢nittee members as to what is required in the making of Noise E posure Maps
and Noise Compatibility Programs.
I feel strongly that you, Ms. Dalton, as an FAA official and a member of the TRC,
should have insisted that Port of Seattle officials issue a copy of the FAA's own
Advisory Circular (Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports -
AC 150/5020 -1) to all members of the Committee.
Regarding the TRC meeting of January 22, 1992, I was assured that Federal Air
Regulation 150 (FAR 150) had not been revised with regards to the Port of Seattle's
Mediation Agreement. As the TRC Committee is now working on the Noise EXposure
Maps using the "Mediation Agreement," I am puzzled as to haw the FAA is going to
fund this program using FAR 150 funds, when no mention of Sea -Tac's Mediation
Agreement is in FAR 150.
FAR 150 states, Noise Exposure Maps
revised if the noise has increased
Sea -Tac submitted Noise E posure Maps
be submitted for 1990. Why is the TRC
1991?
must be submitted every five years or
1.5 db during that five year period.
in 1985. New Noise Fposure Maps must
now submitting Noise Dqoamires Maps for
At the meeting of January 22, 1992, the answer given was because Sea -Tac could
now use the Mediation Agreement. Note again: FAR 150 does not address Sea -Tac's
Mediation Agreement, so legally haw can this be done?
If FAA funding is received, Noise Exposure Maps and Noise caipatibility Programs
must conform to FAR 150.
Sarah P. Dalton, Planner
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Renton, Wash i n ton
Page 2
FAR 150 states that Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Programs must
be prepared in consultation with public agencies and planning agencies in areas
surrounding the airport. Several members on the TRC Committee do not live in the
noise impacted areas surrounding Sea -Tac.
A number of the cities and the county surrounding Sea -,Tac are not represented
on the TRC. However, this is the very essence of FAR 150. The government
agencies and the planning agencies are required, under federal law, to consult
with the Port of Seattle on the making of Noise Exposure Maps and Noise
Ccanpatibility Programs. The government agencies and the planning agencies as
well as the Port of Seattle are required to reduce existing noratible land
uses and prevent the introduction of additional noncoatipatible land uses within
the area.
Not having the correct agencies in consultation with the Port of Seattle in
1985 has created a reprehensible situation for land use planning around Sea -Tac
Airport today.
We are requesting a moratorium on the TRC meetings until these problems are
corrected.
I am requesting an immediate reply.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
l i?1 2Gc,e1 0 4adize,
Minnie 0. Brasher
cc: FAA - Washington D.0
Mr. Temple Johnson, FAA - Local
Ms. Diane Summerhays - Port of Seattle
Mr. Tim Hill, King County Executive - land impacted by 65 LDN noise levels
Mr. Greg Nickels - unincorporated land impacted by 65 IDN noise levels
Nr. Paul Barden - unincorporated land impacted by 65 LON noise levels
Mayors - whose land in impacted by noise levels above 65 ?Oi:
- City of Des Moines; Tukwila; Normandy Park; Federal Way; Seattle;
Sea -Tac; Kent
Other government agencies
Other interested parties
J nn CJ 7G 10.1•4 rum r -1L1Ll 11GJ RL
Port of Seattle
r. 1/ 1.3
DATE: 1 / 3 TIME: 3:20
TOTAL # PAGES: 13
(INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
i'c) • COMPANY: i' IAO ra ; W sAu w -
ADDRESS: In(, t Tukwtl4,..
ATTENTION: D
FAX NO.: 151 -36)65-
CITY/COUNTRY:
DEPT/ SECTION: TELEPHONE:
'ROM: NAME: Mtke. •tlAil
ADDRESS: .�lC�l TA( c. ilx RJG•td.tt
* FAX OPERATOR:
TELEPHONE: 4 -no&
FAXNO.: z431 40Ia
OFFICE NO.:
IF ANY PAGES ARE NOT LEGIBLE - OR THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH TRANSMISSION: CALL THE FAX OPERATOR LISTED ABOVE.
ECEIVER: PLEASE ROUTE cc's OF THIS FAX TO
cc's MADE BY:
cc/FAX RELAY DATE:
MESSAGE:
?l ec/2.a cu.2Q' w c1k
$1-eo4x-os". g et
ri
1.27i.AN 22 1392 1
Ulf Cl , u�ti .,A .T A �
PLANNING; DEPT.
PUGET SOUND
4111 TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
P1;:7 PT
.: Lf Jii.l i'•.
4,17 r•c4et S:;o10 11r;rp ?d +:ialr i
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
The Flight Plan Project
DEMAND FORECASTS USED IN
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT
November 1991
Summary of Forecast Process
In order to provide a yardstick to measure the extent
of the expected capacity crunch at Sea -Tac Airport and
to determine what future levels of demand our air
transportation system would need to meet, forecasts of
passengers, air cargo, and aircraft operations
(take -offs and landings) were prepared for the Puget
Sound Air Transportation Committee. The forecasts
were prepared in a two - stage process.
The first stage was the development of forecasts of
originating passengers (.those who start the air
portion of their trip at sea -Tac) and of air cargo
operations. This was done by the aviation consulting
firm of XPMG Peat Marwick. A mathematical model was
developed which predicted the number of originating
passengers based on the future population and income
per capita of the region and airline yields (average
nation -wide fare per passenger- mile). From
originating passengers, it was possible to generate
figures for total passengers (originating,
terminating, and connecting). Based on the expected
total passenger and cargo figures, preliminary
forecasts for the number of operations needed to serve
them were prepared.
The second stage of the forecast process was to refine
the number of operations based on the various airport
system alternatives developed by the PSATC. In other
words, the preliminary forecasts of operations were
based on national trends, whip the revised forecasts
of operations looked at the unique air travel needs
and characteristics of the Puget Sound Region.
n 0. ?OX 68727
: +ddfik'. WA .98168
[605) 133.5316
'2061 464 -6.301
gocill6Croup Propadlet. rnr.
'rn3 Caunty Council
Port of Seewre
•.:: 1br:'rinr2
Commisironer. Port of 01 ympia
J.'rrrr)�i;pn
S!a1e R presemanve
.. r:..y �,_.:7
reactor Aviation Admrnienation
.'.'1Q2 r.odilm94
Talmadge. Friedman 8 Caller
nepartment ai Traneportallue
•;::w xdri
Mayan el SeeTee
en Rapiesentalive
Uet Maims Cily Conned
Mayor of Srenweaa
t otkn Airlines
Irene Midd+,wato
watnmpton finvironmenlai Couatii
.s .l;C;lrtry
Cammrsslone, Pat of Tacoma
.5" nOnemish County Council
JAR MedfVri o
A1, TnetpOrtAssociation
':vat 14,
Cammtaslaner. Pon et Seattle
Office Mee Govoinn,
;.tkx1,49n
raceme City Council
-::1 tWroack
Coyle d Oates
bOrnn Nero
Ptcitie Guthoran University
n COiii Neu
nitaanaCityCOvacil
ura0 N,cxais
KlnpCoan, Council
�d Nielson
United Airlines
:hr„ P,rde'ltord
Noise Mediation domoultea
;irk Pine`
John Fluke Maou!aolunny
Amiss balky
Port el Seattle
Pied 5 oh ,irn
Cemmlfl/Oner. Po l018?0meima
Ropei62aader
Clyde Hill COaaeil
Wile Smim
fcwramia0evelopmem
Coawc4 o/N11sap Counts
Swap Names
Attorney ex Law
Bill Slow
Pierce County Cowell
Lao K. Tlrarsrresv
Stele Senator
Jan rierney
Deputy ChlelelSlate amnia
Lary yoynild
Stu* :soma
My WAits
Pun Souwd Power Lipht
l4 ( Wood#
60111a. Clam ma temosey
Pall len*
StabAepmeeelstva
DEMAND FORECASTS USED IN THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT, pg. 2
The forecasts were prepared using the hest techniques available for
predicting future aviation demand. Detailed information on the
forecasting methodology can be found in the plight Plan Phase 1 and Phase
11 Final Reports.
It should be recognized that the future can not be predicted with
certainty. In the short term, there May be substantial variations from
the forecasts. However, short -term variations are not considered to alter
the expectations of long -term trends. A program of monitoring aviation
activity growth is recommended to provide guidance on the timing of
airport development decisions.
Because of possible variations, the forecasts are best considered as
activity levels that should trigger decisions regarding airport
development. The projections of aircraft operations suggest that major
capacity decisions regarding air carrier airport facilities in the Puget
Sound Region must be made in the immediate future if. demand is to be
accommodated in an environmentally sensitive and economically beneficial
manner.
Forecast Results and Conclu$iona
Following are the results of the forecasting process and the implications
of growing demand for air travel on our air transportation system.
Year Total Passengers
1990 (actual) 16,200,000
2000 25,400,000
2010 34,000,000
2020 45,000,000.
Total Operations
355,000
411,000
447,000
524,000
* Saturation of Sea -Tac Airport will begin when aircraft operations reach
400,000 - between 1995 and 2000
* Delays at Sea -Tae in the year 2000 will be similar to those currently
experienced at airports like Chicago's O'Hare, New York's LaGuardia,
and Washington, D.C.'s National
* Growth of aircraft operations is related mainly to increasing domestic
passenger volumes. AU -cargo and international flights represent a
small fraction of total operations (a].l cargo . 3s, overseas
international = 5%)
* No increase in all -cargo operations is anticipated since the growth in
tonnage will be absorbed on passenger flights or on larger cargo
aircraft
0497L
PUGET SOUNO
AIR TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
'ho Flight Plan Project
:0orlscr:Ii7 nV 11;6 Pert 17:t Si?V1!e
i lC Puoer SOLli,C ReoiOngi LQuncll
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
The Flight Plan Project
Capacity, Demand and Delay at
Sea-Tac International Airport
Striking a Balance
November 1991
Statement of the Problem
"...Aircraft operations at Seattle - Tacoma
International Airport have now exceeded the number
forecasters had predicted for the year 2000," stated
a press release issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) on October 10, 1989, "This kind
of growth without changing existing air traffic
patterns to take advantage of, unused airport capacity
will only cause delays to increase."
What is the relationship between airport capacity,
demand and delay at Sea -Tac? What is "unused airport
capacity" and how will changes reduce delays? What
are the implications to the traveling public and
local residents? The purpose of this report is to
briefly describe several factors which define the
relationship between capacity, demand and delay at
Sea -Tac, and to highlight the need for striking a
balance between efficient operations and
environmental concerns.
Background
During the last few years, Sea -Tac has experienced
traffic demands exceeding both airport and airspace
capacity during peak traffic periods. Growing
imbalances and resulting delays have increased to the
point were in more and more cases, aircraft are held
on the ground at their point of departure, slowed
down enroute or forced to circle within 150 mixes of
Seattle until a landing "slot" is available. Recent,
rapid traffic growth has further contributed to
delays causing Sea -Tac, according to FAA Air Traffic
officials, to have one of the highest delay rates
among major airports in the United States.
?. U. Box 58727
Seati!e. WA 9815,5
2J6) 433 -5318
2,36) 4 :34- 53011
td ;ace e.eiRelelte e'•i
Paein ;Grose Prowles. 17C.
Iterft
Xing County Cana
!.!.. riinSMOl!
PM o1 Seatte
Clamant
Commissioner. Port 01 Olympia
Slate ltapresentative
hsta
Federal Aviation Administration
rnvo rnem?gn
Talmage, Friedman d Caller
.ba..uu h jimilO.»
LTeparlmanl a r,ansportarion
Mayor 01 SeeTer
,.n
Mien Aeprasoarative
i.cnrro genre jy.
Ca Melees City Counar
=!Nit 13rLk:
Mayor at Slenw ird
..,..yrani
Alaska Airlines
Washington Invtroementar Council
»,McGvlliny
Commini nor, Pon o! Tacoma
_ bY.'La�Cnlin
Snonomtae County Ceunatl
Irkrmarr
Air Trdnigart Assoelelian
:•,:;dM ilkr
Commlaioner, Pon a► Seethe
;rents MOnirlr'ik
Office alma Governor
;r_:r Myriam
Tenants City Council
A.; NVOaiCr
Bogle & Gelias
:1,0n Mee
Pdcilie Lumarae Ueivetrily
?'loci! Neli
Kirkland CityCaaneil
GingNicroot
Xing County Coaaelr
Ea Mr.Lwn
hailed Airliner
Paaelioid
Neisa Medlatloe Coremitiee
!whine
,!in
John Fhl;'e Madulactomlg
4ralla imam
Part or Sams
IledStlteneman
Cemmiarkder, Pat.elRamer=
Rader Shwa;
Clyde tUll Cared'
trIOSpiich
Fedaeety Peveloonear
Cana ll Ill n., ce y
Salim Staurse?
Allomdy al Law
BIB stall'
Place Canny Gewaolt
leo X rnarsneso
State senator
TQm Tierney
0041), Cilia el Stall, Seethe
Larry Vogniid
Sate Settler
R. neat
Puget SaaedPower & Lear
Neu E wtwoy
Gags, aeaddrrd Condary
Paul ze?ctuy
SSW R,pnuartve
capacity, Demand and Delay at Sea -Tac international Airport
Striking a Balance, page 2
Discussion
The cause of delay can be referred to as a. "lack of system capacity,"
meaning that the airport and /or airspace systems does not have the
facilities, technology and /or procedures to accommodate all those who what
to use the system at peak periods of demand.
The relationship between capacity, demand, and delay is complex. Capacity
generally refers to the overall ability of an airport or airspace
structure to handle a given volume of traffic (demand) -- i.e.. it is a
limit that cannot be exceeded without incurring • an operational penalty.
As demand for use of airspace or an airport approaches this limit, queues
of aircraft awaiting service begin to develop, experiencing delay.
Generally speaking, the higher the demand in relation to system capacity,
the longer the queues and the greater the delay. This can translate into
more ground noise and air emissions from delayed aircraft. Delays in the
air for arriving aircraft and delays on the airfield while waiting to
depart also impact the level of convenience associated with an airport.
There are significant economic considerations associated with level of
convenience which effect to varying degrees both business and non - business
related air travel.
The capacity at Sea - -Tae's airport and airspace system varies considerably
as a result of physical and operational, factors such as airfield and
airspace geometry, air traffic control rules and procedures, weather, and
traffic mix. These factors can be grouped in five general categories:
Airfield Characteristics: The layout of runways, taxiways, and aprons as
well as airport navigational aids are basic determinants of Sea - Tac's
ability to accommodate various types of aircraft and the rate at which
they can be handled. Depending upon weather conditions and other factors
further described below, Sea-Tac's current runway and taxiway system can
accommodate up to 60 arrivals per hour.
Air Traffic Control_ (ATC): The rules and procedures of air traffic .
control, intended primarily to assure safety of flight, are basic
determinants of capacity and delay. Aircraft routing for noisy abatement
purposes also affects Sea - Tae's capacity and aircraft delays. For
example, the airspace configuration with the greatest capacity during
south flow, visual weather conditions (our most frequent operating mode),
is presently not used because of the noise abatement procedure which
attempts to route all arriving turbo3et aircraft over Elliott Bay.
Therefore, while the airfield layout can accommodate up to 60 arrivals per
hour, the air traffic control systems can only deliver.42 arrivals to the
runways resulting in growing imbalances between system components (airport
and airspace), increased delays and "unused airport capacity."
Capacity, Demand and Delay at Sea -Tac International Airport
Striking a Balance, page 3
Airsgace Characteristics: The location of Sea -Tac in relation to other
airports, natural obstacles and features of the environment helps
determine the paths through the airspace that can be taken to and from the
airport. For example, the location of Boeing Field, Renton Airport and
physical terrain features such as the Cascade Range and Puget Sound all
influence airspace paths for Sea -Tae's traffic.
3letearolo ical C dition : Sea -Tae's capacity is highest in fair weather,
when visibility is at its best. Fog, low ceilings, rain, strong winds, or
accumulations of snow or ice on the runway cut capacity severely or close
the airport altogether. Even a common occurrence like a shift in wind
from north to south can disrupt operations while traffic is rerouted to a
different pattern; if the new pattern is not optimum, capacity can be
reduced for a long as the wind prevails. Weather conditions alone can
change Sea -Tae's acceptance rate by 20 or more arrivals per hour.
Demand Characteristics: Demand - not only the number of aircraft seeking
service, but also their performance characteristics and the manner in
which they use the airport - has an important effect on capacity and
delay. The basic relationship between demand, capacity, and delay is that
as demand approaches capacity, delays increase sharply. The distribution
of arrivals and departures and the extent to which they bunch together
also determines the delay that will be encountered. For example, if the
capacity during a given configuration at Sea -Tac is 42 arrivals per hour
and the demand is 58 arrivals per hour, each hour will add 16 aircraft to
the queue awaiting service and several minutes to the delay for any
subsequent aircraft seeking service. Even when hourly demand later drops
below capacity, delays will persist for some time until the queues are
depleted and traffic flows normally.
Conclusion
Each factor listed influences, to varying degrees, Sea -Tae's overall
ability to accommodate demand for service. While some factors are
basically unalterable (weather, airspace characteristics), others can be
adjusted or brought into balance. Successful management of an airport and
airspace system must therefore include devising reasonable ways (facility
options, etc.) to compensate for factors that individually or in
combination, contribute to lower capacity or induce delay.
At the same time, successful management also involves striking a balance
between efficient operations and protection of the environment. The Port
of Seattle has committed itself to working closely on an ongoing basis
with all interested parties to preserve the caliber of this region's
critically important air transportation service while minimizing negative
affects to our overall quality of life.
04691.
PUGET SOUND
AIR TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
The Fi;upt Plan Proieci
Ptui
)1W FuOR Sauna Re0.7nar UnCli
Puget Sound AirlTranspertation Committee •
The Flight Plan Project
SUMMARY OF DEMAND MANAGEMENT
N THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT
November 1191
Introduction
Throughout the FlightiPlan Project,:the Puget Sound
Air 'Transportation Committee (PSATC) has been very .
interested in examining how demand management could
posSibly be used to lessen airport congestion in the
Puget Sound Region. Demand management is popularly
thought of as getting the most benefit .out of an
airport facility without any new construction of
runways. Essentially, it is a means •of easing airport
congestion by encouraging passengers to 'travel at
non-peak times and/et, to places where they can be more
promptly and efficiently handled. It may also mean
carrying more people per flight by either flying
planeafuller or using larger size planes.
The PSATC has taken several steps to study demand
management and to incorporate it into the airport
system-options being evaluated. At its August 15th,
1991 meeting, a panel of experts was convened to
assist the Committee with its diseussion.of demand
management techniques, as well as the benefits and
limits of such schemos, As a result of the
discussion, a Working Paper (Working Paper #4) on
demandmanagament.was prepared. The paper outlined
what demand management techniques are available now
and potentially in theifuture and provided the expert
panel's conclusions on how demand- management could be
used in the Puget sounditegion.
P.O. Pox 68727
Seim V/A 98768
!' 206.1 •33 •5.? 7
(296) 484.5301 • ,
1:,:mitt et CM.'
PaCMCGPOR properties. Inc.
run
King Coon* Catincq.
41G l.)!:)dmer2
Pone/haft
Cumminroner. Port al Olympia
(,/
Stele Representative
federal Aviation Adminivrauen
;i.Nmar,
ritiMagge, P'11807911‘ Culler
Na■an
DMIIMIM1 WTnrnsoo�al,on
Mayor el,SesTee
ficateemsliva '
;;4400 A'sermeoy
On MOM City C011061.
•
Mayerelnormood
-wry Le.v
niaskaAWM0
f,:itichektilatTiera
WashInvlon:Envitanmenialteuncii
.k.he MoC,omy
Gonifivicieeer. Port of (ammo
Snohomish County Council
damMaiimm
Alt Transport yissomallan
?me Meer
Commlooloner: Port of Leonia
Rt.tee Motc,us
Olko or Me Governer
Tuciima City Cooed
AW:Nlire
800 & Gams
matusvoo
Peelle 4uThetan University
ROtelf Ole
Kirkland ay council
Co?0 Niatt
King county Council
En Mew;
liniled linnets
Piaelicve
Noise Methadon Committee
Pliink Partin
JOhn Fluke Mandaitarlog
Ahem Pinky?
PM el Seattle.
Fred SCMIMMin
Commieshmer, PM 'Bremerton
Ruder Shadier
Clyde wucow,w
fade Staid,
anomie thloalOptaaat
Cantu 011111* County
Sven Sane .
Altana at law
ON Stoner
Flame County Council
L000. morsness
Om Snaky
70mTirruey -
Om* MI DI Staff hatflo
tarry vogno '
dime Senates.
ky Whim
Piot hunr1Potrie Light
Nell I
dittifs. CAW sad Company
WM/arty
SIM Rilprol811101,0
JAN 23 '92 16:18 P0S FACILITIES RE
=MANY T OF DEMAND MANAGEMENT Il1 THE PLIGHT PLAN PROJECT, pg . 2
P.8/13
Demand Management Techniques
Working Paper #4 identified three basic demand management categories. They
are:
Do-Nothing Approach - As demand for use of an airport grows, if
no new facilities are built, congestion and delay will become so
bad during peak hours that some travelers may decide to fly at a
different time or from a different airport.
Pricing Schemes - Higher prices are applied to peak hours, days
or seasons to encourage travelers to fly during non -peak hours.
Administrative Management - Regulatory or rationing systems are
employed to limit use of the airport to designated airlines or
types of aircraft or to a maximum number of hourly flights.
Individual methods of demand management can be grouped into the above
categories. The bodies which would be responsible; for implementing
certain demand management techniques would be the airport proprietor, the
airlines, or the federal government.
The use of demand management is not without cost. Higher prices to fly at
prime times and increased delays will lead to some. travelers being
dissatisfied or inconvenienced and can worsen air emissions from traffic
congestion and aircraft delays. The airport proprietor and the airlines
may also be negatively affected under some schemes.
Demand Management in the Flight Plan Alternatives
During 1990, Sea -Tac Airport handled 355,000 landings and take -offs
(aircraft operations). The Flight Plan forecasts anticipate regional
demand for 524,000 operations per year in 2020. Since in its current
configuration Sea -Tac only has capacity for about 380,000 operations each
year, there will be a capacity shortfall of 144,000 operations per year by
2020. The PSATC has determined that demand management alone will not be
able to meet the region's increaeed demand for this many operations.
However, the PSATC recognizes the usefulness of demand management as a
method of "buying time" before capacity improvements must be implemented,
and has incorporated this technique into the options being studied.
Exhibit 1 presents a listing of a range of demand management measures and
their estimated effects on airport congestion. Also summarized for each
measure are jurisdictional rights, those adversely affected, and other key
considerations. Lastly, the exhibit illustrates the set of measures which
are recommended for application in the Flight Plan options and
particularly the Maximum: Demand Management option..
SUMMARY OF DEMAND MANAGEMEST IN THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT, pg . 3
It is important to note that demand management is already incorporated
into the Flight Plan forecasts with the assumption that airlines on
average will be using larger- sized planes than they do today. This is
reflected in the fact that the forecasts indicate a tripling of passengers
while operations will only increase by two-- thirds. Several other demand
management techniques are already being used at Sea -Tac. These are "yield
management," which is used by the airlines to fill planes the maximum
number of seats possible on each flight, and "central flow control" which
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses like a modified for of
slots to help control congestion.
Conclusions
Demand management can not be used to stop the traveler's demand for
flights. It can be used to help shape demand, but is not designed to
eliminate demand. Demand management techniques should be used a part of a
comprehensive package of solutions and is most effective for buying time
in the short terns until additional airport capacity can be implemented.
0488'.
TES IINIQUE
IPS • .
IURIS- THOSE
DICTIONAL ADVERSELY
1t1ONTS AFFECTED
iriNtanigit
PROPRIETOR ALL
USERS
IIIIPPII MENTAI. AIRPORTS
Tel?
CONTA01. OATES
--
YIELD MANAGEMENT
tit •
TAR'/II AIRCRAFT
TEA &ININd1I:ICAL ADVAENTS
film. i, • •
MOTIVE. MOMS
I i1Nt1 I;EJiS.1
E
GATE PEES
Ii4T1 .I} -
TERMINAI. PEA
PPM
III
PROPRIETOR POSSIBLE
AIRUNIS
PROPRIETOR AIRLINES
AIRIINES PASSENGERS
AIRLINES SMALLER AIR-
CRAFT OWNERS
FEDERAL/ COST
INDUSTRY RECIPIENTS
REGIONM. AIRLINES
PROSAILB SMALLER
PROPRIETOR OPERATORS
PROPRIETOR OPEIATORS
PROPRIETOR OPERATORS/
PASSENGERS
PROPRIETOR PASSENGERS
MEIIIRE p1a F EDERM.
QUOTAS
HAW CONTROL
1F.! ti11 ;,l.
Ell IU T I
DEMAND MANILCriYII. T S1IMMARV
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
COMPARATIVE
REDUCTION IN
CONGESTION
MOST SEVERE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
EASIEST TO IMPLEMENT. INCREASES
CONGESTION
AVOIDS C ONGF.STIoNI. IMPROVES
ASSESSIRILITY
GREATER PROPRIETOR KKiIITS. CAN
INOIRFT11! CONTROL AIRSIDE CAPACITY
CoNTROIS LOAD FACTORS
NATURAL TREND. 1110.11 REPLACEMENT
COSTS
MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM FORESEE•
ABTA TT.-CIINIIIAOICAI. ADVANCES. MUST
RE IMPLEMENTED INDUSTRYWIDE
SEA -
TAc
WP -ire 14
ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS
MAXIMS IM
MULTI• REPLACE - DEMAND
AIRPORTS MENT MOMT.
NONE
LARGE
MIII)IERATE
1
SMALL .J
SMAI.I. -MED- 1
SMALL
RAIL MOST EFFECTIVE 111111611 DENSITY MAR- SMALL
NETS WITII POOR ROAD SYSTEMS. LESS EFFEC-
TIVE FOR SHORT HAUL TIME SENSITIVE TRIPS
I.EGAI_ IMPEI)IMFNTS. GA AND COMMUTERS SMALL
MOST AFFECTED. MINIMUM AffEC1' UN CARRIERS
GREATER PROPRIETOR RIGHTS
SUBJECT TO I -EASE AGREEMENTS
MUST BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY,
COULD GENERATE SUPPLEMENTAL
AIRPORT FUNDS
NEW ENTRANTS FEDERAL REt.IICTANCE. ('UNJRARY
DEREGULATION TRENDS
PROSABl.6 NEW - ENTRANTS MUST NOT tINDUI.Y LIMIT
PROPRIETOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FEDERAL. AIRLINES SET SCIIF.DtA_ES. CONVERTS
At11 DELAYS TO GROUND HOLDS
SM ALL
SMALL-MED.
LARGE
MODERATE
MODERATE
1
1
r
1
PUGET SOUND
AIR TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
,;,. i s or.1 f Jr r :_1 •
?G; • •
Pot!
rr
1a Puyar Sn;,:lcl Repo:,31.t'auncii
.Puget Sound Air:Transportation Committee
The Flight Plan, Project
sUY Or STUDY PROCESS yo*.
HIGH -SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATI0U.OPTIONS
September 1991
Introduction
High -speed ground transportation modes such as
high -speed rail and magnetic levitation trains
(maglev) have been proposed in recent years as
supplements to air travel. The assumption is that if
one of1these systems were built, it would divert
Passengers from air travel and thus ease the capacity,
crunch at Puget Sound Area airports, '. As part of the
Flight Plan Project for studying long -term solutions
to our region's air travel needs, the •Puget .sound Air
Transportation .Committee (PSATC) looked at,high- speed
ground transportation as a• possible solution. The
purpose of this document is to briefly discuss what
specific options were studied and what,
recommendations' were made concerning high -speed
grouted transportation.
lasUround on High -Speed Ground Hodes
High speed steel - Wheel -on -rail trains are currently
in commercial service in Europe and Japan. Kegley
trains are also being studied in these areas, yet to
date, no commercial high -speed maglev systems are in
operation. baglev is the name given to trains which
are magnetically levitated and propelled at high
speeds. Speeds; of highspeed ground' transportation
systems range from 185 to 250 miles per hour. There
are no high -speed rail or maglev systems in use in
the United States.
High speed ground transportation is envisioned to be
a potential substitute for air travel 'for• trips• of
less than 500 miles.' Although the trains travel at
lower speeds than aircraft, over such distances they
have door -to -door trnva, times comparable to
aircraft. This is due to the fact that aircraft must
spend a fair amount of time taxiing on the ground: and
may also experience delays in the air.
P.11/13
0 Bcx 68.727
JU l J,i. ?. 5•1 i •�
_ 05) 154.53Cr'1
NacillcGraafPreparuvs. rag
.:.. cJr7ir7
Xing County Council
RON nl S041111a
Cammleoloner, Pen al Olympia
•, f „rL'Lt�'
Stare R,pieaenunwe .
Faderaf Aviation Adml IStration
ralmedoe.! Friedman•. Cutter
Udnl rli ^.
CogaRment 0/ Tranoparjallan
Meyer at Seen
ClBtea Renreteatal+ve,'
1,: notJ nr.” `. =:.',
Olt Molnee City Coon /
Mayor at Stanwood
Atatea Ai. Unes
rra Pdzeizre
,W;thington fnvlranmanlal County
CammlttioAer. Port al Teeoma
Snogomistt Counry County
Al, Trantgon Association
?,ll M,G'e.• .
• COmmlealOAa,. Pan a1 Same
knec'J0ntireaa
011ita al the Downer
a7 Mvi;ar:^
tecome CityCOandl
NalViCA
80g1a 0 Gates
Nero
Pa01110 Luln'wan Congruity
Ximiaed City Connell '
�':Q Nio leio
Moo County Ceuaail
Nielson : •
Oiled Airlines
Puoclio4 •
Noise Mediation Committee
Flank Pamn
Jono FluksMSnulottoring
M MMimur
Part el Seattle
Pied Si incintn
Csnug)Uioner, Port al ammeter?
Roger Smellei
Clyde Hill Count!
Earle Smith •
Etermmig Derelopmaat.
awned al Xitsap County
Sverre Sraurtat
Aaamey al Law
Bill Stoner
Pines Coe* Called,
L Thorsrass .•
Slats Senator
ram Tierney' :
Deputy CUM el Stull Seattle
LN'yVOgnild
Mete Senator
Wiwi
Puget Taasd,Pmeer& Llant
Nrilf Woody'
soNW. Clews and Company
Paul
S Re
Summary of Study Process for High -Speed Ground Transportation Options, p. 2
High -speed Ground Options Studied
Throughout the Flight Plan Project, the PSATC has had a great deal of
interest in studying the feasibility of high -speed ground transportation
for the Puget Sound Region and for Washington State. As a result, these
modes were incorporated into several of the air transportation system
options which the Committee studied during Phase 11 of Flight Plan. The
descriptions of these options as they appeared in the Phase II Final
Report are given below.
1. High Speed Ground Transportation Option
"The High -Speed Ground Transportation option would involve
development of a.high -speed rail (HSR) system (steel wheel or
maglev) from the Puget Sound Region to Portland and Vancouver,
B.C.. The HSR system trains would operate at speeds of .up to 185
mph - 250 mph. Average speeds would depend on the alignment and the
number of intermediate stops."
'The HSR would be tied to Sea-Tae to create an integrated intercity
transportation system. Sea -Tac is assumed to operate with either
the existing runway configuration (Base Case A) or the existing
runways and a computer runway (Base Case 8). The High -Speed Ground
option would be expected to reduce the need for additional airport
capacity by capturing much of the travel that is currently going by
air between the three cities. Because three quarters or more of the
airline passengers between Seattle and Portland (PDX) and Vancouver
(YVR) are connecting rather than local passengers, it has been
assumed that the HSR system will link the airports as well as the
business canters."
2. Distant Remote Airport Option
"A distant remote airport (at Moses Lake or Napavine Prairie as
studied by the PSATC) would have one air carrier runway (12,000 feet
or more in length) that would be used in concert with the runways at
Sea-Tac (either the existing two as under Base Case A or the
existing two plus a commuter runway as under Base Case M. The
remote airport would be connected to Sea -Tac via a• high -speed rail
system (either steel wheel or maglev ). The length of the
high -speed rail system would depend on the remote airport site and
the rail alignment used. Passengers originating in the Puget Sound
Region would check -in at Sea -Tac and than take the high -speed train
to the distant remote site. This process would be reversed for
people who land at the remote airport sites who wish to travel to
the Puget Sound Region. Connecting passengers arriving on a flight
at one airport and departing on a flight at the other airport would
also use the high -speed ground link to reach their connecting
flight."
Along with the rest of the Phase II options, the above options were
evaluated in terms of airspace, capacity, size of market, investment
required, economic impacts, general environmental impacts, and
implementation feasibility.
0401L
JAN 23 '92 16:21 POS FACILITIES RE
P.13/13
Summary of Study Process for High -Speed Ground Transportation Options, p. 3
F i .ings and Recommendations
Concerning the High -Speed Ground Transportation option between Portland,
Seattle, and Vancouver, S.C., the PSATC concluded the following: "This
[option is) not recommended for further study as a separate alternative
because, by itself, a high -speed rail system would not be the solution to
the region's projected airport capacity shortfall. It was estimated that
a high -speed rail system could divert as many as 40,000 annual airline
operations by 2020 (compared to the shortfall capacity of 145,000 annual .
operations by 2020).
It was also found that such a system would have a very large cost to build
(approximately $10 billion). Since the costs were so high and since such
a system would only provide a small amount of airport capacity relief, the
PSATC decided not to study this option any further.
However, the PSATC feels that high -speed ground transportation systems may
hold promise for the future. As stated in the Phase 1I Final Report, "No
conclusions were made as to the feasibility of a high -speed rail system,
but if built, such a system could become an important element of the
region's transportation system sometime in the next oentury. The proposed
state effort to examine the feasibility of high -speed rail service in the
Portland - Seattle- Vancouver, B.C. corridor is supported, and the PSATC will
cooperate in that effort."
Concerning the Distant Remote Airport Option, the PSATC concluded that
such an option would not be feasible and chose not to study it any
further. "A remote airport system would entail the highest costs of any
of the options while providing the least convenience for users (because of
the long travel time required to reach the remote airport, even with a
high speed connection). Further, there was considerable doubt about the
willingness of the airlines to use the remote facility since it would
place them at a competitive disadvantage to airlines remaining at
Sea -Tac. It was determined that this option could be studied in the
future only if the State (or some other entity) moves forward with
planning for a high -speed rail system. "*
Other current Studies Involving Htah -Sneed Ground Transportation
Although the PSATC has chosen not to study high -speed ground
transportation systems any further in the Flight Plan Project, such
systems are being examined by other groups within Washington State. The
state has recently formed a High-Speed Rail Commission that will study the
feasibility and applications of these modes in depth. Also studying these
options (particularly as they relate to the air travel system) is the
State Air Transportation Commission. The PSATC supports and encourages
both efforts. For more information on the status of these studies, please
contact either commission.
.
PUGET SOUND
AIR TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
•
LS
RECEIVED
DEC 2 71991
CI I Ur I
MAYQR$ QFEf(
. .g Ij[ JAN 20 1992
( F i tiKVViLA
c. wr
PLAN NINE DEPT.
DATE: --Die: m20,1991
137R
CONTACT: Rachel Garson
. (206) 248 -6851
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS ON AIR CAPACITY REPORT AND EIS
fight Public Hearings Set for Region
SEATTLE -- The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee's
preferred alternative for solving the future air capacity
crisis of the region will be subject to a 45 —day public comment
period beginning Jan. 7, 1992 with the publication of a draft
Final Report containing a draft programmatic environmental
impact statement (DEIS). The comment period will run through
Feb. 21, 1992.
In addition, there will be eight public hearings to receive
comments about the Committee's preferred alternative and the
draft programmatic environmental impact statement to be held at
the locations listed on the attached sheet. There will be two
public hearings in King. Pierce and Snohomish counties, and one
each in Kitsap and Thurston.
Copies of the draft Final Report and DEIS will be available
for review at major public libraries in King, Pierce,
Snohomish, Kitsap and Thurston counties starting Jan. 7, 1992.
Copies will be available for the public to read during regular
business hours at the Port of Seattle at Pier 66, at Sea —Tac
Airport, and at the Puget Sound Regional Council in Pioneer
Square, Seattle.
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168
(206) 433 -5318
(206) 464 -5301
Roper, Wa!race Committee Chair
PacilicGroup Properties, Inc.
Pa& Barden.
King County Council
MR Dinsmore
Port of Seattle
Ray DrnS.T :•-i
Commissioner, Port of Olympia
Roy Ferouso,
State Representative
Nod Flea
Federal Aviation Administration
BernargFr,eor an
Talmadge. Friedman & Cutler
Wnnam Harnd!on
Department of Transportation
Mayor of SeaTac
Citizen Representative
DesVMoinesCity Council
/_" --
Mayor ofStanwood •
Alaska Airlines
Washington Environmental Council
Commissioner, Port of Tacoma
Snohomish County Council
Air Transport Association
Commissioner. Port of Seattle
Office of the Governor
G_
Tacoma City Council
Bogle & Gales
Pacific Lutheran University
Kirkland City Council
King County Council
Fal.:
United Airlines
D+n Pa�er;ce
Noise Mediation Committee
Fran' Pa°
John Fluke Manufacturing
Anorea Rrnve"
Port of Seattle
Freo Scnone• -a:
Commissioner. Port of Bremerton
Rags "Saaere -
Clyde Hill Council
Farce. Sm:,•
Economic Development
Council of Kitsap County
S,er:e Sraurse:
Attorney at Law
BI!.- Slrr"
Pierce County Council
Le: K Tnc..'s- _
Stale Senator
Deputy Chief of Stall, Seattle
State Senator
Ra:
Puget Sound Power 6 Light
Gattis. Clees and Company
Pa.
State Representative
PSATC Schedule of Public Hearings /Page 2,
For information on how to receive an individual copy, people can call
PSRC at 206/464 - 7532. The report will cost $10 plus a charge for mailing.
The report contains the Committee's preferred alternative, secondary
alternatives, analyses covering economic impacts and capital costs,
airspace capacity and other operational issues, noise and other
environmental issues, and institutional factors, and a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS). The DEIS is programmatic,
covering general impacts on the region. (Once a final decision is made
on actual sites or other construction, project - specific EISs will be
done.)
Written comments should be sent to the Flight Plan Project.
P.O. Box 68727, Seattle, WA, 98169 and postmarked by Feb. 21, 1992.
The first of eight public hearings will be Jan. 27, 1992 in
Bremerton. All the hearings will be run by a presiding officer and
transcribed by a court reporter. Each speaker will have three minutes to
testify. Time limits will be enforced to ensure that as many people as
possible may participate.
People interested in testifying at a public hearing are encouraged to
sign up to speak during the hour prior to the start of the meeting.
PSATC, composed of elected officials and business, environmental, and
community representatives from King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, and
Thurston Counties, has investigated air system alternatives to ensure
adequate air capacity for the Puget Sound region beyond the year 2000.
The project, begun in Dec., 1989, is sponsored by the Puget Sound
Regional Council and the Port of Seattle.
more....
Date
Jan. 27
Jan. 28
Feb. 1
Feb. 3
Feb. 5
Feb. 6
Feb. 12
Feb. 13
PSATC Schedule of Public Hearings
Location /Address Time
Bremerton High School Auditorium 6 to 10 p.m.
1500 13 St., Bremerton
Tacoma Sheraton, Convention Center 6 to 10 p.m.
1320 Broadway Plaza, Tacoma
Everett Civic Auditorium Noon to 4 p.m.
2415 Colby Ave., Everett
Pacific Lutheran Univeristy 6 to 10 p.m.
Chris Knutzen Hall, Univ. Center
North Thurston School District 3 6 to 10 p.m.
Board Room, 305 College St. N.E., Lacey
Seattle Center, Flag Pavilion - 6 to 10 p.m.
next to the Center House, Seattle
Arlington High School Auditorium 6 to 10 p.m.
135 S. French Ave., Arlington
Sea-Tac Red Lion Inn 6 to 10 p.m.
18740 International Blvd. (Pacific Highway S.), SeaTac
CALLING: EARTH
TO: PSATC ANYBODY HOME?
Did you read the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee's Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement?
We called Temple Johnson of the FAA to find out:
.. The new radial for the 3rd Runway
.. The flight mix
.. How many flights would operate on the new runway
.. What are the nighttime flight operation for the 3rd Runway
.. The contours showing what the noise would be the morning
the 3rd Runway is in operation
{This would be the minimum information needed to know the impact of the 3rd Runway)
Mr. Johnson assured us that NO NEW FLIGHT PATH CHANGE was issued by the FAA for
the 3rd Runway.
W= said, "But, Mr. Johnson, PSATC is coming out with the Environmental Impact
Statement for the 3rd Runway this week."
He said, ''WEIR, NO NEW FLIGHT PATH CHANGE WAS ISSUED FOR THE 3rd RUNWAY."
Don't take our word for it. Please call the FAA.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
PSATC and the consultants from Bellevue and California must have forgotten to
contact the FAA to find out where the new flight path would be for the 3rd
Runway. Couldn't a "body" just cry that the Port of Seattle also forgot!
Imagine two years of work null and void.
It appears that the Consultants based the new noise on the present radials, which
was based on the jets "WANDERING" around someplace. Didn't they know
that we are protected by "FEDERAL LAW" inside the CUTER MARKER and
precisely defined tracks are needed for the first 5.6 miles.
The preciRPly defined ground track for the present two runways are the 338 Radial
to the North and the 158 Radial to the South (flying out 19th Avenue at both
sides of the airport for approximately 5.6 miles). If the jets should cut the
corner or refuse to fly that precisely defined ground track, FEDERAL LAW assures
the citizens that they are entitled to canoensation, and the wav Sea-'rac is operated
we should own Bellevue, and toss in Mercer Island.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
It gets better. They based the noise on the year 2020, apparently because they
mind for Sea-Jrac. Get that "SUCKER!' in by 1995. were looking at long -range plans. However, they had a • • - h12 a solution in
lr
What a shame Star Trek is mothballed!
BEAM US UP SCOTTIE UNTIL 2020!
CALLING* HERB'S DUMP
JAN 10 1992
CITY OF TiJKVVILA
PLANNING DEPT.
And as Paul Harvey would say, "Stay Tuned for the Rest of the Story."
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCER'TER BOULEVARD. TUKWV/L: 1. 1 SH1:VGTON 981ss
January 3, 1992
Ms. Ann M. Bonney
816 South 105th Street
Seattle, Washington 98168
PHONE x 1306) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen. Mayor
Dear Ms. Bonney:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as "Act" and Federal Air
Regulation (FAR) 150. I always appreciate the opportunity to
respond to citizens who take an active interest in local issues.
To answer your question, I found no Tukwila action, in the form of
an ordinance or resolution, relaying authority for administration
of a noise remedy program to the Port of Seattle.
In researching your request, a review of FAR Part 150 reveals that
the Act's intent is to provide standards and processes for airport
operators who voluntarily choose to submit noise exposure maps and
noise compatibility planning programs to the FAA.
As you noted, a process of involvement is prescribed by FAR Part
150, and now that Tukwila has property that falls within the Noise
Contour Map, if and when the Port of Seattle updates their program, .
we will take advantage of the opportunity to participate and to
comment.
I hope I have provided you with the answers you need. I appreciate
your efforts and concerns for compatible land use planning around
Sea -Tac airport. If you have further questions, please contact the
new Mayor of Tukwila, John W. (Wally) Rants.
Sincerely, ..
•
Gary Van Dusen
Mayor
GLVD:mcb
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
and
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
(INCLUDING DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT)
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
PORT OF SEATTLE
JANUARY 1992
7 -1
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
jntroduction
After a year -and -a -half of work, at the completion of Phase II of the Flight Plan Project, the Puget
Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) developed a list of system alternatives and site
options which were recommended for further analysis during Phase III of the Project. These alterna-
tives and options represented a short list of the potential solutions for meeting the Puget Sound
Region's air capacity needs to the year 2020 and beyond.
In Phase III, the PSATC conducted an indepth analysis of the system alternatives and site options
recommended for further analysis. Data were collected for the alternatives and site options in terms
of operational /technical, economic /financial, and environmental elements. Institutional factors were
also examined to make sure that the alternatives could actually be implemented and to assist in the
development of an action plan. At its December 4th, 1991 meeting, the PSATC used the collected
information to first eliminate those alternatives and site options it considered to be unfeasible and
then to develop a preferred alternative for the Puget Sound Region's future air transportation system.
A list of secondary alternatives was also developed. The purpose of the secondary alternatives was
to provide a set of potentially feasible solutions which could be compared with the preferred alterna-
tive in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
Unfeasible Alternatives
Following is the list of alternatives which the PSATC determined would not be adequate to meet our
region's future air transportation needs:
* Do Nothing and allow the region's population to grow without ade-
quate air service
* Implement demand management at Sea -Tac and do nothintelse to
expand air capacity
* Force people to travel to international airports at Portland or Vancou-
ver, B.C. with or without heavy -rail service
* Close Sea -Tac and replace it with a new international airport or re-
gional airports
The first three alternatives listed above were deemed to be unfeasible because it was found that they
would not be able to meet our region's projected demand for air travel out to the year 2020 and
beyond. The last alternative above was considered unfeasible because it was found to be prohibi-
tively expensive and to cause severe environmental impacts.
Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is a phased multiple airport system which calls for scheduled airline service
at Paine Field in Snohomish County and a new dependent runway at Seattle- Tacoma International
Airport. Both of these actions would be taken concurrently and would be in place by the year 2000.
It was also recommended that a site for a third commercial service airport be master planned and
preserved in the southern portion of the Puget Sound Region. The third airport would be imple-
mented sometime after the year 2010 either at McChord Air Force Base or at a new site on Fort
Lewis if coordination with the military could be achieved. If military coordination is not possible,
then the third airport would either be implemented in the Loveland area of Pierce County or in the
Olympia/Black Lake area of Thurston County. Schematic layouts of Sea -Tac with a new dependent
runway and of Paine Field can be found in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The locations of the recom-
mended supplemental airport sites in the south part of the region can be found in Figure 3.
The preferred alternative was chosen due to its ability to fulfill several key evaluation criteria which
were based on the PSATC's Vision Statement. A list of the considerations used in choosing the
preferred alternative follows:
Environmental Quality and Livability
* By the year 2000, virtually all aircraft using Sea -Tac will be classified
as Stage III (the quietest type) and the number of people impacted by
noise will be reduced by nearly ninety percent, even with the addition
of a dependent runway.
* Airport locations within the growing urban area of the region, as
opposed to in undeveloped rural areas, help to preserve open space and
limit urban sprawl.
* A multiple airport system helps minimize air pollution by reducing the
amount of ground travel required to reach an airport. Also, since
aircraft delay is lessened with a multiple airport system, aircraft are not
required to idle as long and air emissions are further reduced.
Regional Economic Vitality
* A multiple airport system strengthens the region's ability to compete
for business both domestically and internationally by providing addi-
tional air capacity as it is needed.
* A multiple airport system distributes the economic benefits and the en-
vironmental costs of airport facilities throughout the region.
* By using existing facilities to the greatest feasible extent, the preferred
alternative minimizes construction costs and lessens the possible need
for tax subsidies.
Integrated Transportation System
* The existing airports and potential airport sites of the preferred alterna-
tive are in close proximity to harbors, rail lines, and the state and Inter-
state Highway network.
* Both Paine Field and Sea -Tac are currently being considered as stops
on the region's proposed light rail transit system.
Secondary Alternatives
Alternatives in this category represent secondary solutions to our region's long term air travel needs
that the PSATC found less- desirable than the preferred alternative. Each of the secondary alterna-
tives is a variation of a multiple airport system. The list of secondary alternatives is as follows:
Alternatives without
Paine Field:
Alternative without
a new dependent
runway at Sea -Tac:
* Sea -Tac with a new dependent runway
and a supplemental airport at the
Arlington Airport site in Snohomish
County with two air carrier runways
* . Sea -Tac with a new dependent runway
and a supplemental airport at the
Central Pierce County site with two air
carrier runways
* Sea -Tac without a new runway and
supplemental airports at Paine Field
and the Central Pierce site each with
one air carrier runway
Alternatives without
a new dependent
runway at Sea -Tac
and without Paine
Field:
* Sea -Tac without a new runway and a
supplemental airport at the Arlington
Airport site with two air carrier run-
ways,
* Sea -Tac without a new runway and
supplemental airports at the Arlington
Airport site and the Central Pierce site
each with one air carrier runway
* Sea -Tac without a new runway and
supplemental airports at the Arlington
Airport and Olympia/Black Lake sites
each with one air carrier runway
Finalization of Draft Recommendations
During late January and early February of 1992, eight public hearings will be held throughout the
region in King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties. The purpose of the hearings is to
gain citizens' and interested agencies' comments on the draft recommendations and on the Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. After considering comments received at the hear-
ings and in writing, the PSATC will develop in March its final recommendations for the region's
future air transportation system. The final recommendations will then be presented to the Puget
Sound Regional Council and to the Port of Seattle for adoption and further action. These actions
will include amendments to Port of Seattle and Puget Sound Regional Council plans and will call for
updates to local and regional plans. Other actions necessary to implement the Final Recommenda-
tions may also be needed. An explicit action plan will be developed as part of the Final Recommen-
dations.
Impacts and Mitigation Summary.
The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Flight Plan Project is found in
Appendix E. Listed here for ease of reference is a summary of the environmental impacts and
possible mitigation measures for the preferred and secondary alternatives. The environmental
impacts summary is Figure 4 and the list of possible mitigation measures is Figure 5.
Environmental issues were one of the primary concerns addressed during the Flight Plan Project. In
addition, three other categories of issues were studied. These were: operational/technical elements,
economic /financial elements, and institutional elements. A summary of the data for the operational/
technical and economic /financial elements can be found in Figure 9 later in the report. A discussion
of institutional concerns can be found in Working Paper #10 in Appendix D.
4
Minnie O. Brasher
846 So. 136th.
Seattle, Washington 98168
December 23, 1991
Mr. Temple Johnson, Jr.
Manager, Air Traffic Division
U.S. Department of Transportation
1601 Lind Avenue S.W.
Renton. Washington 98055 -4056
Dear Mr. Johnson,
As you know the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee, of which the
FAA is a member, has recommended, among other options, a third
dependent runway at Sea -Tac Airport.
I am requesting information on flight paths, (proposed, draft, or
ect.) for that 3rd. dependent runway at Sea -Tac Airport.
I spoke with Wade Bryant FAA, on 12 -23 -91 and he told me he had not
heard anything on this subject. He suggested I call the 530 branch of
FAA.
I called and spoke with George Orr FAA, 12 -23 -91 and he assured me he
had heard nothing on this subject.
As the consultant for PSATC will be conducting an E.I.S. in the very
near future on a 3rd. dependent runway at Sea -Tac Airport I assume the
consultant would have a heading (flight path) for a 3rd dependent
runway (from the FAA) or else, how could there be an E.I.S.?
I would appreciate any information you have on this subject.
Thank you very much,
Minnie O. Brasher
cc: Mr. Robert Wallace, Chair, PSATC
Others
Minnie 0. Brasher
846 So. 136th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Mayor, Gary Van Dusen
Mayor of Tukwilla
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwilla, Washington 98188
k- •
.P141
: co-
2-4 DEC
9:3‘
11.11111111 11111111 A11111111.11111111111 It: I:111
PUGET SOUND
AIR TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
The Flight Plan Project -
sponsored by the Port of Seattle
and Puget Sound Regional Council
DATE: Dec. 5, 1991
CONTACT: Rachel Garson
(206) 248 -6851
COMMITTEE ADOPTS DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR REGION'S FUTURE AIR
CAPACITY. PUBLIC COMMENT SOUGHT ON MULTIPLE AIRPORT SYSTEM
SEATTLE -- The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC)
yesterday voted to recommend a preferred alternative for solving
the future air capacity crisis of the region. Its preferred
alternative calls for a phased -in multiple airport system with
scheduled air service at Paine Field in Snohomish County and adding
a dependent runway at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport by the
year 2000. It also voted to preserve long -term land options in
Pierce or Thurston County for a second supplemental airport to
provide air capacity beyond 2020. The recommendation was supported
by a majority from each of the five counties, and opposed by only
six of the 39 members.
The Committee is now entering a three -month period of seeking
public comment on its preferred alternative as well as several
other airport system alternatives selected to provide feasible
comparisons to the preferred alternative. These include various
combinations of air service with an airport in the Arlington area
in Snohomish County, Sea -Tac with no expansion, or the second
supplemental airport, in Thurston County.
more....
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168
(206) 433 -5318
(206) 464 -5301
Robert Wallace, Committee Chair
PacificGroup Properties, Inc.
Paul Barden
King County Council
M.R. Dinsmore
Port of Seattle
Ray Dinsmore
Commissioner, Port of Olympia
Roy Ferguson
State Representative
David Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Bernard Friedman
Talmadge, Friedman & Cutler
William Hamilton
Department of Transportation
Frank Hansen
Mayor of SeaTac
Gwin Hicks
Citizen Representative
Richard Kennedy
• Des Moines City Council
Robert Larson
Mayor of Stanwood
Harry Lehr
Alaska Airlines
Darlene Madenwald
Washington Environmental Council
John McCarthy
Commissioner, Port of Tacoma
Liz McLaughlin
Snohomish County Council
John McNamara
Air Transport Association
Paige Miller
Commissioner, Port of Seattle
Renee Montgelas
Office of the Governor
Greg Mykland
Tacoma City Council
Kit Narodick
Bogle & Gates
Martin Neeb
Pacific Lutheran University
Robert Neir
Kirkland City Council
Greg Nickels
King County Council
Ed Nielson
United Airlines
Don Padellord
Noise Mediation Committee
Frank Partin
John Fluke Manufacturing
Andrea Riniker
Port of Seattle
Fred Schoneman
Commissioner, Port of Bremerton
Roger Shaeffer
Clyde Hill Council
Earle Smith
Economic Development
Council of Kitsap County
Sverre Staurset
Attorney at Law
Bill Stoner
Pierce County Council
Leo K. Thorsness
State Senator
Tom Tierney
Deputy Chief of Staff, Seattle
Larry Vognild
State Senator
Ray White
Puget Sound Power & Light
Neil E Woody
Gattis, Glees and Company
Paul Zellinsky
State Representative
PSATC Draft Recommendation /Page 2
PSATC recommends a multiple airport system that includes a dependent
jet runway on the edge of existing Port of Seattle property at Sea -Tac to
be operational by the year 2000. The Committee also voted to recommend
commercial air service at Paine Field, using its existing runway,
concurrently with any development at Sea -Tac.
In the discussion, several Committee members stressed the importance
of environmental mitigation measures related to ground access, air
quality, and aircraft noise, including potential runway use restrictions.
The Committee also discussed the costs of delay to the public and the
airline industry, and how expanded airports could be financed.
PSATC concluded that the multiple airport system is the preferred
alternative for many reasons, particularly because of lower environmental
impacts and maximum economic benefits. It found that the use of existing
airports minimizes the environmental impacts to the natural environment,
is most convenient for the traveling public, and minimizes construction
costs.
"This solution was very difficult to reach, but there was no easy
answer," said Robert Wallace, chair of PSATC. "It is prudent from an
economic, environmental, and accessibility standpoint. We want to hear
what the public thinks about it," he added.
The Committee noted:
o By the year 2000, virtually all aircraft will be Stage III, the
quietest type, shrinking by 90 percent the number of people impacted by
noise today, even with a dependent runway added at Sea -Tac.
more....
PSATC Draft Recommendation /Page 3
o A multiple airport system will minimize idling aircraft on the
ground and reduce travel distances to an airport, the two major factors
that produce air pollution.
o Paine Field, only 22 miles from downtown Seattle, and Sea -Tac are
currently being considered for a proposed light rail transit system.
o Construction costs are minimized by using existing facilities
fully. Lower construction costs would minimize the need for tax subsidies.
o Locating airports within growing urban areas, instead of
undeveloped rural areas, complies with the state's Growth Management Act.
o A multiple airport system strengthens the region's ability to
compete for business in the emerging world economy by providing more air
capacity as needed.
o A multiple airport system shares both the economic benefits and
environmental burdens of airport facilities throughout Puget Sound.
In Jan. and Feb. 1992, the Committee will be requesting public review
of its draft final report to be published in early Jan. This report will
contain a programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The
sponsoring agencies and the Committee will hold eight public hearings on
the draft EIS in five counties in Jan. and. Feb., 1992. The dates and
locations will be announced soon.
The PSATC, composed of elected officials and others from business,
environmental and community representatives from King, Snohomish, Pierce,
Kitsap and Thurston Counties, has investigated air system alternatives to
ensure adequate air capacity for the Puget Sound region beyond the year
2000. The project, begun in Dec., 1989, is sponsored by the Port of
Seattle and the Puget Sound Regional Council.
....7'Port of Se
TO: COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
ATTENTION:
tneWf�(�
.Orr-
NOV 2 6 1991
DATE:11 /26
TOTAL # PAGES;
TIME:
(INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
FAXNO.: X33 —!83
CITY / COUNTRY:
DEPT/ SECTION: TELEPHONE:
FROM: NAME: ROSIE COURTNEY /COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGE
ADDRESS:
FAX OPERATOR:
TELEPHONE:
FAX NO.:
OFFICE NO.:
433 -5342 _
IF ANY PAGES ARE NOT LEGIBLE - OR THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH TRANSMISSION: CALL THE FAX OPERATOR LISTED ABOVE.
RECEIVER: PLEASE ROUTE cc's OF THIS FAX TO
cc's MADE BY:
cc/FAX RELAY DATE:
MESSAGE:
FYI
1441 '. ;._- y -• -•4• � - . IS 11
•. . -. -. . . .. -
the attached information as soon as it became available.
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) is meeting this morning
regarding their upcoming recommendation about future air capacity for the
region. The PSATC expects to vote on the recommendation at their December 4th
meeting.
See the attached press release for details. Please contact Rosie Courtney if
ou
have an •uestions.
PUGET SOUND
AIR TRANSPDR TA TiON
COMMITTEE
The Flight Plan Project
sponsored by ltre Port el Seattle
and Puget Sound Regional Council
DATE: Nov. 26, 1991
CONTACT: Rachel Carson
(206) 248 -6851
CONSULTANT RECOMMENDS MULTIPLE AIRPORT SYSTEM
TO SOLVE FUTURE AIR CAPACITY CRISIS
SEATTLE -- A consultant to the Puget Sound Air Transportation
Committee (PSATC) today presented his conclusions for solving the
future air capacity crisis of the region. His preferred option
calls for a phased multiple airport system and is based on two
years' research and study conducted by the five- county, 40- member
committee.
Ron Ahlfeldt, P & D Aviation, said that meeting the region's
forecasted passenger demand to the year 2020 will require one
international airport and one supplemental airport to be developed
in phases. He specifically recommended the use of both
Seattle - Tacoma International Airport in an expanded capacity and
Paine Field to serve north King and Snohomish counties -- the
fastest growing area in the state.
"This combination meets the Committee's vision established at
the start of this two -year process. Also, the narrow shape of the
region, with land constricted by mountains and water, suggest a
multiple airport system will best serve the population centers,"
Ahlfeldt said. He made his recommendations after considering four
system alternatives, 38 possible site configurations, and
information received from dozens of experts and technical studies.
more....
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168
(206) 433 -5318
(206) 464 -5301
Robert Wallace, Comminco Chair
Pac111cCraup Properties, Inc,
Reel Harden
King County Council
M.R. ilw/Jwwrc
Port el Sallie
nay Dirmnnre
Commlaciona,, Port of Olympia
Roy ?amino
Mete Reeresenlntiv,
David Fick!
Federal Aviation Administration
Baird Frivkrwn
Talmadge, Friedman 6 Cutler
William Herniae,
Department 01 Trans/m(41 /on
Flank l Larsen
Meyer u1$W,Tac
Orrin Pricks
Citizen Representativo
Richard Kennedy
Des Moines City Council
Rote 11.erautt
Now el $lrnrvuod
nary iehi
Alaska Minas
Darlene Maoenrral0
Washington EiwllOnmenial Council
,roan MCCanny
Commissioner, Port 01 Tacoma
Liz McLaugnrin
S0Onomisn County Council
John McWineie
Air Transport Assuciatiun
Paige Miller
Cammlul008,, Pon 01 Sainte
Renee Mootgelas
Office 01108 OOVernar
Crag Mykiam
Tacoma Cily Council
Kit.Narod+i'k
Bogie 6 Gatos
Martiot,1O
Arid lir Lutheran UnlvarlHy
Run 1Jcii
Kirkland Cliy Council
Crea Nicked
King County Council
Fd Nicrsm
United Airlines
Don Pwkllord
Horse mamma COmmntae
Pima Partin
Jena Fluke Manufacturing
Andrea hlnrker
Port of Seattle
Fred Schorxsrwrr
Commissioner, Pon of Bromorlon
Roar S./;na$s
Clyde Hill Council
Esrra :imlm
Economic Oovclopmenr
Council 01 Kitsap County
$rcnc StJuni1!
Af1Orney at Law
dill Stoner
Plum County Council
Leo K. Thoterxss
State Senator
rem Tierney
Deputy Mal 01 Stan, Seattle
i Eery Unpile
Slate Seealor
Ray Wittig
Puget Sound Power 6 Light
r✓rirP wurvy
Canis, Chios oral Company
Paul i0ninsky
Mote Representative
PSATC Consultant's Recommendation /Page 2
The multiple airport system Ahlfeldt recommends would include a
dependent air carrier runway on the edge of existing Port of Seattle
property at Sea -Tac to be built later this decade and be operational before
the year 2000. The addition of this alternate all- weather runway would
allow two streams of air traffic to land even in the periods of reduced
visibility common in Puget Sound, according to Ahlfeldt.
Commercial air service would also begin using the existing jet runway at
Paine Field before the year 2000. "Paine Field will not resemble Sea -Tac,"
assured Ahlfeldt. "It could serve 3 million people a year which translates
to about 48 flights in and out a day."
He cited several technical findings in recommending his preferred air
capacity option to the committee:
o use of existing airports minimizes the environmental impacts to
people and the natural environment.
o By the year 2000, all aircraft will be Stage 111, the quietest type,
shrinking the number of people impacted by noise dramatically.
o A multiple airport system rated best in minimizing aircraft delays on
the ground and reducing travel distances to the facility, the two major
factors that produce air pollution.
o Paine Field, only 22 miles from downtown Seattle, and Sea -Tac are the
only airport sites currently being considered for proposed regional light
rail transit system.
o Construction costs would be minimized by using existing facilities
fully. Lower construction costs would also avoid the need for tax subsidies.
o Locating facilities within growing urban areas complies with the state's
new Growth Management Act.
more....
1IVY VV J1 1V V1 1 VV I1Y. ''SI 1111-1111L..f111V11J
PSATC Consultant's Recommendation /Page 3
r.Y
o A multiple airport system strengthens the region's ability to thrive
in an increasingly competitive world economy by providing more air capacity
as needed.
A multiple airport system shares both the benefits and burdens of
airport facilities throughout Puget Sound.
To satisfy the projected long -term regional demand for air capacity
beyond 2020 to the year 2050, Ahlfeldt recommends preservation of a
potential second supplemental airport site in southern Puget Sound. He
suggested Fort Lewis or McChord as possible sites in Pierce County if
agreement could be reached with the U.S. military, or the Olympia /Black Lake
site in Thurston County in the region's airport master plan.
Ahlfeldt concluded that several airport alternatives studied were not
feasible. Neither the "Do Nothing" alternative nor the alternative relying
solely on techniques to manage air passenger demand would provide adequate
air service to the region. A new replacement airport for Sea -Tac was
rejected due to high capital costs, adverse environmental impacts, and poor
accessibility.
The PSATC will discuss the consultant's recommendation at its next
meeting on Dec. 4, 1991 to be held at Sea -Tae Airport auditorium. The
committee is expected to develop its draft recommendation at that meeting.
It will become the basis for a draft programmatic environmental impact
statement subject to written comments and public hearings early next year.
The committee will hold eight public hearings in five counties in Jan. and
Feb., 1992.
The PSATC, composed of elected officials and other representatives from
King, Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap and Thurston Counties, has investigated air
system alternatives to ensure adequate air capacity for the Puget Sound
region beyond the year 2000. The project, begun in Dec., 1989, is sponsored
by the Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound Regional Council.
IWO
TO: John McFarland
FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw
SUBJECT: Airport Noise
DATE: 22 November 1991
I have been designated by Rick Beeler to monitor Sea -Tac Airport
related development.
We have commented on the Determination of Significance for the
Flight Plan project, which is reviewing alternatives to meeting air
traffic demands for the year 2020. Flight Plan is a joint Port
and COG planning project.
The DEIS on the project is expected mid to late December 1991 and
will have a list of alternatives included a preferred alternative,
to provide additional air traffic capacity. The review and
recommendations regarding air transportation for the region has
been with a group called the Puget Sound Air Transportation
Committee.
I would like to meet with you to discuss Tukwila's interests
relative to air transportation and will call to make an
appointment.
cc: Rick Beeler
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: // / 0702. / 9 /
all
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference In
Name of person(s) of e�/for in co tact it • : 'n
/UI4�ib i/ a,f
Organization (office, dep ure +�)Je4' d t,'
WED THU
T SUN
TIME:; /9
M.
Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Telephone No.:
Location of Visit/Conference:
SUBJECT: ,2hn�ILJ
114 7/i2 #ens
Signature:
Title:
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
To: Rick Beeler
/11//From: John McFarland
Re: Airport Noise
Date: November 20, 1991
A number of opportunities have arisen for the City of participate in the discussion of issues
related to the impacts of the operation of SeaTac International Airport. Perhaps most
significant of these issues is noise.
Please identify a staff contact to track Airport issues and provide representation to
appropriate committees. The fact that most of our residential population is located west of
I -5 and is heavily impacted by Airport traffic, air quality and noise, we have a definite
interest. Let's meet and discuss how will approach the issues, and what committees,
groups, etc. merit our participation.
jm/so
cc: Mayor
airpns. jm
/IYh)
t� _/j __
. 7 _ DEPT.
O V 21 1991 N
Cf Y c.; us., ifL
t
.:
PUGET SOUND.
AIR TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
The Flight Plan Project -
sponsored by the Port of Seattle
and Puget Sound Council of Governments
OPTIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON APRIL 3 .
Dear Interested Citizen:
As you know, Seattle- Tacoma International Airport is expected
to reach its capacity of operations before the year 2000. The
Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound Council of Governments are
jointly sponsoring a 36- member committee representing citizens
local and state government, business and aviation interests
from King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties. The Puget
Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) will recommend a
solution to the air capacity issue by the end of this year.
The PSATC has been working on this issue for 15 months and now
is beginning to choose the final alternatives for meeting air
transportation demand. Once these alternatives are chosen, the
Committee will proceed with an environmental impact statement
and a final recommendation by December, 1991. There will be
additional opportunity for public comment throughout the
process.
OPTIONS SUBCOMMITTEE TO DATE
Since August, 1990, I have chaired the Options Subcommittee
whose task is to recommend alternatives for further study to
the full Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee. We started
our process by defining nine options that could help us design
an air transportation system capable of meeting our demand
forecasts through the year 2020. We discussed potential sites
for the options which did not include Sea -Tac and eliminated .
those that were fatally flawed. On March 13, we reviewed the
information collected on each option, summarized on the
following pages, and developed a draft recommendation of
alternatives meriting further study.
PUBLIC COMMENT REQUESTED
Before we finalize our recommendations, we want to gather
comments from the public in response to our recommendation.
Since you have expressed an interest in participating in the
air capacity issue, we are asking you to respond to our
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168
(206) 439 -7707
(206) 464 -5301
Robert Wallace, Committee Chair
PacificGroup Properties, Inc.
Paul Barden
King County Council
M.R. Dinsmore
Port of Seaffle
Roy Ferguson
State Representative
David Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Bernard Friedman
Talmadge, Friedman & Cutler
William Hamilton
Department of Transportation
Frank Hansen
Mayor of SeaTac
Richard Kennedy
Des Moines City Council
Robert Larson
Mayor of Stanwood .
• Eleanor Lee
State Senator
Harry Lehr
Alaska Airlines .
Darlene Madenwakl
Washington Environmental Council
John McCarthy
Commissioner, Port of Tacoma
Liz McLaughlin
Snohomish County Council
John McNamara
Air Transport Association
Paige Miller
Commissioner, Port of Seattle
Renee Montgelas
Office of the Governor
Greg Mykland
Tacoma City Council
Kit Narodick
Bogle & Gates
Martin tieeb
'Pacific Lutheran University
Robert Neir
Kirkland CIty Council
Greg Nickels
King County Council
Ed Nielson
United Airlines
Don Padellord
Noise Mediation Committee
Frank Partin
John Fluke Manufacturing
Andrea Riniker
Port of Seattle
Fred Schoneman
Commissioner, Port of Bremerton
Roger Shaeffer
Clyde Hill Council
Earle Smith
Economic Development
Council of Kitsap County
Sverre Staurset
Attorney at Law
Bill Stoner
Pierce County Council
Tom Tierney
Deputy Chief of Staff, Seattle
Larry Vognild
State Senator
Ray White
Puget Sound Power & Light
Paul Zellinsky
State Representative
recommendation sting and /or in person at a� i
April 3, 1991. •11 you choose to respond in writiiT,.please send your meeting on
comments to Kathleen Drew, Public Involvement Coordinator, Puget Sound
Air Transportation Committee, P.O. Box 68727, Seattle, WA 98168. If you
wish to testify in person, our public meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. on
April 3 and will be held in the Sea -Tac Airport large auditorium on the
mezzanine level. Speakers may begin signing up at 6:30 p.m., individuals
will have 5 minutes to testify, those representing an organization will
have 10 minutes. Parking validations will be provided for those parking
in the airport garage.
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION
The Options Subcommittee collected information on each of the options and
reviewed potential sites and search areas according to land availability,
topography and environmental concerns. Options were reviewed based on
criteria of capacity, airspace conflicts, ground access, economic
implications, environmental considerations, costs and other major
concerns. The Subcommittee then assessed the options in accordance with
their vision statement which emphasizes environmental quality and
livability, regional economic vitality and an integrated transportation
system.
The subcommittee's draft recommendations identified two major
alternatives for public comment and further technical analysis:
1) A multiple airport system, which would include Sea -Tac in one of two
eventual configurations operating with another commercial airport with
either one or two runways. Potential sites for the second airport
include using existing airports at Arlington, Bremerton, lieChord,
Olympia, Skagit /Bayview and Paine Field and siting a new airport in the
vicinity of Arlington /Stanwood, Fort Lewis / Spanaway, Olympia /Black Lake
and Napavine Prairie.
The two eventual configurations of Sea -Tac under . consideration are either
"Base Case B" or expanding Sea -Tac by adding an additional dependent air
carrier runway. Base Case B would include improvements such as a runway
for propeller aircraft on the airport's west side ( "commuter runway "),
additional angled runway exits to improve arrival capacity, and microwave
landing system (MLS) procedures for improved control of flight patterns.
2) A replacement airport for Sea-Tac which would be located in the Puget
Sound region. The subcommittee is recommending further study on two
search areas: Fort Lewis /Spanaway and Olympia /Black Lake. Other search
areas have been eliminated due to significant airspace conflicts or
distance from the Puget Sound population to be served. Sea -Tac would be
closed when the new airport opens.
OPTIONS NOT RECOMMENDED
Options not recommended for further study are the remote airport and high
speed ground transportation. Aspects of demand management and new
technology are reflected in the recommended alternatives. The Sea -Tac
Base Case B and Expand Sea -Tac options will be studied only as part of a
multiple airport system because neither one will alone provide the
capacity to meet the air transportation demand forecast for 2020.
Remote Airport: The mote airport option would recitiamp coordination of
service at Sea -Tac aillpanothet airport connected to girTac by high speed
ground transportation The Committee recommended elimination of the
option because of the extremely high cost of developing the site and the
transit connection, the uncertainty of market viability (ensuring that
the airlines, a private industry, would use a remote site with Sea -Tac
still in operation), and the relatively low environmental benefit because
Sea -Tac would remain in use. Two sites, Grant County Airport at Moses
Lake and Napavine Prairie near Centralia, were under consideration for
remote airport sites.
High Speed Ground Transportation: The Subcommittee recommended against
further study of this option because of the high cost and low impact on
aircraft operations to the Puget Sound region. However, the Subcommittee
encouraged other organizations to study high speed ground transportation
as an important element in the region's transportation system.
Demand Management: Many elements of demand management, such as
encouraging use of larger aircraft with more full loads, are assumed to
occur by 2020, according to the revised forecasts. The Subcommittee
acknowledged that when gains in capacity can occur because of demand
management, they should be incorporated, but the total gain would not be
significant enough to alter the needs for major improvements to the
region's air transportation system.
New Technology: As with demand management, gains made by new technology
should be implemented, but most likely will not be significant enough to
alter the need for major improvements to the region's air transportation
system.
Please review the enclosed material which summarizes our findings on each
option. We look forward to hearing your comments on our draft
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Bill Stoner, Chair
Options Subcommittee
• •,. ••• ,, • ' • •:'',..!•••
•••=,g:s
,,-;•• • •
W
. , • ".
R
. . . ...„. . . .
. . .
Bremerton
Multiple Airport Regional Service
5 5
tel Multiple Alrport:',"Regionel or
"
--'Domestic/Interitetlettak_
4
Remote Aliport
•
• Skagit/Bayview
litigton
Paine Field
OSea-Tac
• McChord
Olympia
Moses Lake Ei
Option: Base Case A
Description: Do nothing to add capacity at Sea -Tac or other airports.
Sites: Seattle - Tacoma International Airport
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
POOR
Severe inbalance between IFR & VFR capacity.
No improvement in VFR or IFR conditions.
Maximum 380,000 operations/year.
Doesn't meet 2020 forecasts.
27% capacity shortfall by 2020.
Airspace
GOOD
No airspace conflicts.
Environment
No severe environmental constraints.
Land use is compatible with existing plans.
1.
GOOD
Travel time of 60 min. or less for most users (in 2020).
Capital Cost
MEDIUM
($50M - $500M)
Economic Value
FAIR
Good, until demand outstrips capacity.
Economic activity is negatively impacted by
congestion at the airport by 2000.
Economic opportunities are foregone by 2000.
Option: Base Case B
Description: Add a commuter runway at Sea -Tac.
Sites: Seattle - Tacoma Intemational Airport
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
FAIR
Inbalance between IFR & VFR capacity.
No improvement in IFR conditions.
Maximum 410,000 operations/year.
Doesn't meet 2020 forecasts.
22% capacity shortfall by 2020.
Airspace
GOOD
No airspace conflicts.
Environment
No severe environmental constraints.
Land use is compatible with existing plans.
Accessibility
GOOD
Travel time of 60 min. or less for most users (in 2020).
Capital Cost .
MEDIUM
($50M - $500M)
Economic Value
FAIR
Good, until demand outstrips capacity
'
Economic activity is negatively impacted by
congestion at the airport by 2010.
Economic opportunities are foregone by 2000.
Option: Expand Sea -Tac
Description: Add a third air carrier runway at Sea -Tac.
Site: Seattle- Tacoma International Airport
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
Inbalance between IFR & VFR, but improvement over Base Case B.
Maximum 480,000 ops/yr.
FAIR Does not meet 2020 forecasts.
8% capacity shortfall by 2020.
Airspace
GOOD No airspace conflicts, but may impact IFR operations
at Boeing Field.
Environment
No severe environmental constraints.
Land use is compatible with existing plans.
' Accessibility
GOOD Travel time of 60 min. or less for most users.
Capital Cost
MEDIUM ($50M - $500M)
Economic Value
Good, until demand outstrips capacity.
FAIR Economic activity is negatively impacted by congestion at
airport by 2020.
Economic opportunities are foregone by 2020.
Roadblocks
• Public reaction from adjacent communties
• If considered as a stand alone alternative, the traveling public and airlines may
experience increasing delays in the long trem as demand outstrips capacity.
Airlines may eventually transfer lucrative routes to airports outside the region.
Option: Replacement Airport
Description: Replace Sea -Tac with a new airport serving long -term commercial aviation needs.
Sites: Fort Lewis /Spanaway, Napavine /Prairie, Olympia/Black Lake
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
Balance between VFR & IFR capacity.
GOOD Maximum 605,000 operations /year.
(for all sites) Meets 2020 forecasts.
15% reserve capacity at 2020.
Airspace
GOOD For all sites. ,
Environment
No severe environmental constraints for all sites.
Land use is compatible with plans for all sites.
Accessibility
POOR For each site, travel time is more than 60 minutes for
most users.
Capital Cost
HIGH ($500M - $3.0B) for all sites.
Economic Value
Shift from Sea -Tac to new site. •
MIXED Good access and related economic
(all sites) development are essential to success of each site.
Roadblocks
• What happens to current Sea•Tac site and adjacent hotels, etc.
• s t mar new airpon investments
• Opposition from business owners adtacent to Sea-Tac
• Public reaction from communities near site
Option: Multiple Airport System — Supplemental Regional Services Airport
Description: Sea -Tac is the primary commercial airport with a second airport serving regional markets.
Sites: Existing: Arlington, Bremerton, McChord, Olympia, Skagit, Paine
New: Arlington/Stanwood, Ft. Lewis/Spanaway, Olympia/Black Lake,
Napavine /Prairie
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
GOOD
(all sites with
Sea -Tac)
Inbalance between VFR & IFR capacity at Sea -Tac.
Maximum 685,000 operations /year.
Meets 2020 forecasts.
Up to 13% reserve capacity at 2020.
Airspace
GOOD
GOOD
For all existing sites, except FAIR for Paine & Skagit.
For all new sites.
Environment
No severe environmental constraints for all sites.
Land use is compatible with plans for all existing sites, except
for Arlington. Unknown for Skagit.
Land use is compatible for all new sites.
i.
Accessibility
GOOD
For all sites.
Best for McChord, Ft. Lewis, or Paine Field combined
with Sea -Tac.
Capital Cost
MEDIUM
($50M - $500M) for all sites.
Economic Value
GOOD
(all sites with
Sea -Tac)
Generates additional economic activity in the region.
,
Roadblocks
• Single or multiple airport authority?
• Airlines oppose investments prior to existence of market
• How to preserve option before it's actually needed?
Option: Multiple Airport System — Supplemental Domestic/Intl. Services Airport
Description: Sea -Tac is the primary commercial airport with a second airport serving domestic as well as
some international markets.
Sites: Existing: Arlington, Bremerton, McChord, Skagit
New: Napavine/Prairie (with Sea -Tac), Olympia/Black Lake (with Sea -Tac)
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
GOOD
(all sites with
Sea -Tac)
lnbalance between VFR & IFR capacity at Sea -Tac.
Maximum 870,000 operations/year.
Meets 2020 forecasts. 37% reserve capacity at 2020.
Airspace
POOR
GOOD
For all new existing sites.
For all new candidate sites.
Environment
No severe environmental constraints for all sites.
Land use is compatible with plans for all existing sites, except
Arlington. Unknown for Skagit.
Land use is compatible for all new sites
Accessibility
GOOD
For all sites, but no improvement over just Sea -Tac
by itself.
Capital Cost
HIGH
($500M - $3.0B) for all sites.
Economic Value
GOOD
(all sites with
Sea -Tac)
III
Generates additional economic activity in the region.
Roadblocks •
• Single or multiple airport authority?
• Airlines oppose investments prior to existence of market
• How to preserve potion before it's actually needed?
• Public reaction from communities near the airports
Option: High Speed Rail — combined with Sea -Tac Option: Remote Airport with high -speed ground Zink to Sea -Tac
Description: Rail linking major cities and Sea -Tac, handling some trips now taken by air and auto. Description: A second airport operated in tandem with Sea -Tac.
Sites: Vancouver B.C. /Sea - Tac/Portland with stops enroute Site: Grant County/Moses Lake, Napavine/Prairie Search Area
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
Max. realistic diversion of operations - 40,000 /year
FAIR Doesn't meet 2020 forecast.
(with Sea -Tac) 15% shortfall by 2020.
Airspace
GOOD Same as Base Case B or Expand Sea -Tac
Environment
No severe environmental constraints for all sites.
Land use is compatible with existing plans.
Accessibility
UNKNOWN Depends on number of stops enroute and schedule.
Capital Cost
p
VERY
HIGH (More than $3.0B)
Economic Value
May change regional development pattern, but total
FAIR regional economic activity is similar to Expand Sea -
Tac option.
Roadblocks
• Decision to hold is part of a larger region -wide decision process
• Diversion of air trips is small relative to cost of facility - financial feasibility depends on
densely populated travel markers
• Airlines will view rail as a competitor
• opposition from communities adjacent to right of way
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
Inbalance between VFR & IFR capacity at Sea -Tac.
GOOD, Maximum 615,000 - 655,000 ops/yr.
( sites Meets 2020 forecasts.
with Sea -Tac) 17% reserve capacity.
Airspace
GOOD No airspace conflicts for both sites. `
Environment
No severe environmental constraints for both sites.
Land use compatibility with existing plans for both
sites.
Accessibility
ty
Napavine - Travel time of 60 min or more.
Moses Lake - Travel time of 90 min or more
POOR Both options require passenger to change access
modes transfers.
Capital Cost
VERY (more than $3.0B) for both sites.
HIGH
Economic Value
MIXED Economic development would shift outside of regior,
(both sites Good access and related econmic development are
wlth Sea -Tac) essential to success of each site.
•
Roadblocks
• No modes In existence in the world
• Opposition to shifting eoaomic activity outside the region
• Extremely high level of capital investment required, but no clear sources of funds.
:„f1eVe1�, passe crn"of°'ca°6iebh'° Bente
• Terrain and weather pose risks b implementation of ground rink to Moses take
• opposition from communities adjacent to airport and right of way
Option: New Technology Option: Demand Management
Description: Aircraft, air traffic control procedures, and other technology which increase capacity. Description: Pricing/regulatory techniques encouraging use of larger planes, non -peak hour flights, and
diversion of passengers to other modes.
Sites: All options Sites: All options, but particularly for the Sea -Tac options
Criterion
Study Findings
Capacity
FAIR Aircraft with larger seating capacities - incorporated in Vision Forecasts.
Microwave landing system - incorporated in Base Case B capacity.
Tiltrotor - may enhance capacity by substituting for some fixed -wing
service. Potential impacts similar to high speed rail option.
Capital Cost
LOW (Less than $50M)
Roadblocks
• Tiltrotor is untested technology. Who will design, finance and operate the
system?
• Public opposition to creating small, new airports that are required by
tiltrotor.
• Funding institutions may view tiltrotor as a risky venture.
Criterion Study Findings
Capacity
FAIR
Divert some air travel to other modes [incorporated in assessment of
high speed rail and tiltrotor].
Encourage aircraft with larger seating capacites [incorporated in Visi
Forecasts].
Divert operations from peak periods [incorporated in Vision Forecast;
some additional diversion is possible, but will not correct capacity
shortfalls].
Capital Cost
FAIR (Less than $50M)
Roadblocks
• Has never been successfully implemented on large scale.
• Deterioration in service to small communities in region and throughout the
state.
• At the extreme, passengers are discouraged from traveling altogether o r
airlines shift connections through airports outside the region.
•
88186
VM 'VIIM)I(11\
•0A19 S31N30 •S 00E9
VIIMNfII 30 A1I3
v-l!mNni do Ain
1.661 9g NIIN
OSS'0N 111183d
VM .3111V3S
a I' d d
3OVISOd 's'n
31Vl1)Ilne
MVHS01/218 V2i10 k
PO 186 uol6ulyseM'ewes
;41nos enueny isJ!3 91.Z
Ved e41 uo Ieglue° pueio
sluewwenoo to Ilounoo punog le6nd
900Sd
Notice of PubIic Meeting on
Preliminary Selection of Airport System Alternatives for Additional Analysis
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee - Options Subcommittee
Wednesday, April 3, 1991
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport
Auditorium
Speaker Sign -Up Beginning 6:30 pm
Meeting 7:00 -10:00 pm
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
28 November 1990
Cynthia Felice
Flight Plan Project
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168
PHONE # (206) 433.1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Subject: Determination of Significance - Flight Plan Project
Dear Ms. Felice:
Thank you for the notice of scoping on the above project. The City
of Tukwila would like to be included as a party of interest in the
above project.
Your list of environmental elements is extensive however there are
several additional concerns that we feel should be addressed.
1. Displacement of commercial, freight or general aviation to
different locations than currently occupied and used, caused by the
various alternatives and the impact to service level this
displacement has for each of these uses.
2. How the alternatives will implement or conflict with federal,
state, and where appropriate, local plan goals and policies. The
plans could be transportation, land use or comprehensive, depending
on the orientation or approach of the agency or locality.
If I can be of any assistance in coordination with the City of
Tukwila, please call me at 431 -3651.
truly yours,
Moira. Carr Bradshaw
PUGET SOUND
AIR TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
February 13, 1991
Moira Carr Bradshaw
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
The Flight Plan Project -
sponsored by the Port of Seattle
and Puget Sound Council of Governments
Subject: Scoping Comments for the Flight Plan Project
Dear Ms. Bradshaw:
Thank you for your comments concerning the scope of the
environmental review being conducted for the Flight Plan
Project. We appreciate your interest in the project and your .
thoughtful input.
All comments received will be carefully considered during the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The
EIS will evaluate the various impacts of each of the air
transportation system alternatives developed by the Puget Sound
Air Transportation Committee and will suggest potential
mitigating measures. It is expected that a Draft EIS will be
available for review this summer.
Many of the comments we received concerned aircraft and related
noise impacts on the region's residents. Noise is one of the
primary environmental impacts which will be addressed in the
evaluation of the alternatives and will receive particular
attention. In addition, all comments have been forwarded to
the Sea -Tac Airport Noise Abatement Office for review.
If you have any further questions regarding the project or the
environmental review, please contact Cynthia Felice, Port of
Seattle, at 439 -7707 or Jim Billing, Puget Sound Council of
Governments, at 464 -5301. All respondents have been placed on
the Flight Plan Project mailing list to receive further
information.
Once again, thank you for your feedback on the Flight Plan
Project.
Sincerely,
Curtis R. Smelser
Executive Director
Puget Sound Council of Governments
SEPA Responsible Official
MAR 07.1991
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168
(206) 439 -7707
(206) 464 -5301
Robert Wallace, Committee Chair
PacilicGroup Properties, Inc.
Paul Barden
King County Council
M.R. Dinsmore
Port of Seattle
Roy Ferguson
State Representative
David Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Bernard Friedman
Talmadge, Friedman & Cutler
William Hamilton
Department of Transportation
Frank Hansen
Mayor of SeaTac
Richard Kennedy
Des Moines City Council
Robert Larson
Mayor of Stanwood
Eleanor Lee
State Senator
Harry Lehr
Alaska Airlines
Darlene Madenwald
Washington Environmental Council
John McCarthy
Commissioner, Port of Tacoma
Liz McLaughlin
Snohomish County Council
John McNamara
Air Transport Association
Paige Miller
Commissioner, Port of Seattle
Renee Montgelas
Office of the Governor
Greg Mykland
Tacoma City Council
Kil Narodick
Bogle & Gates
Martin Neeb
Pacific Lutheran University
Robert Neir
Kirkland City Council
Greg Nickels
King County Council
Ed Nielson
United Airlines
Don Padeltord
Noise Mediation Committee
Frank Partin'
John Fluke Manufacturing
Andrea Riniker
Port of Seattle
Fred Schoneman
Commissioner, Port of Bremerton
Roger Shaeffer
Clyde Hill Council
Earle Smith
Economic Development
Council of Kitsap County
Sverre Staursel
Attorney at Law
Bill Stoner
Pierce County Council
Tom Tierney
Deputy Chief of Staff, Seattle
Larry Vognild
State Senator
Ray White
Puget Sound Power & Light
Paul Zellinsky
State Representative
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT ..,_,7"7.„--"/Axi ‘,..)(2,),,ohor.s, /1! /V /
*)
MESSAGE
_T- ----- //f/i9 /0/06- (//t/ ArVM/A/6" l.,1)e-W--
{
/4i/-72 -771---/57 /MUM/6U :/�#
ipa777-73 /It& /ii
5 fi fr-----X- /R/Atal L/14 4- 4e7-7--.7e_. .:7.7777/16-- cole_.
,
•
/6 /x1 6e, 4
/-bbV-u/Y I kiev4Y /flaw" 7. (97UZYm/A.;- 70 htia&--167/--.71
.f
it Iii - 7 7 / - 2 = 5 - - &-d)-:- 6- /9- \Wi) .77(17) A772-161*777/.. -7a6/// /1--
/A) 17-17 Ai 1/)))/.. 77 AW, ‘#,&}_a) W$/i1,_ iii/227/v6--
-.6 i Al .4e. _ 4. 1- KZ / //I :Y.-9k114-,_
/1)&3g, #.--;5"itaitic-.- /WAD/
__-,fi-ii,A1/-:
/7,1Wbi
SIGNED
RED! FoRm 4S 468
POLY PAK. (50 SETS) 4P468
NO REPLY NECESSARY
REPLY REQUESTED - USE REVERSE SIDE
PUGET SOUND
AIR TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
SEPA Determination of Significance and
Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement
Notice of Public Meetings to be held on
November 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 19, 1990.
Description of Proposal: The Puget Sound Air Transportation
Committee ( PSATC), as part of its "Flight Plan Project," is
undertaking a long-term planning project designed to meet
forecasted increases in the region's demand for commercial air
travel and cargo facilities and services. The project results
will be used by agencies throughout the region in
decision-making about improvements to regional aviation
facilities. The PSATC is jointly sponsored by the Puget Sound
Council of Governments (PSCOG) and the Port of Seattle (Port) .
A report prepared for the PSATC anticipates that growth in
airline operations at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
(Sea-lac) will result in severe flight delays by the year
2000. (o deal with this problem, the PSATC is examining
alternatives for increasing air traffic capacity throughout the
region. Eight generic options have been identified as
potential solutions. They are: 1) Make minor improvements to
Sea-Tac, 2) Expand Sea -'Lac, 3) Build a new replacement airport,
4) Develop a system,, of supplemental. airports, 5) Utilize a
"remote" airport which is functionally .linked with Sea- -Tac,
6) Construct a high speed rail. system (such as Maglev) to serve
Western Washington, 7) Rely on technological innovations
(including aircraft and navigational improvements), and 8) Use
pricing and /or regulations to manage the aircraft demand at
Sea -Tac. A No- Action alternative will also be addressed. The
Committee will develop alternatives based on these options,
analyze them in 1991, and make recommendations by the end of
next year.
Location of_ Proposa.1: The project may consider a number of
potential. .locations for .improved aviation facilities, including
(but not .limited to) Seattle-- 'iacoma International. Airport and
King County .iitter•naat:i.onal Airport (Kind Country), Paine Field
(Snohomish County), Bremerton International Airport (Kitsap
County), MChorcl Air Force Base and Fort Lewis (Pierce County),
and other sites to be determined.
F.0 E,:;!: 68727
I.'.; 98158
(206; 453 -5218
Paci!icaroup Properties. Inc.
Par S.
King County Council
Port of Seattle
State Representative
Federal Aviation Administration
Talmadge Friedman & Cutler
Department of Transportation
Mayor of Sea lac
Des Moines City Council
Mayor of Stanwood
State Senator
. Alaska Airlines
Washington Environmental Council
Commissioner. Port of Tacoma
Snohomish County Council
Air Transport Association
Commissioner. Port of Seattle
Office of the Governor
Tacoma City Council
Bogle d Gates
Pacific Lutheran University
Kirkland City Council
King County Council
United Auhnes
Noise Mediation Committee
John Fluke Manufacturing
Port of Seatle
Commissioner. Port a! Bremerton
CI yde Hill Council
Economic Develoomen!
Council of Kitsap Count)
Attorney at Law
Pierce County Council
Depuy Chief of Stafl. Seattle
Slate Senar.;
Pope; Sound Power 6 Lion!
State Reoresenr,al ve
PSCOG, Determination of Significance /Scoping Notice, pg 3
Public open houses to describe the project and to provide opportunities to
comment on the scope of the EIS will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
on the following dates and locations:
* Kitsap County: Wednesday, Nov. 7 - Great Northwest Community
Room, 500 Pacific Ave., Bremerton
* Pierce County: Thursday, Nov. 8 - Public Utilities
Administration Building, 3628 S. 35th. St., Tacoma
* Snohomish County: Tuesday, November 13 - Snohomish County
Senior Service Center, 3404 112th SW on Paine Field.
* Pierce County: Wednesday, Nov. 14 - Regency Room, University
Center, Pacific Lutheran University, 122nd. (off Pacific Avenue)
and Park, Tacoma
* King County: Thursday, Nov. 15 - Sea -Tac Airport Auditorium
(mezzanine .level)
* King County: Monday, Nov. 19 -- National. Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administr Pti&A) Offices, Bldg. 9, Room A• -B,
7600 Sandpoint Way NE, Seattle
Written comments will be accepted until Friday, December 14, 1990 and
should be addressed to Cynthia Felice, Flight Plan Project, P.O. Box
68/2/, Seattle, WA 90168.
All submitted comments will be acknowledged. We will work with citizens
and organizations who have submitted comments to attempt to resolve
environmental issues or questions. During preparation of the Draft EIS,
we will consider the comments received during the scoping period. The
Draft EIS will be available for public review and comment before a Final
EIS is prepared. Since this is a planning project addressing a range of
broad alternatives, it is anticipated that appropriate additional '
environmental analysis will be carried out prior to specific projects
implementing any PSATC recommendation.
We encourage interested groups and individuals to comment on this planning
effort and to become involved with the process. Also, a newsletter
describing the activities and decisions of the Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee is available. To get on the mailing list,
contact Kathleen Drew, Flight Plan Project, P.U. Box 68727, Seattle, WA
98168, (206) 439 -7734.
Curtis R. Smelser
Executive Director
Puget Sound Council. of Governments
SI:PA Responsible Official -• (206) 464 -7515
October 31, 1990
PSCOG, Determination of Significance /Scoping Notice, pg 2
Lead Agency : The Puget Sound Council of Governments is the nominal Lead
Agency, in cooperation with Port of Seattle acting as co —lead.
E.L:S_.Reguired: The environmental analysis is being carried out pursuant to
the provisions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
under Chapter 4:3.210 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 197 -11,
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), and the SEPA policies and procedures
of the Council of Governments and the Port. As co- -lead agencies, the
Council of Governments and the Port have determined that the proposed
project is likely to have significant adverse environmental impact.
Therefore, a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be
prepared under WAC 191 -11, Part 4.
Information used to reach this determination, together with applicable
State laws and relevant policies, regulations, & procedures are available
for public review at the Puget Sound Council of Governments offices (Grand
Central on the Park, 4th. floor, 2.16 First Ave. South, Seattle) and Port
of Seattle offices (Aviation Planning Dept., 3rd Floor, Main Terminal
Bldg., Sea -Tac Airport). Any questions relating to this determination or
the proposed action should be referred to Cynthia Felice, Flight Plan
Project, P.U. Box Ei872/, Seattle, WA 98168, (206) 439 -7707.
The following environmental elements have been identified for primary
analysis in they E:ES: 1) Noise, including aircraft and vehicle noise;
2) Transportation, including surface vehicles, mass transit, and parking;
3) Land Use and Housing, including displacement and impacts on adjacent
uses; 4) Surface Water management, including control of storm water runoff
and water quality; !i) Plants and Animals, including impacts on habitat;
6) Earth, including grading and filling; 7) Air Quality; and 8) Public
Services and Utilities. Other elements will also be considered as
appropriate for each alternative and in response to comments received
during the scop.i.ruj period
Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited
to comment on the scope oF the EIS. Comments may include evaluation of
planning alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse
impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required.
MISSION
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
The mission of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee is to strive
to meet our region's commercial air transportation needs for the first half
of the 21st century.
OBJECTIVES •
Our air transportation system should:
• Utilize a planning process that involves all interested parties, govern-
ments, and citizens so as to seek broad public input and to ensure broad
public support of our eventual recommendations.
• Be compatible with the human and natural environment and avoid •
adverse environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. ,
• Be coordinated and integrated with all other transportation modes.
Remain competitive nationally and internationally and meet the needs
of passengers and air cargo shippers.
• Accommodate regional population and economic growth and be inte-
grated with statewide economic and transportation plans.
• Consider and accommodate new and developing technologies.
cific methodology which is discussed in Working Paper #2 in Appendix A. The methodology was
designed to evaluate the system alternatives /site options in a rigorous and consistent manner by
researching a broad range of data.
Evaluation is a planning process that measures the relative conformance of alternatives to a set of
common factors. Factors which can be measured or quantified are expressed in units of size, vol-
ume, population, dollars, weight, etc.. Non - measurable or qualitative factors are usually ranked
according to their relative position on a rating scale that may be either weighted or not weighted.
The main focus of the evaluation was to allow for system alternatives /site options to be compared to
one another rather than studied in absolute terms. This means that the relative rank of the alterna-
tives /site options as compared to one another is more important than the absolute values obtained for
any single one.
The factors which were used to evaluate the system alternatives /site options are outlined below:
Operational/Technical Elements - Appendix B
*
noks co-i-es
*
*
Runway Capacity:
(Working Paper #7)
01~61 can 1..e.-
Airspace:
(Working Paper #7)
Accessibility:
(Working Paper #9)
Economic/Financial Elements
* Capital Costs:
(Working Paper #11)
Measured in aircraft operations
(take -offs and landings) per year, this
factorindicatesthe future air travel
cdemand-that_cari be a o odated
A ranking based on a preliminary
review of the amount of interaction or
cconflict that would occur with planes
operating.to and from other airports or
+res_ frictions caused by terrain
Measured in terms of the percentage ofH
the-regiat '"s_populatiai that can get to a
given site in =sixty. ,minutes of less and
total travel' mileage; this factor indicates
` convenience- and-viability
- Appendix C
Measured in dollars, this factor
indicates the_cost to- build(including_land )
. acquisition and_constrictian),
29
* Aircraft Delay Costs:
(Working Paper #11q))
6 "tS ani DU vi+
61-1Y)k-SZ
urn: Gca`l
Measured in dollars per year, this
factor indicates the costs incurred dueto
an airport being operated above its
capacity (assuming service reductions are
not imposed due.to congestion). It can
also be used to measure the amount of
operational capcity .which is available .
relative to the number of passengers
served
* Funding: A ratio of the funds which will be
(Working Paper #11) generated over a twenty year period and the
capitarimprovement- costs; this factor indicates
cfiriancial viability —
A ranking based on the lvel -and
4dis&ibution -of economic benefits that would be
generated-for-the-region-1
* Economic Impacts:
(Working Paper #8)
Institutional Elements - Appendix D
This evaluation element can not be quan fled It involves factors such as the socio-
political acceptance of the best alternative and the use of recent or potential new
legislation in order toimplement and operate the recommended alternative
The institutional analysis revealed-that-all-cif the alternatives- could_be_implemented,_
but instead of developing a ranking, the results of the analysis were used in the draft
recommendations to help_develop__an action plan for implementing- the - preferred
alternative.
It was also found that the Flight Plan Project Recommendations can become part of the
Puget Sound Region's framework for meeting the guidelines of the state's Growth
Management Act. '■""'+
Environmental Elements - Appendix E, Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement
* Noise Impacts:
(Working Paper #12A)
* Air Quality:
(Working Paper #12B)
Measured in terms of five different
criteria, most important of which is the number of
people who would be exposed to a noise level of
65 Ldn or greater 470 O
Measured in tons per year of Carbon
Monoxide and Nitrogen Oxides emitted from
both vehicles and aircraft
* Wetlands Impacts:
(Working Paper #12C)
31
Measured in acres of wetlands affected
* Salmon Stream Impacts: Measured in feet of streams affected
(Working Paper #12C)
In addition to the above factors, the working papers examined other factors within each of the four
categories (operational/technical, economic /financial, institutional, and environmental). However,
the above factors were used as the best representatives for each of the elements.
Summary of Evaluation Result
Both the system -level alternatives and the individual sites were evaluated according to the opera -
tional/technical, economic /financial, institutional, and environmental factors. Data was collected at
the site level and then aggregated for each of the system alternatives. The full details of the analyses
can be found in the various working papers in the Appendices.
In order to present the data from the working papers in a concise format, summary tables were
prepared. Data summaries at the system alternative level and by site options are presented in Fig-
ures 9 and 10 respectively. Following the data summary tables are the important points gathered
from the evaluation process.
Runway Capacity
Operational/Technical Elements ,_'
The capacity analysis found that Sea -Tac as it is now would not be able to meet the
region's air travel needs past the year 2000. Sea -Tac was determined to have a prac-
tical capacity of 380,000 take -offs and landings each year. Above this level, delays
would begin to rise rapidly. In 1990, Sea -Tac handled 355,000 operations.
It was determined that the best long -term alternative in terms of capacity would be a
three - airport system which included Sea -Tac and eventually two supplemental
airports. This alternative would provide adequate capacity through the year 2020
and beyond.
k .11 Alternative
Do Nothing
Multiple Airport
System with Two
Airports
Multiple Airport
System with Three
Airports
Replacement
Airport
Do Nothing
Airport Options
1
2
?ilifezo *re
Sea -Tac without commuter R/W
Sea -Tac with commuter R/W
3 Alternate 1 & Arlington 1 R/W
4 Alternate 1 & Paine 1 R/W
5 Alternate 1 & McChord 1 R/W
6 Alternate 1 & Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 Alternate 1 & Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Alternate 1 & Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 & Paine 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 & McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 & Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Alternate 1 & Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W
13 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
17 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Oly/Blk Lake 1 R/W
18 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Paine 2 R/W
20 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Cent. Pierce 2 R/W
22 Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Oly/Blk Lake 2 R/W
23 Alternate 1 & Arlington 1 R/W & C. Pierce 1 R/W
24 Alternate 1 & Paine 1 R/W & C. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Alternate 1 & Arling. 1 R/W & Oly/Blk Lake 1 R/W
26 Alternate 1 & Paine 1 R/W & Oly/Blk Lake 1 R/W
27 Alternate 13 & Central Pierce 1 R/W
28 Alternate 14 & Central Pierce 1 R/W
29 Alternate 13 & Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Alternate 14 &. OlympiaBBlack Lake 1 R/W
PSATC preferred alternative per draft recommendations (note: alternative 30 to
be used only if a supplemental site cannot be acquired in the Central Pierce area)
31 Central Pierce w/ 3 R/W
32 OlympiaBlack Lake w/ 3 R/W
33 Fort Lewis w/ 3 R/W
34
Alternate 1 & Demand Management
* All of the initial Sea -Tac alternatives (Base Case A & B, and Expand
Sea -Tac) - Dropped due to inadequate capacity to meet the PSATC's
Vision.
* Distant Remote Airport linked to Sea -Tac by high -speed rail (the
Moses Lake option) - Dropped due to difficulty to implement, ex-
tremely high capital costs, and lack of accessibility to users.
* High -Speed Ground Transportation linking Sea -Tac to Vancouver,
B.C. and Portland - Dropped due to extremely high capital costs and
small incremental benefit to airport capacity. However, the PSATC
encouraged and supported the study of rail by the State Air Transporta-
tion Commission and the State High -Speed Rail Commission.
* Demand Management as a stand -alone alternative - Dropped due to
inadequate capacity enhancement to meet the PSATC's Vision.
* New Technologies as a stand -alone alternative - Dropped due to inade-
quate capacity enhancement to meet the PSATC's Vision.
For more information on both the alternatives that were recommended for further analysis and
those that were not, as well as the results of the technical analysis and screening, please refer to
the Phase II final report entitled "Phase II: Development of Alternatives" dated June 1991.
23
21
A search area was not a specific site, but rather a small portion of the region in which potential sites
might be found. Other areas within the region were excluded from being search areas due to topog-
raphy, environmental problems or severe impacts to urban areas.
Concerning potential high -speed ground transportation alignments, two corridors had been sug-
tgested in the past: 1) Vancouver, B.C. to Seattle to Portland via Sea -Tad Airport, and 2) Seattle
'(Sea -Tac) to Moses Lake. The PSATC chose both of these alignments for further study as potential
options.
After identification of sites for each of the system alternatives was completed, the following ques-
-d_ - AA i "445
* Airspace: Are there conflicts with other airports or terrain?
* Capacity: How many aircraft operations can be accommodated (or
diverted)?
Lions were studied:
-4°P.
* Ground Access: How accessible is each site option to residents of the
Central Puget Sound Region?
* Investment Requirements: How much money would be needed for
construction?
* Economic Impact: What are the economic implications for the region
and its subareas?
* Implementation Feasibility: What major roadblocks might be en-
countered during implementation?
A three -step screening process was used to assess the system alternatives based on the answers
received to the above questions. The first step was to eliminate those alternatives that were found to
have serious problems in terms of the above issues. The second step was to create packages of
system alternatives from those that remained. This involved combining alternatives in such a way
that, the resulting packages would be able to meet the air travel demand forecasts for 2020. The third
step was to measure the resulting packages in terms of how well they met the PSATC's vision
statement of providing adequate capacity to the year 2050.
,System Alternatives Recommended for Further Analysis
In March of 1991, the Options Subcommittee of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
developed draft conclusions of what it considered to be alternatives that might be feasible or alterna-
tives which were not feasible as a result of the screening process. After a series of public hearings in
March and April of 1991 to gain public input on these conclusions, the PSATC approved the follow-
ing alternatives for indepth technical /operational, economic /financial, institutional, and environ-
mental analysis during Phase III of the Project:
Tim sFt.usfitiIT Pt Aitsit rikoJikel ?MASKS 111
PBB�(E ' SotuA!® T ttilISP ®R iTA IOW C011409 r rziE
PAD A viabon
Figure II•1
Airport Locations.
The Flight Plan Project Phase III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
S.H.
'305
■-•
S.H.
99
• Tacoma
S.H.
7
S.H.
512
16
S.H.
202
Redmond
0§.
816
SCALE INFECT 56;A
19.
Composite 80 SEL Noise Contours (727-200,737-390 & MD83)
Me Right Plan Pfoject Phase Ill
. 1C:3 4...■■•■""
•
COMMENTS OF THE
REGIONAL COMMISSION ON AIRPORT AFFAIRS ON
FLIGHT PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
•
RCAA
c/o J. Richard Aramburu
505 Madison Street, Suite 209
Seattle, WA 98104
March 23, 1992
•
G7FGr�OL�3J
APR 14 1992
CITY OF 1 UKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
I. SUMMARY 2
II. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES 4
2.1 The Paine Field Alternative 4
2.2 Failure to Include Significant
Alternatives to Sea -Tac 6
2.3 Failure to Include Total Proposal 7
2.4 The "Programmatic" EIS 8
2.5 Failure to Assess All Elements
of the Environment 9
2.6 Alternatives Including the
"Four Post Plan" 15
2.7 Inclusion of All Pending Actions
Into a Single Environmental Review 16
2.8 Need for Proposal: Passenger
Growth Projections 18
2.9 Benefits of the Third Runway 20
2.10 Consideration of Alternatives:
Enhancements to Existing Airport 21
2.11 Calculations of Economic Benefits 23
III. COMMENTS ON SECTION 1: "SUMMARY" 24
IV. COMMENTS ON: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT,
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES
AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 28
Section 3.1 - Noise 28
Comments - Working Paper 12A 36
Section 3.2 - Air 45
-i-
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D.
Section 3.3 - Transportation 52
Section 3.4 - Plants and Animals 59
Section 3.5 - Earth and Water Issues 64
Section 3.6 - Land Use 70
Section 3.7 - Public Services and Utilities 82
CONCLUSION 84
•
•
•
INTRODUCTION
This document constitutes the comments of the Regional
Council on Airport Affairs (RCAA) on the Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The RCAA is
a coalition of various citizen groups, municipal governments and
individuals. A list of RCAA members is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. This document will also constitute the individual
comments of the various participants in the RCAA coalition,
though individual members may submit separate comments.
In addition to the comments provided herein, we have also
reviewed other comments submitted on the subject DEIS. We
concur with many of these comments. But, instead of repeating
all of these comments within this submission, we will
incorporate by reference those comments with which we concur.
A list of those comments are referenced in Exhibit B hereto.
Our comments will be organized as follows. F:r'sit we will
provide an overview and-summary of our positio (S econdil y, we>
will °discuss several important procedural issues which aria "e
because of the peculiar format of the subject DEIS. Fiinlly_,_ wed'
« Waal provide, individualized comments on particular areas- within
t:
thw. DEIS .
In our comments we will repeatedly use certain
abbreviations and references. The subject environmental impact
statement will be referred to as the "DEIS." The Puget Sound
Regional Council will be referenced as the "PSRC" and the Port
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 1
•
•
of Seattle as "POS." Unless otherwise obvious from the context,
"you" will refer to the parties responsible for the DEIS, i.e.
the PSRC and the POS. The references to "Sea -Tac" will refer to
Sea -Tac Airport and not to the City of Sea -Tac. "SEPA" is of
course the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C. The
SEPA Rules are the administrative rules found in WAC ch. 197 -11.
Individual references to these Rules will omit the chapter
reference of the WAC and thus will be cited as, e.g., "- 060(3)."
Our comments on the Flight Plan DEIS are as follows:
I. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW.
Based on our thorough review of the DEIS, it is our firm,
but regrettable, conclusion that the DEIS must be completely
revised and rewritten. The revised draft should be recirculated
for comment and new public hearings must be held. We reach this
conclusion because DENS completely, fails to meet the minimal
(regirirements of SEPA or the SEPA Rules
Our conclusion is regrettable because of the time and
expense that we, and many other commenters, have put into review
of the document produced by PSRC and the POS. Frankly, we
believed that because the authors of the document had long
experience with SEPA that a first rate document would be
prepared as we have seen good products from these agencies
before. We are therefore at a loss to understand why a
conscious decision was reached to produce a knowingly 4igradequate;
`do u hem tIf this were something less of a project, perhaps we
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 2
•
•
•
could understand the agencies' action. But the selection of
improvements to the air transportation system affects, in one
way or the other, everyone in the Puget Sound region. This
includes the hundreds of thousands affected by overflights and
all of those using the airport system. The decision made here
is to set improvements for the next thirty or more years. Costs
of the projects involved could easily reach over a billion
dollars. At Sea -Tac alone the preferred action would call for
more than 65,000 people a day going through the facility (more
than attend a Seahawks game) and moving a million truck loads of
earth to build a third runway.
All of this is proposed without the essentials of
environmental review that would be made for a convenience store.
Consider the following. There is no site plan to describe the
third runway at Sea -Tac; not even a simple indication where the
dirt will go. There are no traffic counts or levels of service
for any roads leading to Sea -Tac; how will 65,000 more people
get there ?. There is not a single map showing land uses around
any of the proposed facilities. The inventory of plants and
animals says only that : "Plants and animals common to the Puget
Sound region would likely be found at or near all the proposed
sites. " How could this help anyone make a decision?
A new DEIS is required because even."a4 d- rast%cally revised"
i �f ETS would not provide the opportunity___ for public_reviewj
� nd'cbmment:j As noted, in many areas of concern there is simply
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 3
•
•
•
no information provided and thus there is little for substantive
comment. Thus even the inclusion of revised data in the FEIS
would preclude the opportunity for important comment so critical
to the SEPA process.
The decision to ignore SEPA requirements is all that more
regrettable because it will mean even more delay in the process.
However, there is no other choice but to redo the DEIS and
prepare an adequate document for review and public comment. ATo
nowt` redo the document now will mean that expensive and time -1
cons %ming litigation •wi11 , -be the~ only choice of - concernedl
'cit zeris are .governments We urge the PSRC and POS to
r
immediately begin the task of preparation of an adequate DEIS so
that there will be no further delay in the process.
While PSRC and the POS are well aware of the defects in
their DEIS, our comments that follow will provide our detailed
views on these matters.
II. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES.
2.1. The Paine Field Alternative.
The proposed action includes the use of Paine Field as an
air carrier facility by the year 2000. The owner and operator
of Paine Field is Snohomish County. Recent information
presented indicates that Fair carrier use of Paine is not a part
of �SnohomrshhCbunty's plan for use -of arpor which s� limited,
-to air taxi-and_potential commuter_useA Further and its even
more importantly, Snohomish County apparently is reluctant to
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 4
•
•
•
operate Paine as an air carrier facility. Given these
circumstances, wquestion whether Paine ought to be considered
anitalternative at all. Caselaw has established that `rmote:
Csp u1ative alternati'es should not be considered in impact
statements. Given the circumstances, \its "appears that Paine
-shou ld _:_not_beincluded as an alternative a d that= other,
- iocations should be considered.
We understand that the state of the law is such that the
operator of Paine is not bound by any decision that is reached
in the flight plan process. If the PSRC and POS disagree with
this comment, legal or policy analysis should be provided to
support any contrary conclusion.
We also understand that the POS under its current
authorization and authority cannot step in and take over Paine
Field and operate it itself. Again, if PSRC and /or POS disagree
with this proposition, please indicate why.
Based upon all that we see, we cannot conclude that Paine
Field is a serious alternative. Other alternatives must be
considered.
In sum, ctrie-l-Sa.6cluc.Eion Hof air carrier service-at—Paine
F%etl4d:is nbt a reasonable_alternative or -- action - because the lead
age cuss ha=ve no authority to implement this action under WAC
197- 11- 440(5)(b)(111).
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 5
•
•
•
2.2 Failure to Include Significant Alternatives
to Sea -Tac.
As noted above, the owner and operator of Paine Field
appears reluctant to use that facility for air carrier service.
In addition, the implementation of this part of the plan will
require the airlines to establish service at Paine Field.
The establishment of such service will require a
significant investment in facilities (terminals, ticket
counters, baggage handling etc) . However, noathifig: in the-DEIS
\gEiv' es any indication that airT ries are ready, w} al' ng and ably
-
- ----to eVtabl tsh - such - service: We-doubt the willingness of carriers
to- establish such new service willingly-given significant recent,
glosses - -on operations in the industry and capital, needs for`newa
equipment. Please indicate what' informationy_ou have that
— indicates! that__ airlines__ are - ready-, -- willing_ and able to serve
Paine_Field_b_y the -- yea -r 2000
If it is the case that the airlines are not willing to
commit to establishment of new service at Paine or another
location, then,,:it - appears - steps- -will be required__t_o- assure -the)
establis+hpment of service at supplemental airports). Please
identify what measures the PSRC or the POS are prepared to take
to assure that a transfer of aircraft operations to a new
airport will take place. Please identify incentives to such
transfer and what measure of success are expected. Are the PSRC
and POS prepared to take unilateral actions to assure the
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 6
•
•
•
establishment of service at supplemental airports? If so, what
steps will be taken and when? Are PSRC and POS prepared to
limit operations of airlines at Sea -Tac to assure that
operations will be established at a supplemental airport?
We are also concerned that supplemental airports do not
- ffer real alternatives- to continued—use of - Sea -Tac. The
preferred alternative would still have 85% of the traffic at
Sea -Tac in the design year.,` An - alternative should-be-considered
- which will include -s gni- ficant relief to Sea -Tac. While figures
4
are given for possible allocation of operations between Sea -Tac
and other airports (p.B -75, Alternatives 23 -26), the
institutional mechanisms for accomplishing such diversion is not
supplied. As described above, please indicate how division of
more operations can occur.
2.3 Failure to include Total Proposal.
The preferred alternative identified in the DEIS indicates
that Sea -Tac is still expected to handle from 38.3 MAP to 41.5
MAP in the design year, up from about 16.2 MAP currently. It is
apparent that the terminal, air cargo areas, maintenance,
parking, airport drive and other facilities cannot accommodate
such a volume of passengers. However, We does not
identify -what additional_improvements -will be required to handle
the increases. to believe that such new improvements will
likely require facilities that will relocate other uses and
expand into areas not presently subject to airport impacts.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 7
•
•
•
In the revised DEIS and FEIS, a complete description must
be given of facilities required to accommodate the passengers
proposed to be served by the action described in the DEIS. This
should include descriptions of such facilities, their location
as well as maps and site plans. If the POS has any planning
documents which describe any of these proposals, they should be
identified and made available. (No such documents are found in
the "References section of the DEIS [p. R -1]).
2.4 The "Programmatic" DEIS.
This DEIS is referred to in its title as a "draft
programmatic" EIS. Nowhere in the document is it explained what
a "programmatic DEIS" is or why the action contemplated is such
a "programmatic" action. The document should explain the use of
this term and its meaning.
In fact, me A or the_ _SEPA__Rules_ provide for 'a
programmatic" DEISt There are provisions for "nonproject
actions" as defined in - 704(2)(b). However, the current action
is not one of the category mentioned. (I4'itis ;riot:31"egislation
controlling use of the environment nor is it a rand-use plan,
annexation; capital budget -or- road — street or highway plan' Id.
The only remaining category is that of "the adoption of any
policy, plan or program that will govern the development of a
series of connected actions (197 -11- 060)." However, that
provision is inapplicable for two reasons.
First, the definition above is subject to a specific
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 8
•
•
exclusion, which is, "but not including any policy, plan, or
program for which approval must be obtained from any federal
agency prior to implementation; . . . "
As the PSRC and the POS are aware, the adoption of any of
the proposals included in the DEIS will require approval of the
Federal Aviation Administration both as to the use of new
runways in an air navigation sense, but also to approve federal
funds required for construction. Indeed, federal funds are
relied upon in financial projections. See p. C -98. In fact,
the improvements of Sea -Tac and Paine will rely on about $192.5
million in federal funds. Page C -104. As is well known, the
FAA must approve any use of airspace contemplated by any new
runways. See p. B -81.
The actions proposed here are in fact "project" actions,
i.e. one that are to "license, fund, or undertake any activity
that will directly modify the environment." - 704(2)(a)(i).
The proposal here is to directly undertake specific actions at
least two specific sites. First, the DEIS proposes to undertake
construction of a dependent runway that is 7000 feet long, to be
located at a precise point on the west side of the airport and
will require a precise amount of fill. As noted above, the
capital costs for the Sea -Tac and other alternatives have been
calculated. See e.g. pages 3 -41. A similar degree of detail is
available for the proposal to utilize Paine Field. Further,
estimations of the amount of traffic at Sea -Tac and Paine have
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 9
•
•
•
been calculated for both aircraft operations and numbers of
passengers. The largest section of the report and DEIS is that
section devoted to explaining the economic benefits of new
airports. See pages C -1 to C -79. In fact, this section is
longer than the entire DEIS.
Indeed, the nature of the Flight Plan proposal here is to
make Sea -Tac the primary airport of the region, with about 85%
of the passengers.
However, the DEIS insists that this is just a broad
decision or a plan and thus PSRC and the POS can avoid doing any
kind of meaningful analysis. The premise on which less detailed
( "more flexible ") review for nonproject action rests is that:
there is normally less detailed information available
on their environmental impacts and on any subsequent .
project proposals.
- 442(1). But this is not a comprehensive plan or area wide .
zoning, but a proposal to implement very specific proposals over
which significant detail is already known. (lathe approval of thel'
-F1 -fight -Plan will - set in place major work at Sea -Tac which wild
not7.be,4 reapable of mitigation in any site specific EIS, (number of
passengers, size and type of runways, number of operations,
amount of fill material).
Based on the foregoing, wekcon- edlude that - the PSRC and the
--POS dre misusing the provisions for a " nonproject" EIS in air
-z- - --- -- - — __ _
deliberate attempt to avoid appropriate and re quired SEP{
review.) As such it is incumbent on the drafters to prepare a
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 10
•
•
complete new DEIS assessing all aspects of their proposal.
2.5 Failure to Assess All Elements of the Environment.
As we have noted previously, the DEIS fails to consider the
required review and analysis of environmental impacts on an
variety of subjects. Our detailed review of sections of the
DEIS will specify these deficiencies. However in other areas
the DEIS even fails to mention important elements of the
environment, which are required to be reviewed under - 440(6)(e):
Significant impacts on both the natural environment
and the built environment must be analyzed, if
relevant (197 -11 -444).
Looking at the terms of -444, it is apparent that many
relevant elements of the environment are not discussed or even
mentioned in the DEIS. Thus under earrth'i there is no
discussion of the change in topography or the discussion of the
source for the huge amount of fill required (13,682,000 cubic
yards) required for the third runway. (The question arises as
to whether the 13,682,000 cubic yards is a compacted, in -place
figure or whether it is the amount of loose material to be
brought to the site to be compacted.) There is no discussion of
"(c)tee at all, much less the impact of the third runway on
required matters such as "(i) surface water movement /quantity/
quality; (ii) runoff /absorption; (iii)floods; (iv) ground water
movement /quantity /quality; (v) public water supplies." This is
all despite the fact that the runway itself will be an
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 11
•
•
•
impermeable surface more than 25 acres in size, not including
taxiways or other required aprons.
Similarly, there is no discussion of 4-4: energy ..and
,C niaural- resources. The lack of energy discussion is covered
elsewhere in this document. However there is no discussion of
either scenic resources or aesthetics [- 444(2)(b)(iv)], despite
the fact that the third Sea -Tac runway will involve a fill which
will be about two miles long, and in some places more than 150
high, in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Under the built environment "(al 'environmental
there is some discussion of noise but not of either '!r4sk; of
explosion!' or _ "releases or potential releases to the environment)
,affecting public health, such_as toxic or hazardous materials:"
It is obvious that vast quantities of flammable aviation fuels
will be handled at any airport facility. Such material is
included under the Model Toxics Control Act. In addition, there
will be significant amounts of toxic products handled in the
maintenance and repair of aircraft. To handle the additional
aircraft contemplated by the proposal, there will be more fuel
and maintenance facilities required. All of this is obviously
within close proximity to larger congregations of people in the
Sea -Tac area than at other locations. Despite these obvious
impacts, there is not even a subject heading on these matters in
the DEIS. These matters must be considered thoroughly in the
revised DEIS and FEIS.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 12
•
•
•
Under (b) land and shoreline use, an DEIS must consider
"light and glaze." However, the Flight Plan DEIS does not even
have a section on this subject. However a whole new runway is
planned at Sea -Tac some 1700 feet west of the current westerly
runway. There will be new and continued light and glare impacts
from the landing lights of aircraft on the new runway as well as
additional impacts on existing runways with projected new
operations.
It is also obvious that new approach lighting and
navigational aids will be required off the ends of the new
runway at Sea -Tac, which will affect large numbers of people
because on the north end lights must be placed in a depression
and must go over a major highway (Highway 518). Given the
knowledge of the POS, and the clear requirement to cover such
matters in -444, the failure to include such matters in the DEIS
demonstrates bad faith, misrepresentation and a lack of material
disclosure, requiring the preparation of a new DEIS.
600(3) and(4).
The built environment also
includes
See -
consideration of
recreation impacts and parks and other recreational facilities
under -444. Again there is no discussion of impacts to these
facilities in the DEIS, nor is there even an inventory of park
and recreational land involved. This omission exists despite
the fact that there are many parks in the area that will be
affected by increased aircraft traffic, which impacts are
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 13
•
•
•
largely not capable of mitigation because the uses are outdoors.
Nor is the future of the golf course to the south of the airport
discussed. These issues must be discussed in a revised DEIS.
As noted above, the SEPA Rules require that: "EIS's shall
also discuss significant environmental impacts upon land and
shoreline use, which includes . . . hdys itealz..bl -fight- . . " See
- 440(6)(e) (emphasis supplied). Again one of the areas of
greatest concern to local residents is the blighted
neighborhoods that have been left because of buy -outs due to
high noise levels. Other neighborhoods have become blighted
because of deteriorating property values. Physical blight also
results from particulates left from aircraft exhaust. These are
well -known impacts and the failure to include discussion of
them, for Sea -Tac and other alternatives, is inexcusable.
As to many of these impacts,( the-failure-to-discuss their
sue_
res ults. in an unfair_assessment of the impacts of` expansion -of,
Sea. .Tac? Sea -Tac has the most homes, people and generally
"built environment" than any alternative. The failure to
consider these impacts thus makes all other alternatives look so
much the better.
Finally, despite the plain direction in -444 to consider
the impacts on schools there is no discussion of this important
impact. There is not even a map showing where the schools are
in relation to Sea -Tac or any other alternative. Schools are
impacted in two important ways. First, schools and the
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 14
•
•
•
educational process are very sensitive to noise because of the
disruption to classes that occurs because of aircraft
overflights. Yet there is no discussion of noise impacts on
schools in the EIS, even though it is obvious that there are
many more schools affected at the Sea -Tac and Paine Field
alternatives than at other possible sites. The failure to
consider the impacts on schools is further evidence of the total
disregard of this subject by the PSRC and the POS.
Schools are also subject to additional fiscal impacts not
identified in the DEIS. The need to close schools because of
noise and other impacts is not identified in the DEIS. The
devaluation of school property plainly has an impact on the cost
of these public services,
2.6 Alternatives Including the "Four Post Plane
In 1990, decision was made by the FAA and the POS to make
changes to the air traffic arrival and departure routes at Sea -
Tac. This proposal was the subject of limited environmental
review by the FAA, but no EIS was prepared for the proposal.
The FAA's refusal to prepare an EIS was challenged before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision on that matter is
pending.
The FAA's plan was known as the "4 -Post Plan." Since its
implementation, the 4 -Post plan has shown to have significant
environmental impacts due to the addition of noise to areas not
previously receiving noise from overflights. It has become
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 15
•
•
•
apparent that the previous routes for arrivals and departures,
generally routing traffic over Puget Sound and Elliott Bay
resulted in significantly less noise to the overall population.
In considering this proposal, the -EIS should consider the
alternative of abandoning the 4 -Post plan in favor of a- routingrh
alternative that minimizes adverse noise impacts. The
beneficial effects of such a route change should be fully
considered as a possible mitigation measure to the proposal to
increase capacity at Sea -Tac. A further analysis should be made
as to the effect on airport capacity which might occur because
of this mitigation measure. In the event that there were
impacts on capacity, the EIS should discuss the potential of
requiring flights to use other alternate facilities.
2.7 Inclusion -of All Pending Actions into a Single
Environmental- Review - _-
Previously in these comments we have asserted that the
present DEIS was insufficient because it did not take into
account the additional facilities required to meet the capacity
created through the construction of the third runway. See
Section 2.3, supra. However, we have recently been made aware
of two separate environmental reviews that are ongoing that
should be combined with this review.
First, there is a current proposal to establish a microwave
landing system (MLS) at Sea -Tac. A draft environmental
assessment by the FAA has been prepared with comments due on
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 16
•
•
•
March 20, 1992.
However, that proposal has not been the subject of any SEPA
compliance that we are aware of. Though the MLS will apparently
be installed by the FAA, it still must be approved by the POS
and installed on POS property. Indeed the EIS indicates that it
was the POS that initiated and requested the whole MLS proposal.
See MLS EA pl -1. It is accordingly an action and project
pursuant to SEPA requiring SEPA compliance.
The MLS project is related to the current DEIS because it
also involves "actions to increase the efficiency of airport
operations." MLS,Environmental Assessment, p. 2.1. As such it
must be considered an alternative or mitigation measure to
affect airport capacity, similar to the third runway proposal.
The required SEPA review of the MLS should be combined with this
proposal for thorough consideration.
Secondly, the POS has issued an DEIS, with the FAA, for its
South Aviation Support Area, known as "SASA." This EIS was
released on March 13, 1992, only a few days before comments were
due on the Flight plan DEIS. The SASA proposal will be to move
certain maintenance facilities to an area south of the airport
to make room for "increasing the number of international gates
at the south end of the main terminal." SASA DEIS, p.2 -1. The
SASA proposal is indicated to be a "response to current and
forecasted operations of the airport." SASA DEIS, p. 3 -1.
Because the evident intent of the SASA proposal is to make
RCAA Cements on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 17
•
•
•
room for more terminal activity at the airport, it is similar to
the proposal now considered in the DEIS. Such activity is
plainly "interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on
the larger proposal as their justification or for their
implementation." - 060(3)(b)(ii). The total proposal must be
considered which includes an overall increase in capacity at
Sea -Tac, which includes not only the runway, but facilities to
serve it. Indeed the SEPA Rules do not allow segmentation of
proposals which must be considered as a single action -
060(5)(d). Included in this prohibition are actions which
"would merely divide a larger system into exempted fragments or
avoid discussion of accumulative impacts." - 060(5)(d)(ii).
In sum, the POS has arbitrarily and improperly fragmented
this proposal for environmental review. This action here is to
increase capacity at Sea -Tac, which will require a coordination
between runway capacity, terminal facilities, maintenance
facilities and transportation. The whole of the proposal should
be considered at one time in one environmental review.
2.8 Need for Proposal: Passenger Growth Projections
The proposal and its alternatives are based upon what we
consider to be an overly optimistic projection of increases in
passenger travel at Sea -Tac. At page 15 of the draft report, it
is indicated that 25.4 million annual passengers are forecast
for the year 2000. This data was apparently adopted by the
PSATC in June 1990. Given the events of the past year or two,
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 18
•
•
•
this passenger projection needs to be reconsidered.
The revised DEIS and FEIS should consider current
population projections by responsible agencies including King
County, the PSRC and the Washington State Department of
Community Development.
Under all projections, passenger usage of the airport is
growing at a rate significantly higher than the population in
general. We find little - support for this proposition. In
reviewing these estimates, an analysis should be made of
economic circumstances, including the pricing of airline tickets
which are sensitive to price. We believe most people project
that there will be little additional reduction in prices per
ticket because of escalating costs of aircraft, labor, fuel and
other factors. Each of these factors should be analyzed
closely. In addition, declining competition in the airline
industry may increase prices and should be considered.
With respect to the ability of Puget Sound residents to
travel more, economic circumstances should also be considered.
The amount of disposable income, future trends in communication
and transportation, and other similar matters must be
considered.
The continuing effects of economic recession and economic
downturn should be considered in calculating forecasts.
There are also optimistic forecasts for increases in cargo
operations. At page C -37 of the report, it is indicated that
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 19
•
•
•
within 20 years it will not be realistic to expect that
"advances in aviation will place U.S. businesses within there
hours delivery time of virtually any part of the world . "
This envisions hypersonic cargo aircraft. Are such aircraft
expected to be based at Sea -Tac?
There is also indication that cargo traffic is growing much
faster than passenger traffic and that airports will "supplant
seaports, rail and highway as the primary generators of economic
development." See pp.0 -34 and C -36. Again, the basis for such
predictions must be provided. l We support for the
constructionand operation of hypersonic cargo aircraft within
the foreseeable future. Further, given the present economic
conditions, we question whether cargo services will grow as
dramatically as is indicated.
Any justifications and predictions passenger growth
projections - - need to be- thoroughly— documented.
2.9 Benefits of the Third Runway.
We are confused about the benefits of the third runway. A
thorough analysis of the benefits needs to be provided.
First we understand that the third runway is primarily
justified on the basis of increasing operations when weather
conditions do not permit dual stream approaches, i.e. less than
VFR 1. However, other indications are that the third runway
will be used 33% of the time, rather than just during limited
visibility situations. The usability and operational
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 20
•
characteristics of the third runway need to be defined.
Also, the third runway is identified as servicing airport
needs, primarily during times that less than VFR 1 conditions
prevail, which is estimated to be about 45 %. Some correlation
needs to be provided between times _that __the airport is in
limited visibility circumstances and times of maximum
congestion. If these times do not correlate, there is little
justification for the enormous expense of the third runway.
There is some confusion__regarding --- whether or- not dual
stream approaches will be permitted to the third runway.
Clarification of that situation needs to be provided.
2.10 Consideration of Alternatives: Enhancements to
Existing Airport.
Several alternatives are considered in the EIS, some
• adequately, some not. However, an alternative not adequately
•
addressed is the improvement at the existing airport to enhance
capacity, without runway expansion.
The EIS completely fails to mention that, even before the
preparation of the present document, the POS was actively
proposing a new landing system (the microwave landing system) to
be established on runway 16L. This is estimated to provide
savings which should be calculated as an alternative in the
present documents to the third runway at Sea -Tac.
In addition, other potential alternatives providing
enhancement at the airport have also been identified in the
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 21
•
•
•
airport enhancement study produced by the POS in June 1991.
These alternatives, which concern such matters of in trail
spacing, an LDA, and similar items, should be thoroughly
discussed in this impact statement and their costs and benefits
should be considered.
Another proposed enhancement at Sea -Tac is the
establishment of demand management. This alternative is poorly
defined and no details are given for the effectiveness of these
techniques. What reductions in demand can be anticipated by
these techniques?
The issue of the number of passengers per plane needs to be
thoroughly reviewed in the demand management context. Estimates
of increases in passengers per plane found in the DEIS nearly
double over the planning period. This estimate is a cornerstone
of the ability of Sea -Tac to handle two and one -half times the
passengers with only an increase of only about one - third in
operations. We find no justification provided in the impact
statement for this tremendous increase in passengers per plane.
In fact, evidence suggests that passengers per plane have in
fact decreased since the 1970's because of the increase in
commuter oeprations. Given that there seems to be no reduction
in commuter carrier operations over time, we fail to understand
why such tremendous increases in passengers per plane can be
expected within even the short time. In fact, a comparison of
passenger estimates compared with operation increases over the
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 22
•
•
•
next ten years shows tremendous increases even within that
period. We fail to understand how such increases in passengers
per plane can be expected.
Another failure of the EIS in this regard is to identify
the implementation mechanisms for demand management and
increases in passengers per plane. The mechanisms by which the
airport will either encourage or require airlines to make the
particular changes in aircraft utilization need to be fully
described.
2.11 Calculations of Economic Benefits
By far the most lengthy section in the entire report has to
do with the asserted economic benefits from the proposed
airport. These are stated as the considerable justification for
this proposal. However, we find, despite its length, that
Working Paper 8 lacks solid analytic basis. Please provide the
names of individuals responsible for this section.
The report takes each and every passenger traveling to and
from the airport as generating economic benefits. First, on
what basis do you believe that the airport can take full credit
for all airport passenger spending? Please provide whatever
studies exist that indicate that people travel to and from
destinations because of the airport. We think the evidence
would suggest that passenger traffic is primarily related to
business, social, vacation or family motives, rather than
visiting an airport. Additional justification or taking credit
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 23
•
•
•
for all of these passengers needs to be defined.
We are also mystified concerning the use of multipliers
provided. For example, the analysis given is substantially one -
sided, providing only revenues, but without calculations against
that for costs connected with such developments. Again, further
analysis needs to be provided in this area. Any economic cost
benefit analysis must also consider other serious cost impacts.
For example, the benefits derived come at the cost of seriously
depreciating the value of homes around the airport. Analysis
must be provided as to the total economic cost connected with
the diminution in value of properties in and around the airport
which are clearly "costs" connected with airport development.
Costs likely also include additional utilities, transportation
costs and others not calculated into this equation. In sum, the
total cost of the airport improvements, including likely
mitigation, must be calculated in the equation.
III. COMMENTS ON SECTION 1: "SUMMARY"
1. Under purpose and need, the impact statement indicates
that there will be a demand which will "saturate the existing
Seattle- Tacoma Airport between 1995 and the year 2000." Please
indicate the definition of the word "saturate" and at what level
of operations or passengers the airport will be saturated.
2. Also on page 1.1 there is an indication that aircraft
operating in the year 2020 will have reductions in "single event
SEL levels." Please document such reduction, applying such
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 24
•
•
•
reductions to standard aircraft flying in and out of Sea -Tac.
3. On page 1 -7, it is indicated that noise mitigation is
possible by "preferential runway use and direction" and flight
track modifications, among other items. As to each mitigation
measure, please describe such mitigation action in detail and
provide data as to the amount of noise mitigation to be expected
and where such mitigation measures are to be expected. Such
mitigation levels should be described for both LDN and SEL
criteria.
4. On page 2 -5, a replacement airport is rejected as an
alternative consideration in the EIS. We consider (thetej ectiont"
- ---- -- --_ _ - - -
ofsuch_an_alternative to be inconsistent- with -SEPA; and with
NEPA. The apparent scope of this process is to consider the
development of a "regional air carrier system plan for the Puget
Sound region." The work is to encompass a period to the year
2020 and beyond. The ifa `fore -to .consider -a replacementa rporti
in the EIS removes a viable long term solution to overall
airport planning. We do not find that the replacement airport
concept is studied in any detail, or are detailed site
configurations for such an airport analyzed. Specifically, the
reasons why the replacement airport alternative was "found to be
infeasible" lacked quantification and justification. For
example, the impact statement states that (�rr' a AYaement_a rport
- - - -- - - - - -- - - --
in WemPuget Sound area were "substantially more expensive than
c!in other areas. "\ Detailed cost estimates should be provided for
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 25
•
•
•
acquisition and development of a new airport. In addition, cost
estimates and value estimates should be provided for the
potential sale of Sea -Tac and the redevelopment of areas
adversely impacted around the airport. Such data is found
nowhere in the present submission.
A conclusion is also reached in this section that the
replacement airport would have "substantially greater
environmental impacts on air quality, transportation, plants and
animals, land use and public services." We find no detailed
analysis on any of these aspects of any replacement airport.
For example, what are the air quality impacts of a replacement
airport, both in absolute measures and on the number of people
affected. What will be the air quality benefits to closing Sea -
Tac?. Similarly, no identification of surface transportation
needs to replacement airports has been identified. Without, some
quantification of such estimates, no conclusion can be made that
there are greater impacts on transportation. Similarly as to
plants and animals, land use and public services, no detailed
information is provided in the impact statement or in other
documentation to support a conclusion that there are
"substantially greater environmental impacts" in these areas.
A statement is also made that "closure of Sea -Tac would
have severe economic impacts on surrounding communities." the
Apiatnt"i f ication of such impacts_is required to support such a/
statement. In addition, the positive economic benefits of
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 26
•
•
•
removal of a major adverse impact must be considered. We see no
attempt here to quantify or balance these economic impacts and
such quantification must be provided.
In addition, the development of a remote airport at Moses
Lake is again rejected due to statements of cost, accessibility
and "uncertainties." The quantification of these costs is
certainly necessary to support the statements provided. In
addition, the use of Moses lake as a partial solution to
capacity problems, particularly for cargo uses, is not studied
or considered anywhere within the impact statement. The
"uncertainties cited must be specified in detail.
With respect to demand management, again the analysis is
insufficient. Comments on Working Paper 4, considering demand
management, will be provided in these comments herein.
5. At page 2 -6, the alternative of developing surface
transportation to Portland or Vancouver is rejected as an
alternative. Again, the
impact statement provides
no
documentation other than generalized comments on this
alternative. In fact, there are more flights from Sea -Tac to
Portland than to any other destination, though Portland
passengers only rank 13th of all Sea -Tac operations. It is
impossible to comment on this alternative because there is no
data or information to support the conclusionary statements
found herein. For example, the type and kind of surface
transportation considered must be displayed. In addition,
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 27
•
quantitative studies need to be identified as to the conclusion
that better ground transportation would have "only a small
effect on the demand for air travel." Crp'ta3 -' ;eo`sgtsof, a±�
Cv4 t4_ Aytof,- ;gcounc tranisportd:t on- Imeasures meed-- to� be_prov -ded*
6. Also at page 2 -6 there is found descriptions of
alternate airport sites. Again, the discussion here is
inadequate to meet the terms of either SEPA or NEPA. Please see
our comments on Working Paper 6 found herein.
IV. COMMENTS ON: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,
MITIGATION MEASURES AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
Section 3.1 Noise
Generally, the noise section of the impact statement is
simply a summary of the findings of Working Paper 12 -A, the
• noise assessment study. See DEIS, p. 3 -1. Accordingly, our
•
primary comments on the noise assessment work are found in our
comments on Working Paper 12 -A. Several comments, however, must
be made to material found in the EIS itself.
1. It is stated that there is an assumption that
"protective zoning and land use planning and practices will be
employed around selected airport sites" which would affect
population levels. We'-need to have wa Ide,tda -filed- response- as- to --..
t hie *basis for the se as= sumptiohs. Kinds - and - types --of- "protective . ,
zbi iiti ;;and -land use _planning - practices" - hich are considered
here rho4u3d -be- identified.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 28
•
•
•
In addition, such "protective zoning and land use planning
practices" are ones which involve a restriction on the free use
of property, it is likely that such "protective zoning and land
O
use planning practices" constitute a regulatory taking of
property. The economic payments necessary to identify such
takings must be considered.
Also, a detailed explanation is required to be made
concerning what mechanism exists to require that local
jurisdictions enter into such practices. This is the case
because neither the Port of Seattle or the PSRC has direct land
use planning authority.
2. On page 3 -2, it is indicated that the LDN contour is a
"nationally accepted metric" that would be "defensible in their
application to aircraft noise issues in the Puget Sound area."
Please state the basis for such a conclusion. 4mat�
sociological, climatological, or other factors would suggest LDN
- - - - --
- - -- - -
- - - - - - -- -
�me�asurements as a appropriate here as well as in other locations.
In particular, particular features of home construction,
climate, use of outdoor areas, and other factors must be
considered in determining whether a particular noise metric is
appropriate here. In fact, AY apPears_that the LDN measurement
its-inappropriate to describe impacts in the Seattle _ arleai.
3. The EIS states that "e�xtemstive research us.dxng -the -LDN
index has been conducted on human responses." lioizi§bliiography
of such "extensive research" Cis "" four►d -iii the -E *IS and such
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 29
•
•
•
reference should be provided. A statement is also necessary to
describe the indication that such "extensive research" is useful
in describing the situation in and around Sea -Tac and other
airports. A similar problem is found in the reference to the
"case histories involving aircraft noise problems as found near
the bottom of page 3 -2. Again, no bibliography is furnished and
the final impact statement must identify each of the case
studies relied upon here.
4. On page 3 -3 it is indicated that the515�_LDN. contour _has
' :�. yam:: - -- ---- --
4been 'identified__by-EPA_ _as the - __noise level desirable for
otedt"i-ng- the human health and welfare with an adequate margin
of- 3s°a:fety. iHowever, t E+DSJILS tes that° the- 55_LDN_contour_`ias
'not fear ;ible- as-- a - -mtg "atom- -level in - developed_ ra eats-."" A
complete statement as to shy such level is not feasible must be
provided. Is the feasibility related to cost, technology, or
otherwise? If cost is the consideration, the total cost of
complying with 55 LDN within all alternative sites must be
considered.
5. With respect to the SEL noise metric defined on page
3 -3, it is indicated that a "number of airport studies have
shown community response to noise is not completely predicted
through one descriptor, such as LDN. Again the EIS does not
provide a bibliography of such case histories for review by the
public. Please provide such a bibliography of all studies
considered in the FEIS.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 30
•
•
A further description of SEL noise levels must be provided.
It appears that SEL levels vary with each individual aircraft;
accordingly a listing of aircraft, together with the noise
levels from each, must be provided in the final impact
statement.
6. On page 3 -3, the EIS indicates that the 65 LDN noise
level is a "balance between a desired sound environment and the
economic costs of achieving this level." Please provide
;}inado,pmat on - which — supports -- the — conclusion that- 65 —LDN is �a
;'!OILnce. -" Please describe the economic costs used in this
comparison and provide references to backup sources or studies
regarding such matters.
7. On page 3 -4, it is indicated that there are "new
building codes established by some local jurisdiction since
1987, that require noise insulation and all new construction."
Please state which jurisdictions are involved, reference to such
building codes, and the amount of noise insultation invovled.
8. Also on page 3 -4 it is indicated that a substantial
portion of the housing stock will be noise insulated by the year
2020. Please provide documentation indicating the locations and
costs of such noise insulation. Please provide information
indicating the effect of noise insulation on individual homes in
reducing noise levels and the effect such noise insulation has
if windows or doors are open during warm weather. An evaluation
of the percentage of time in which doors and windows are open
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 31
•
•
•
should also be provided in this analysis.
9. In the overview of noise impact analysis it is
indicated that 55 LDN represents the area for establishment of
"zoning and other land use controls at "new airport sites." We
do not understand why a differentiation is made between old and
new airport sites with respect to the use of the 55 LDN
criteria.
10. At page 3.5, reference is made to "many recent
studies" regarding new exposure to aircraft noise. A
bibliography of such studies should be provided.
11. With respect to noise contour analysis, an apparent
fleet mix of different aircraft is contemplated. Please
indicate the precise indication of aircraft types, models and
noise levels used in the calculation of the noise contour
analysis.
12. Single event noise contours depicted on the 80 SEL
contour should also indicate worst case conditions. Maps should
be prepared which calculate maximum noise levels permitted by
FAA Regulation Part 36 for various weights and types of
aircraft. These SEL contours should be displayed in maps in the
final environmental impact statement.
13. Population impact analysis indicates a growth rate in
certain zones. Please ,izpp„ly:'the basis for increases
land indicate _whether there are alternative indications off
pop,, H .,ion increases contemplated.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 32
•
•
•
14. At page 3.10, an indication is given that airline
fleets will modernize into the 21st century "with the quietest
third stage equipment." With regard to this statement, please
indicate-the-ranges-for-noise-levels- available under Stage 34,
Also indicate upon which basis it can be concluded that airline
fleets will use the "quietest" Stage 3 equipment as opposed to
other nosier stage 3 equipment.
15. At page 3 -11 it is indicated that older, noisier
aircraft will be phased out of service at Sea -Tac at a faster
rate due to noise budget and nighttime stage II aircraft
prohibitions. Please quantify the rate at which Sea -Tac will be
deemed to be faster than under the ANCA.
16. At page 3 -12, there are various proposed noise
abatement measures identified. For each of these noise
abatement measures, an indication of the improvement of noise
levels in the neighborhood, as well as where such noise levels
would be improved is required.
We note that the effect of construction of the third runway
at Sea -Tac is to move the westerly most runway closer to
residential properties at the west side of the airport. Also,
it appears that additional properties will have "line f sight-
1.:cont t'! with- aircr-af-t on- the - third- rAnway. Plerase assess the
41ripact -- ofsch� changes on adj oining_proper-ties .
It is indicated that certain levels were not included in
nose mitigation because of the "complexity in applying
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 33
•
•
•
mitigation to a large number of airport sites." We urge that
such analysis be completed to provide a complete scope of
mitigation measures. Failure to do so inadequately portrays
what may be the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of these
mitigation measures. It is also indicated that many of the
potential mitigation measures "restrict the operational
characteristics of an airport." Please identify how ,the,
operational _ _ char -acteristicswould__be_ _x t cted— and - -thee
cquan6ilacation -of -such restr ctions�r
17. It is indicated that the noise exposure analysis
represents;_ "worst ase- esti-mates.4!' CW'e doubt= this---is the_case.r
Worst case estimates of noise should consider that all new Stage
3 aircraft will only meet minimum requirements of FAR Part 36.
Analysis of noise contours and levels should be made, providing
this worst case analysis.
18. With respect to nighttime operations, there is an
indication that it may be "impossible to legally restrict
nighttime operations in the future." Page 3-12. Please prow
cthe� legal— anal -ysis` indicating -- such-- r-estrictis. Please
indicate whether such restrictions would apply to an airport
operator.
19. Also at page 3 -12 it is indicated that "preliminary
results from analyzing sample alternatives" indicate that
impacts may be reduced by ten percent through mitigation
measures. Please indicate the basis for this analysis, the
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 34
•
•
•
means and methods of "analyzing sample alternatives" and an
indication of the locations where such reductions would be
expected. The ten percent statement should be reduced to dB,
LDN, SEL and other criteria. Indeed, does the ten percent apply
to 80 SEL contour reductions in the future?
20. At page 3 -13 it is indicated that "operational
management" could lessen noise impacts "considerably ". °Please
supply information which quantifies use of the term
"considerably ". Please state specifically what anticipated use
changes are considered and to what levels noise impacts would be
reduced in LDN and SEL metrics.
21. At page 3 -13, it is indicated that a noise contour map
showing the "sidestep maneuver" is found in Appendix 1 at Map
37.4. We cannot find such a map and ask that it be produced in
the final impact statement. With respect to the sidestep
maneuver itself, since the new dependent runway provides
benefits only in limited visibility conditions, and the sidestep
maneuver is "a visual procedure" please explain how this
operational process is affected by airport expansion.
22. At page 3 -14 a conclusion is reached that there will
be a "tremendous reduction in cumulative noise impacts at Sea -
Tac from 100% Stage 3 aircraft fleet." A detailed comparison of
criteria for Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft under federal
regulations (Part 36) must be provided to support this
conclusion. Comparison of actual noise level reductions under
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 35
•
•
•
those regulations should be provided both descriptively and in
chart form.
COMMENTS - WORKING PAPER NO. 12A, NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY
1. The document fails to identify the individuals who
prepared the study and their qualifications. Please identify
such individuals, their background, and qualifications.
2. Page 1 of the report indicates that noise contours are
based upon year 2020 operational assumptions, but population
analysis was based upon year 2000 population projections. The
discrepancy between affected population and noise contours is
inappropriate and noise contours should be provided based upon
year 2020 population projections and predicted noise levels.
Noise contours for the year 2000, with year 2000 population
projections should be given.
3. State upon what basis there is an assumption that
"protective land use zoning around affected airport sites" would
go into effect by year 2020. Please identify the basis for such
assumptions and any history of protective land use zoning and
its nature. What were the actual changes in population that
resulted from such assumptions.
4. It is stated that there is an "inherent difference"
between community response to noise associated with an existing
airport as compared to a new airport. Please state the
technical or scientific basis for such distinction.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 36
•
•
5. On page 2 it is indicated that various factors are
"weighted accordingly ". Please state the basis upon which such
weighting is measured and the scientific basis therefor.
6. There is an indication that aircraft that are forecast
to be operating at these airports in the year 2020 are
"significantly quieter." Significantly quieter than what? Is
there anticipated reduction in noise levels expected over Stage
3 aircraft? Please provide the fleet mix for operating aircraft
for the year 2020. Also provide fleet mix for year 2000.
7. At page 3, the report indicates that reducing the use
of the new dependent runway to "daytime use and arrival traffic
only" will improve the noise situation at the airport. Please
explain how this will occur.
8. At page 4, the report indicates that noise is "known to
have several adverse effects on health and does cause disruption
in human activities." Please identify the source of such
information and identify by author and title reports confirming
such information.
9. At page 6, the document indicates that "potential
community response to aircraft noise" is best identified by the
LDN noise metric. Please identify scientific studies or reports
or research indicating support for this proposition. Please
identify the "extensive research using the LDN index" which has
been conducted on human responses. Again supply the titles and
authors of such documents.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 37
•
•
•
10. Exhibit 12 -1 is incomplete. Please identify the
source of the dots on this document and the source of the
document as a whle.
11. The report identifies that EPA has "specified" Ldn for
the assessment of noise impacts around airports. Please identify
EPA documents confirming such information.
12. We are curious about the statement on page 6 of the
report that a 55 Ldn "is not technology [sic] feasible as
mitigation in developed areas." Please indicate what
technological limitations exist on the identification of noise
goals. Please identify the source of such information in any
reports or technological information indicated.
13. Further on page 6 it is identified that the 65 LDN
contour is a "balance between a desired sound environment and
economic cost for meeting this level." Please indicate the
source for such a "balance" and provide a listing of economic
costs and environmental costs connected with meeting the 55 Ldn
goal.
14. On Exhibit 12 -1, please identify how the data was
"normalized" to ambient noise "some prior exposure, windows
partially open or pure tones. Identify the method by which this
was done and the basis for such normalization.
15. On page 7, an SEL level of 80 dB is described as a
"single event descriptor of individual overflights." On an
average day at Sea -Tac, how many events in excess of 80 dB will
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 38
•
•
•
occur under current operations, under operations in the years
2000, 2010, and 2020 ?. List the number of 80 SEL events per
hour over a 24 hour period in the years 2000, 2010, and 2020.
Please provide contours for these SEL events.
16. On page 8, it is described that those newly exposed to
55 LDN are likely to "exhibit a higher level of annoyance."
Please provide the basis for this information in scientific or
technical reports.
17. With respect to noise contour analysis found on page
10, please provide the following information: a) noise levels
created by the aircraft described in Paragraph 2, i.e., MD -80,
MD -90, 737 -300, 757, 767, 747, MD -11, and 747 -400; b) why was
the MD -82 selected as the single noise even aircraft; c) how
will 80 SEL levels change if 747 aircraft were used instead of
MD -82's; d) describe how all 80 SEL levels will change in the
years 2000 or 2010 if reconditioned aircraft using either "hush
kits" or re- engined aircraft are used.
18. We cannot find SEL noise contours for existing Sea -Tac
for comparison with Paine Field or McChord. Please supply
reference to those noise contours and document.
19. With respect to population impacts, please state the
basis for calculation of year 2000 population levels. Please
state the date and author of such statements. Were current
population projections from the Department of Community
Development prepared pursuant to the Growth Management Act?
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 39
•
•
•
20. It is indicated that the year 2000 was selected "on
the assumption that the protective land use zoning would go into
effect by that date." Please describe the history of
development of protective land use zoning around Sea -Tac and
Paine Field and describe on what basis it is concluded that
protective land use zoning would be in effect at that time.
Please indicate whether such assumptions were based upon
assurances or communications with local governmental officials.
21. It is indicated that population data was prepared by
travel analysis zones (TAZ's). How were population increases in
each TAZ calculated?
22. At page 12, the reduction in population impact noise
is said to be a "result of noise control measures at the
airport. .
Please describe the precise methods of noise
control measures identified.
23. At Sea -Tax, there is currently a buffer between the
westerly runway (16R) and residential neighborhoods to the west.
In addition, properties to the west are lower and thus below a
line of sight to existing runways. Though no site plan is
provided, the plans for the third runway appear to place it such
that it will be closer to residential areas and that no buffer
is prossible given the fill provided.
24. At page 13 it is indicated that there will be a higher
level of adverse response to aircraft noise in newly exposed
populations. According to the report, "this has been shown in
RCAA Coments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 40
•
•
•
acoustic research and in cases throughout the country." Please
reference the acoustic research described and document each case
throughout the country in which this has been identified,
including references as appropriate.
25. Please provide the background research and information
for the statement that "an airport that has been in existence
for many years is evaluated differently from a completely new
airport."
26. Please explain why a 65 LDN noise contour is
considered "the most important criteria level when looking at a
new airport site, but 65 LDN is the metric chosen for existing
airports.
27. With respect to SEL contours and populations affected
under Table 12.4, please state how many 80 SEL events would be
experienced by this population within an average hour, and
average day, and an average month.
28. At page 14, please explain the basis behind ranking
system alternatives which provide only a 10 point share to
populations that are exposed to single event SEL noise levels in
excess of 80 SEL. Please provide the scientific basis for this
division and explain where (if ever) such rankings have been
used before.
29. With respect to a dependent runway for Sea -Tac, as
identified in the second paragraph on page 15, please explain
why noise impacts would be considerably lessened if "these
RCAA Cements on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 41
•
•
•
assumptions [were to] be changed to daytime arrivals only, as
might occur with the anticipated use . . . 11 We are confused
about this statement. We understand from the last page of
Appendix A to Working Paper 12A that the third (dependent)
runway will be sued for "33% of all operations." Please confirm
that this is the operational assumption for use of the dependent
runway.
30. With respect to mitigation alternatives discussed at
page 16, please provide a detailed description for each of the
noise abatement measures found in the middle of this page.
Please provide specific and detailed descriptions of each
measure for identification purposes. AS to each noise abatement
measure, please provide the specific noise mitigation results
expected with a complete explanation of the methodology used to
make such calculations.
31. We consider it inappropriate to apply only mitigation
measures to Sea -Tac. Mitigation measures should also be
considered for also Paine Field and McChord Air Force Base as
the "layouts and operational levels" at those facilities are
currently known. Please apply each of the mitigation measures
to these supplemental airports, using similar calculations at
Sea -Tac and provide us with the results.
32. Page 17 describes the description of nighttime
operations at supplemental airport sites. Please provide
detailed information as to what "restriction of nighttime
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 42
•
•
•
operations" would entail, including specific noise mitigation
attributable to each. Is the practial effect of all of
33. Also on page 17 it is indicated that noise impact at
supplementary sites could be reduced by approximately ten
percent through mitigation measures. Please supply the
methodology for this calculation and describe what measures
contribute to such noise reductions.
Appendix A to the Noise Assessment Background Information
34. Please describe the methodology and calculation of
noise under the Washington Noise Control Act. Indicate whether
the noise generated by aircraft is consistent with the terms of
the King County Noise Control Ordinance.
35. Please provide on an hourly basis the length of time
that an SEL level of 80 as described on page 3 of the Appendix
occurs for each hour in a typical 24 -hour day under existing
year 2000 and year 2020 circumstances at Sea -Tac.
36. With respect to page 3 of the Appendix, please
describe why the total noise energy for SEL purposes from the
event is compressed into one second.
37. With respect to noise metrics as found on page 4,
please provide for the Sea -Tac experience how the Leq may change
with respect to the chart shown on Exhibit A -2 for hourly Leq,
please provide a one hour chart of events for Sea -Tac Airport
for an average summertime day under current conditions, under
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 43
•
•
•
conditions expected in the year 2000, and in the year 2020.
38. On page 5 of the Appendix it is indicated that
"extensive research has been conducted on human responses to
exposure of different levels of aircraft noise ". 'Please provide
a bibliography of such research for our review.
39. At page 5 of the Appendix it is identified that noise
levels are "derived from case histories involving aircraft
problems at civilian and military airports and result in
community response." Please provide a bibliography to these
case histories for our further review.
40. With respect to computer modeling described at page 7
of the document, please identify whether
41. On page 7 of the report, it is indicate that INM
Version 3.9 is provided with standard aircraft noise and
performance data. Please provide such standard aircraft noise
and performance data or a reference to where it may be located.
42. With respect to physical characteristics for Sea -Tac
Airport as described on page 7, please supply underlying
assumptions for airport altitude and temperature. Please
provide the basis for temperature calculations.
43. Please indicate what aircraft types and flight tracks
were used for calculation of the noise environment for programs
run for Sea -Tac on INM Version 3.9. Is any correction provided
for weight of aircraft?
44. Page 8 of the report indicates that an analysis of
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 44
•
•
•
carrier flyovers at Sea -Tac airport from November 1982 was used
for calibration of the computer model. Please indicate if such
model contains analysis of any Stage 3 aircraft and if not, how
Stage 3 aircraft were used to validate the computer model.
45. At page 9 of the Appendix, year 2020 operations for
each airport were summarized in Table A -2. Please indicate why
a maximum of 489,000 operations was used when other data in the
report indicates this figure is to be much higher. Please also
indicate why in Alternative 14 (Sea -Tac with independent runway
plus Paine one runway), Paine has only 35,000 operations per
year.
46. At page 10, flight path utilization, it is indicated
that "new airport sites assume straight arrival and departure
paths." Is it assumed for these purposes that air traffic
control at Sea -Tac will continue to utilize the four post plan.
SECTION 3.2: AIR
The discussion of air quality impacts provides very little
understanding of the increased air quality impacts of any of the
alternatives. The analyses set forth in the DEIS at 3 -15 -24 and
Working Paper 12B, present projections for emission levels for
each of a number of system alternatives. However, this sort of
comparison is meaningless in the absence of any single basis for
impact evaluation.
The beginning point for impact evaluation would be current
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 45
•
•
•
conditions at the airport. 0Fual- analysis -of- existing 7condition_
his - expriaitly__ requirednder` the SEPA rules.ik WAC 197-11 -
440(6)(a). The EIS fails to discuss and disclose the existing
air quality impacts at the airport. This failure leaves the
reader with the impression that the various Sea -Tac alternatives
will result in an improvement of air quality at Sea -Tac.
However, given the highly optimistic projections for increases
in total passengers (two and one -half fold, Flight Plan at B -72)
and aircraft operations (32 %, Flight Plan at B -71), this
assumption is simply untrue.
The EIS fails to contain a sufficiently detailed analysis
to permit a comparative evaluation of the air quality impacts
that the proposal would create at each alternative sites as
required by the SEPA rules at Sec. 440(5)(c)(v). Tables 7, 8
and 9 at 3 -20, 21, and 23 purport to set forth a comparison of
the aircraft and vehicular emissions under each of 34
alternatives. The difficulty with this analysis is that except
for the single airport alternatives it does not provide a
projection as to the aircraft or vehicular emissions that would
occur at any particular site. As noted above, this is
compounded by the fact that the existing levels of pollutants
for the five parameters listed are also not provided for each of
the particular sites. Accordingly, an interested citizen or
governmental agency cannot determine from the EIS how any
particular alternative would impact air quality at a given site.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 46
•
•
In this respect, the EIS fails to accomplish the most
fundamental function of disclosing how the air quality
environment at each of the sites involved would be impacted.
Without such analysis, the caparisons contained within Tables 7-
9 are largely meaningless.
The EIS also fails to consider the air quality impacts of
the most likely outcome of this process - - construction of a
third, dependent runway at Sea -Tac with no supplemental runways.
As indicated elsewhere in these comments, the difficulty with
the preferred alternative is that neither the Port nor the PSRC
has any jurisdiction over the supplemental sites. Development
of Paine Field for air carrier operations is highly speculative
given the number of commitments that Snohomish County has made
to not allow further air carrier operations at its airport, In
response to the flight plan, Snohomish County has simply
reinforced that commitment. C'ai sequently, -the_ only _probable —4
o t?com6 ;of- the— flig_htiplan proposal _-is construction of ,a _third
Clindeliendent at Sea Tac. That alternative would resuii ink
ata int ease of= air passenger— operations —by- approximately -250%
--
' yew_ . a'L, Vii., s a,,; , ..
and an increase ri-air carrier operations by approximately 32ft`
supra. However, nowhere does the EIS present figures for the
aircraft and vehicular traffic emissions that would result from
these increases at Sea -Tac.
The air quality discussion in the EIS is further deficient
in its failure to consider reasonable alternatives that could
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 47
•
•
•
attain the proposal's objectives at a lower environmental cost
as required by Section 440(5)(B). In terms of the air quality
impacts generated by aircraft operations, the EIS has asserted
that the principal difference among the alternatives is the
amount of delay that may occur under each scenario. DEIS at 3-
17. This assumption naturally supports the "build"
alternatives. However, th`e,. S-does— not— consider- _non - build -1
AVgeves or mitigations that would address aircraft
imissions "from idling time. If the'landside operations at Sea-
Tac were administered from the standpoint of reducing idling
time, this factor should be the same for all alternatives.
If delays are predicted as a result of the airport reaching
capacity, there is no reason why aircraft must spend this delay
time idling in taxiways. Both land based and airborne air
carrier traffic is highly managed. Under such a system there is
no reason why aircraft must spend excessive amounts of time
simply idling their engines waiting for clearance to take off.
If the magnitude of aircraft emissions is a result of idling
time, that impact should have been addressed through
alternatives and mitigations specifically responsive to that
impact. Instead, the EIS assumes an advocacy role by using the
idling time issue as a pretext in favor of the various build
alternatives.
The proponents' bias also appears elsewhere in the Flight
Plan and EIS. Working Paper 8 sets forth highly inflated
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 48
•
•
•
projections of economic benefits that the proponents believe
will result from airport expansion. These benefits include a
two to threefold increase in airport and visitor related
employment, and a fifty percent increase in earnings, revenues
and sales taxes. WP 8 at 3. The Flight Plan goes on to project
an expansion of office space of up to 2.3 million square feet
and an additional 7000 to 10000 hotel rooms. All this airport
related activity is projected to occur in areas immediately
surrounding the airport. This sort of secondary development
would obviously produce very substantial increases in motor
vehicle trips. But nowheredoes� the -EIS - giat.fyor`'even
dpi parss7 th'esainduced transportation_impacts . Assuming that the
infrastructure exists to accommodate these additional trip ends,
subs:bal tial air quality - emissions- would—result. ,Nowhere does
the EIS analyze these air quality impacts. In this respect, the
EIS fails to analyze the indirect impacts caused by the proposal
as required by Sec. 060(4)(d) of the SEPA rules.
On a more detailed level, the EIS fails to analyze and
disclose the air quality effects engendered by the third runway
upon the immediate community to the west of Sea -Tac. Currently
there is a separation of approximately 1600 feet between the
right runway and residential housing. With construction of a
third runway, this separation would shrink to 400 feet, thus
placing residents in much closer proximity to air carrier
operations. These residences are also at a much lower elevation
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 49
•
than the airport itself. Nowhere does the EIS discuss the
impact of this decreased' sepP rationor. the- effect�of emissions
4
c�nc.eati�ons at—the—lower--elevation—cif the residential,
cne'Wibethood .
-f
The above comments point to significant deficiencies of. the
EIS. Our efforts to attempt to determine the magnitude of air
quality impacts that would result from the third dependent
runway or at any of the other sites has been frustrated by our
inability to obtain the necessary data from PSRC and its
consultants. This office has repeatedly requested copies of the
disaggregated data that was compiled to produce the figures
contained with Tables 7, 8 and 9. This request was first
directed to PSRC during the first week of February 1992. PSRC
ultimately directed this office to contact the air quality
consultant. We attempted to do so during the second and third
weeks of February. Now at the end of the comment period we have
yet to be provided with the requested information.
Consequently, our inability to obtain underlying data for the
air quality comparisons has directly hampered our ability to
respond to the EIS.
The EIS fails to consider the conformity of the Flight plan
with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Sea -Tac Airport
and the principal alternative runway sites are located within
the non - attainment areas for carbon monoxide and ozone.
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the state is required to develop
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 50
•
•
•
an implementation plan to bring the region's air quality into
compliance with the national ambient air quality standards for
these air pollution indicators. As a matter of both state and
federal law, all plans, programs and projects must be in
conformity with the SIP. The EIS fails to make any mention of
the conformity requirement.
The EIS further fails to set forth how the proposed action
would carry out the various commitments contained within the SIP
for improving air quality in the region. With regard to mobile
sources and particularly motor vehicles, the SIP includes
commitments to increase transit use and for demand management.
See Appendix D to SIP. The EIS contains transportation
mitigation measures of two types - site specific freeway
capacity improvement measures and a simple identification of
transit planning processes. The transit planning is laudable
but not something that is prposed.to be implemented as part of
any of the flight plan alternatives. Consequently, because
airport expansion is a significant generator of traffic, it is
probable that little if anything will be done to improve either
vehicle occupancy or modal split. A serious consequence of the
failure to make these improvements would be the invocation of
the measures identified in the SIP Contingency Plan. See
Appendix G to SIP. These contingency measures include the
delay of projects within the non - attainment areas that could
adversely impact air quality. To address this issue, please
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 51
•
discuss and disclose how the flight plan is consistent with the
commitments and strategies contained within the SIP.
3.3 TRANSPORTATION
The Transportation section of the DEIS suffers from the
same endemic problem as does most of the rest of the document;
its failure to provide basic environmental information on a
critical issue. It is especially curious that the Port of
Seattle, which supposedly specializes in transportation issues,
has ber=-ate,ld tt�orted; transportation :issues -wi.th respect -too
nth ,x "_sport '1►
The fundamental, and obvious defect, of the impact
statement is its failure to discuss impacts on traffic and
transportation. Transportation issues are key elements of the
environment under -444, which includes review of transportation
as well as "(i)transportation systems, (ii) vehicular traffic,
(iii) waterborne rail and air traffic, (iv) parking, (v)
movement /circulation of people or goods, and (vi) traffic
hazards." Seemingly oblivious to chronic, long -term traffic
problems that plague the south I -5 corridor, and particularly
areas around the airport, the DEIS simply .pretends that
transportation problems do not exist.
1. References to Working Papers 5 and 9 do not remedy the
lack of analysis, for they do not provide basic traffic and
transportation analysis either. The Vision 2020 EIS does not
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 52
•
•
•
deal in any manner with the particular impacts of new passengers
at Sea -Tac Airport.
2. The basic proposition of the EIS is to rely upon other
parties to do transportation planning. The concept of shifting
blame and responsibility to other agencies is not a recipe for
denying the existence of traffic impacts. This EIS must
consider basic issues of transportation movement.
From estimates given in the impact statement, the outcome
of flight plan considerations will be to increase the number of
passengers going through Sea -Tac from about 16.2 million MAP to
25.4 million MAP in the year 2000, to ultimately about 40
million MAP in the year 2020. Estimated passenger traffic at
Sea -Tac will grow by two and one -half times, or more than 60,000
persons per day. This huge increase clearly supports the need
to provide significant review of the impacts of transporting
such passengers to and from the airport. it is indeed curious
that the impact statement does -not even - calculate:, existing an
pro_.po:s ed- passenger — ttaf f is volumes through the terminal. Thts is
a major defect.
,.Passenger miles of travel is the sole factor used to
(qua ify traffic impact *. This is an inadequate measure of
impacts since there is no— comparison of this _demand against
of _the _existing or future transportation
(1 '-':"Accordingly there is no measure of impact, and in turn,
there is no way to evaluate if mitigation is possible or
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 53
•
•
•
sufficient. Plainly a thorough analysis of these impacts must
be considered. { Any — analysis -must -also -,
takeaccount -of the
ridpOitant- factor -of - growth in traffic and- tr-ansportation-volumev
that' - come -- from sources other _th`an-- -the- airport, including'
--indi st-r- -ial; commercial- , -a-nd- residential _growth predicted -- for -the
3. The transportation analysis also fails because it
addresses only one component of transportation demand, i.e. the
passengers. Even a non - project analysis should include the
total transportation demand, which includes trips of employees,
service vehicle and personnel, and in the case of this proposal,
truck trips. The EIS identifies significant increases in just
in time" and other manufacturing and inventory control methods
which indicate significant increase in air cargo. See page C-
34. If this is the case, there is likely to be a significant
increase in truck traffic at the airport, which is not discussed
anywhere. A review of existing truck traffic by size and type,
together with predicted future truck traffic, should be
considered.
4. In addition, the economic report at page C -3 indicates
that the various alternative airport locations would generate
significant development "to the areas immediately surrounding
each airport site . . . . " Page C -3. This amounts to as much
as 2 million square feet of office space, and as much as 11,000
new hotel and rooms. It is obvious that increased hotel and
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 54
•
•
•
office development will generate significant traffic demand for
customers, employees, service vehicles, and trucks. The traffic
impact of such activity, together with the cumulative impact of
these induced developments with increased airport passengers,
must be considered. Our observation is that the transportation
facilities in and around the airport are presently approaching
capacity and that further major impacts of this nature will
likely create unacceptable traffic congestion.
5. We note at pages 3 -26 and 3 -27 that passenger miles are
calculated for each airport. However, there does not appear to
be analysis of which modes of transportation would typically be
used to access the airports. Passenger miles may not be the
sole criteria, if such mileage occurs on high occupancy vehicles
such as buses, shuttle vans, or mass transportation. {Predicted
�mo•de ' = —splits between _ such
transportation means _should be,
providedy
In addition, a means of resolving and mitigating such
transportation impacts should be considered. Should a
subsidized bus system or new rail system be considered as a
necessary feature of new airport planning at any location? None
of these alternatives are considered or reviewed. Some of these
options are considered at page 3 -30, but only in a conclusionary
sense. For example, "widening International Boulevard" is
considered as an improvement in the vicinity of the airport.
However, we believe there is significant question as to whether
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 55
•
•
•
International Boulevard can effectively be widened and whether
this would bring relief to the volumes anticipated from airport
expansion (and subsidiary development induced by the airport).
It is insufficient to simply name the alternative without
indicating what beneficial effects it will have on the overall
congestion situation.
Improvements to SR -518 and SR -509 are mentioned, but
without any idea of what is involved. What kind of improvements
are proposed? How effective will the improvements be in
increasing the carrying capacity of those streets? None of
these questions are answered.
6. Generally, information which should be considered in a
non - project traffic and transportation analysis includes
existing traffic and transportation conditions, forecast traffic
conditions with or without the proposal, including background
traffic conditions, and forecasted traffic conditions with the
proposal.
There is no reference in the report to present trip
generation of the existing facility, including not only
passengers, but service and other employees, as well as truck
and transportation. There is further no mode split associated
with passengers coming to the airport and how much the various
shuttle bus, transit and other facilities serve the airport.
There is no discussion of average vehicle occupancy and
accordingly the relationship between passenger trips and vehicle
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 56
•
•
•
trips.
There is no discussion or description of the primary road
system serving the site, which would include the classification
of primary roads, the number of lanes each road or group of
roads serves, the current traffic volumes, or cordon analysis of
current volumes. Such a cordon analysis should be made near the
perimeter of the site, as well as several miles away, to
illustrate the availability of capacity on the local road and on
the regional road network.
Future conditions without the proposal should estimate the
traffic forecasted volumes and the listing of specific road
improvements and transit improvements that are expected to be in
place to serve this demand. Financial costs of such
improvements should also be provided. Lacking any
quantification of the capabilities of service levels associated
with existing or future demands makes it impossible to evaluate
the ability to serve this demand.
With respect to mitigation measures, an evaluation should
be made of the potential benefits to the airport operations
derived therefrom. The degree of relief brought by transit
facilities in reduction of automobile and other trips should be
evaluated at the various alternate sites, including Sea -Tac.
Level of service calculations should be provided for roads
in the vicinity of each airport alternative, as well as where
predicted levels of service are consistent with county, city and
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 57
•
•
•
state transportation plans. Considering the large increases in
MAP (two and one -half times) and the fact that levels of service
drop at a rate faster than the rate of volume increase, it
appears that forecasting here involves a shift of numerous
passenger and other trips to transit. Is transit a plausible
transportation mode for airline passengers carrying luggage?
Documentation of such alternatives should be provided.
7. Transit and other facilities, including light rail,
usually provides significant lead times and significant
financial contributions from all levels of government. The -EIS'
should evaluate the-potential for_such_funding. 'Ai alternat Are,1
`means -oz providing transportation without such facilities shouldh
/. ber cons >dered in the event funding for such alternate
transport-atin facilities is not available. *'
8. We are further amazed that the Port of Seattle has not
chosen to provide basic underlying traffic and transportation
information. We are virtually certain that such information
exists and has been used by the Port and PSRC in the past. The
refusal of the Port to provide such basic information as is
described and requested herein, amounts to bad faith and a
deliberate attempt to ignore and whitewash serious traffic
impacts. The impact statement needs to be completely revised
and rewritten to provide a thorough traffic analysis.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 58
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
• This section totally fails to provide meaningful
•
•
information either as to environmental impacts or as a tool for
comparisons with other alternatives. The information provided
is so general, so vague, and so lacking in content as to not
meet the minimum requirements of SEPA. In this regard, please
refer to the specific comments of Dr. Terrell Charles Newby
which are incorporated by reference herein. As with other
sections, it is necessary to prepare a new draft environmental
impact statement which provides useful information.
To be useful in evaluation of individual sites, at least
the reconnaissance of individual sites should be undertaken.
Please identify what individual site work was done for review.
Were surveys or on the ground information obtained? In
addition, please provide the names of all individuals involved
in this work, an identification of their qualifications is also
required, as their expertise is not identified in the impact
statement.
Our specific comments are as follows.
1. At page 3 -32, it is indicated that the evaluation is at
a "generalized level." In fact, comments are so generalized as
to be without any value for review purposes.
2. On page 3 -33, we are told that with respect to
vegetation and wildlife that: "plants and animals common to the
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 59
•
•
•
Puget Sound reason would likely to be found at or near all the
airport sites." In fact "plants or animals common to the Puget
Sound region are by definition found all over the Puget Sound
region. The level of analysis involved here indicates a
complete lack of concern for impacts in this area. We note a
complete failure to even discuss impacts on areas to be filled
on the west side of the airport, which is heavily vegetated.
3. On page 3 -34, it is indicated that "specific data on
territorial fauna in the area was not available ", referring to
Paine Field. In fact, the purpose of an impact statement is to
gather information. We do not understand why such specific data
was "not available." What efforts were made to locate this
data? Similar comments of unavailable data are also found in
references to Central Pierce, McChord, and the Olympia -Black
Lake sites. For purposes of preparing comments here, were any
on the ground surveys made of any of these areas?
4. On page 3 -35, it is indicated that "indirect impacts to
plants and animals . . . are more difficult to assess." We do
not understand this comment. Was any effort made to assess
these impacts at all? The mere fact that they are "difficult to
assess" does not mean that drafters of environmental impact
statements can completely ignore the responsibilities in this
regard. Impact statements routinely review impacts on plants,
animals and wetlands, and the failure to consider such matters
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 60
•
•
•
seriously here again shows a total lack of concern.
5. There are discussions of "13 acres of shrub /emergent
wetland and 22 acres of emergent /open water wetland" in the
vicinity of Paine Field. However, it is impossible to assess
the importance of these references without a map showing a
location or some kind of reference to the source for such data.
Was this calculation of wetlands derived from wetland
evaluations or through some other source? Similarly,
calculations of wetlands for Ft. Lewis, McChord, Olympia -Black
Lake sites come without maps and without a reference as to how
these calculations were made.
6. With respect to streams on page 3 -35, the only document
that appeared to be consulted to provide this information is the
"Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization" (from
1975). Were on -site surveys or review made of these areas?
Were any other sources consulted to reach the conclusions
stated? Was a fisheries biologist consulted with respect to
impacts on Miller and Des Moines Creeks?
7. There is also a reference on page 3 -35 to jet fuel
spills in November 1985 and April 1986. P -ease etcrbe ;~those :!
spills in-detirIaii any cleanup -efforts thtwere made by the $,
6"41-wport_ -Evaluation of-the potential for further-spills should
also be _pr-ovided.
8. At page 3 -36 it is indicated that there would be no
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 61
•
•
•
impacts to either Miller or Des Moines Creeks based on the
"preliminary layouts". ]se-- id`enti fy _ and supply theme
'!a preliminar-y__layouts" referred to herein. ,(We again note the
impossibility of review without any sort of a reasonable site
plan or cross section showing the construction proposed.
In this regard, the layout should show runways and the
width and length (beyond the runway end) of runway safety area
required per FAA regulations. Also provide estimates of slope
of fill to the west, providing a map or diagram showing the toe
of the construction fill.
Similarly, no site plan layouts which might include the
relationship between construction and wetland areas and plant
and animal locations is provided for any of the airport
alternatives. With respect to the Olympia -Black Lake site,
please identify the basis for the proposition that the streams
there support "populations of Coho salmon."
9. With respect to vegetation, we note the reference to
the Alaska Rein - Orchid. Was any effort made to survey the site
to find such species? With respect to the plant "Aster Curtus ",
it is unclear whether or not such plant has been actually
identified on the site.
10. With respect to wildlife comments at page 3 -36, we are
mystified by the reference to species which "might be expected
to occur ". Have there been any surveys of the area to ascertain
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 62
•
•
•
confirmation of the existence of such species? Were any field
surveys made to look for the existence of any of the species
discussed here.
11. AT page 3 -39 we are again mystified by the reference
that some of the wetlands "potentially affected may have
somewhat higher quality wetland." Again, was any effort made to
survey wetland character or quality by the drafters of the EIS?
Why were on -site surveys not done to analyze these potential
impacts?
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 63
•
•
•
Section 3.5 : Earth and Water Issues
Once again in the section on earth, the PSRC and POS fail
to make adequate studies of environmental impacts that occur
because of the impacts on earth. As with other areas of the
EIS, the discussion here is only the vaguest survey of these
issues. Our specific comments are as follows:
1. Apparently the only investigation of soils and soil
types was conducted through using SCS soil survey maps.
Indicate whether or not any actual surveys of soils were made in
the vicinity of any of these projects? Were any surveys
conducted to ascertain the existence of peat or boggy soils that
may be difficult for construction?
2. Under Section 3.5.1 incredibly no soil types are given
for each of the potential sites. Though as indicate that
"predominate soils for each area have been identified" we are
not told which predominant soils
identified.
all of the
for which site have been
It is worthless to have generalize information on
sites.
PL—,detailed—;analysis- of- soils, -their
!compaetability "and — suitability for construction of runways/
taxiways, terminals, and__ other facilities -must be prepared.
3. At Sea -Tac, it is identified that 13,682,000 cu.
yd. of fill would be required to build the new dependant runway.
With respect to this figure, please indicate the basis for this
calculation. Please provide any background information,
including any topographic maps or other plans that indicate how
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 64
4
•
•
•
this figure was calculated (to the accuracy of thousands of
yards). Indicate whether the 13,682,000 cu. yds. calculation is
compacted on site or loose fill. If this figure is compacted on
site, please provide the cubic yards necessary to be hauled to
the site to result in the compacted yardage.
4. Given the massive size of the fill required for the
runway, please indicate the size, length and height of the
runway as it would be viewed by individuals from each side.
Elevation showing this fill should be provided. Please supply
the angles of final disposition of material on each side. To
fully understand this issue, cross sections of the fill,
original contours and other information should be provided.
Similarly, elevations and side slopes should be provided for
other potential alternatives.
5. No provision is made for the source of material for the
13, 682, 000 cu.yd. P�€lea; a identify, sources for this material
Please sate whether the sources have current permits for
withdrawal of fill material, and if not, whether withdrawal of
such material is consistent with current land use plans for the
areas of withdrawal. A summary of environmental impacts with
regard to the mining or withdrawal of such material should also
be provided.
6. With respect to the fill material, haiu lTroutes_shouldj
�n 4.. - - - -- final
Abe identified from_- the site of f- 11 --- w`ithdrawal_ to_ final
Approximately how many truck trips will be
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 65
•
•
•
required to haul this material to the site and over what period
of time will such activity continue? What are the environmental
impacts of such haling operations, including air pollution,
energy consumption, water pollution?
7. No information is provided as to the water pollution
impact of moving this hugh quantity of dirt. Information should
be provided as to water pollution potential created by the
disposition of dirt on streets surrounding the site, as well as
once the material is in place. Each of these involve
construction impacts which are completely ignored in the impact
statement. A similar analysis of construction impacts should be
provided for other sites. Analysis of air pollution from
blowing and drifting dust from the transportation and
distribution of the fill at Sea -Tac should be provided.
8. On page 3 -43, storm water runoff is mentioned as the
"greatest single factor affecting erosion in the Puget Sound
region." How this revelation helps make a decision between
alternate sites is unknown.
However, stormwater runoff is not significantly addressed
in the environmental impact statement in any location. We note
particularly that the statement of "license required" does not
include the requirement to secure an NPDES permit for
disturbance of the area of the fill. The EIS should review the
NPDES requirements and indicate how the subject proposal will
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 66
•
•
•
meet such requirements.
In addition, there is no indication of treatment of
stormwater runoff at any location in the EIS. There has been no
identification of whether or not holding basins or other
facilities control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff
will be constructed as a part of this proposal and if so where
they will be located. Such information should be provided in
the final impact statement, together with information concerning
projected runoff volumes. The efficiency of runoff control
systems in controlling contaminants from the airport should also
be provided. No information is provided in the impact statement
concerning the nature of potential contaminants in the runoff
and such is required. We note that the airport certainly
involves discharges of petroleum products, rubber tire products
and other products, including de -icing liquids used in cold
weather. The impacts of such activities on stormwater runoff
should be considered.
9. At page 3 -42 it is indicated that all the potential
locations appear to have soils that would allow for airport
construction." Please indicate the basis for this statement and
whether or not it was based upon soil survey or on site
inspections.
10. At page 3 -43, it is indicated that the Ft. Lewis
replacement airport would involve 36,000,000 cu.yd. of "grading
and excavation quantities and that the Olympia site would
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 67
•
•
involve 32,160,000 cu.yd. of material. Does this include
grading or fill? ,,o Please provide-- cross section __ and- other
calculations =which support_ the- derivation_ of- these - f guresr
11. At page 3 -44 mitigation measures are outlined but are
largely too vague to be of any use in comparison of sites. It
is indicated that mitigation may be to avoid all sensitive areas
with potential geologic hazards. Have any sensitive areas with
geologic hazards been identified on any of these sites and if so
how will they be avoided in the construction of the runway? It
is also indicated that "modern construction practices" will be
used. What type of construction practices do the drafters of
the DEIS have in mind here? Such practice should be listed and
identified along with their potential environmental benefits.
It is also indicated that minimizing earth movement during rainy
seasons "should control most earth impacts." Again we ask the
period in time involved in the movement of material to the
various sites including Sea -Tac. Since we estimate this will be
certainly longer than a year, it must be indicated how the site
will be protected during the rainy season.
12. We also note that significant need for cleanup of
groundwater contamination was necessary in a removal certain
facilities at the airport to provide for the expansion of
concourse D. Inasmuch as further expansion at the airport may
involve modifications of areas in the south area of the airport
where existing hangers and maintenance facilities are found,
• RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS Page 68
•
•
•
what potential exists for the release of toxic material to the
ground of groundwater to this area?
13. Also with respect to the airport facility, do the
areas underlying the new construction for the third runway serve
as a source for any groundwater resources. Has any
investigation been made of groundwaters underlying this area and
if so whether such groundwaters are used as a water source for
any purpose, including human consumption. If groundwater
resources exist in this area, please indicate what impact the
construction of the third runway will have on such groundwaters
and on their potential for recharge. With respect to industrial
discharges, please describe whether or not any new industrial
drainage treatment facilities will be built as a part of the
third runway construction. If the present industrial treatment
system is inadequate, please indicate what plans exist for the
expansion of such facilities.
14. We also believe that the wetland area in the vicinity
of the fill adjacent to 12th Avenue South may be the headwaters
for a creek or creeks draining westward. Please identify any
wetland resources that exists in the area, how they will be
affected by the fill and what mitigation measures will be used
to assure the continuance of these resources. Please identify
how discharges from Sea -Tac to Miller Creek and Des Moines Creek
will be handled and whether or not any changes in such
discharges are effected by the construction and fill for the
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan EIS
Page 69
•
•
third runway.
15. Please identify whether or not a dredge and fill
permit under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act will be required
for any activities on any of the proposed sites. If one is
required, please identify how the construction will meet the
requirements of this section of the law. _
SECTION 3.6: LAND USE
The land use section of the EIS is only a "generalized
review ". In fact, this section of the EIS is so vague and
general as to be utterly uninformative either as a means to
assess environmental impacts from proposed airport expansions or
to provide a basis upon which alternatives can be analyzed.
Again, in this area a new DEIS needs to be prepared which
provides an honest and good faith consideration of land use
issues.
Our specific comments are as follows:
1. We see no evidence here that land use section was
prepared by anyone with land use skills. PlT—se =' ent fy all 4
pe'rson's `responsible _for._ this section of the EIS, together with
LtNe x- background_and qualifications.
1
2. Section 3.6.1.1 describes various laws relating to land
use planning. Substance of these comments appears to be that
expansion of airports generally, and expansion at Sea -Tac by the
• RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS Page 70
•
•
•
Port of Seattle is subject to the terms of the Growth Management
Act. If either the PSRC or the Port of Seattle do not believe
activities to expand Sea -Tac are covered by the Growth
Management Act, please state why this is so and provide a
detailed analysis of laws relating to Port of Seattle and PSRC
responsibilities.
3. We were amazed at the comment on page 3 -45 that the
lands around Sea -Tac "reflect a general range of land uses
expected in an urban environment, such as commercial, industrial
and residential development." Such completely uninformative
statements reflect bad faith and another failure to give serious
consideration to significant issues. We note for example that
- - - - -- -- - -- - -- -------------
the i'entire_ land use section contains not a single map '
identifying the location of land uses surrounding the airport
and a revised draft environmental impact statement we ask that
the PSRC provide such maps as a minimum indication of its
responsibilities. and u -se _;maps; should' be ,provided for ad 1
a «lte am Lives considered. f
r — -
4. Another significant missing element in the inadequate
land use analysis is the situation at Sea -Tac is that there is
noo evaluation of expanded facilities_ to serve new _ runways
'capao, y >in- and-- around- the airport. It is apparent that the
proposal to use the third dependent runway will require
significant improvements at the terminal. Indeed, the airport
is estimated to go during the planning period from about 16 MAP
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 71
•
•
•
to 40 MAP a 250% increase in passengers. Such increases will
plainly require increases in a number of gates, ticket counter
area, baggage area, concession area, parking area for both
vehicles and airplanes, as well as increases in capacity of the
airport drive in similar facilities. No where does the land use
section or other sections of the EIS indicate what the scope and
extent of such additional facilities would be. The new revised
draft environmental impact statement and final environmental
impact statement\must contain an analysis of -the types and -kind
oaf additional - -- facilities necess4ryx.to serve capacity provided
for'by the third runway ..as-well-as-where-such facilities will be
1o0ted Site plans and maps indicating these features should
be provided.
5. In addition to the need to evaluate and consider new
terminal and related facilities, fthke EIS-does not consider tie
need- for_expandedair_cargo facilities. 1The EIS identifies that
there- will -be mayor increases in air cargo tonnage over the
planning period, w�Othriincrea"ses _expe-cted to- be- higher than that
-for pd'ssenger traffic% Indeed the EIS engages in considerable
hyperbole at page C -34 when it says that the "economy of the
future will involve a situation where "aviation and airports
1411 supplant_: seaports,_ rail, and highway systems as the world's
prir'inar' gene "rator. of economic developmen '. Do the PSRC and POS
believe this? If so, when will this occur and does Sea -Tac have
sufficient facilities and space for it to become the "primary
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 72
•
•
generator of economic development" in the State of Washington?
There is not a single word in the EIS as to the extent or
location of air cargo facilities. The revised draft EIS and the
final EIS must provide information as to 1) the extent of new
air cargo facilities, providing square footages for new
construction, 2) the location of such air cargo facilities
within the immediate vicinity of each of the airports considered
as alternatives, including Sea -Tac. We seriously question
whether there is any available space in and around Sea -Tac not
already committed to other uses which could provide the basis
for air cargo facilities and the kind of terminal facilities
necessary to sustain 40 MAP.
6. As noted above, considerable additional space will be
required for new air cargo facilities and terminal facilities to
accommodate the significant increases in aircraft operations.
Currently, hangers and aircraft maintenance facilities lie south
of the terminal building between it and South 188th Street.
This appears to be the only location for additional terminal
facilities or air cargo facilities. In this light, please
identify the uses proposed for this area by way of terminal and
other facilities. Please indicate the proposed location for
such new hanger and maintenance facilities through the planning
period.
7. With respect to land uses, a number of local
organizations have expressed concern that there may be expansion
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 73
•
•
of terminal, air cargo or maintenance facilities to the west of
the current runways. Please indicate whether within the
planning period any new facilities are planned or contemplated
to the west of the airport. If such facilities are
contemplated, please provide the generalized location of such
facilities, their square footage and type of new facilities
involved.
8. Also with respect to land use, we find there is no
discussion of the impact of the airport on park and recreational
facilities in the vicinity of any of alternative airport
locations, including Sea -Tac. There is a discussion on page 3-
47 that there is a "considerable amount of park and recreation
space in the Paine Field area." But there is no indication of
the size or extent of such facilities nor a map indicating the
location of these park and recreational facilities. The revised
DELIS and the FEISS mu *S nclude__an ,identification of all-park-arid
eoreational - -facil=ities withiFin`f the - crin ty— of�the` various
alte nr ati_v_e a'i p rts. Will the airport have impact on any
parkland of state, regional or local significance? The types
and kinds of park and recreational uses should be identified as
well as the nature and types of impacts expected on each,
particularly from noise.
9. With respect to the other airport locations, there is
similarly no indication of land uses, the extent and type of air
cargo facilities envisioned, the effects on park land or other
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 74
•
•
similar items. To provide any kind of comparison between the
proposed alternatives detailed information in each of these
areas must be provided.
10. We have previously discussed air cargo facilities.
See Sections 6, 7 and 8 herein. However, none of the airport
alternative consider potential relocation of major air cargo
facilities from the area in and around Sea -Tac to other
alternative airports. Thorough discussion of this alternative
must be provided. Again, we note the limited space in and
around Sea -Tac Airport and the tremendous potential increase of
air cargo facilities. Air cargo should be discussed not only in
terms of cargo carried "in the belly" of passenger aircraft, but
air cargo provided by all cargo carriers. The potential for
relocating all air cargo facilities should also be provided,
especially to a central location such as Moses Lake.
11. The section on induced land use on page 3 -50 around
the various airports is again totally incomplete and inadequate.
For example, at page 3 -50 it is apparently indicated that the
only types of induced land use are office, light industrial and
hotel activities. However, it is apparent that significant
amounts of retail and commercial activity are also generated by
the airport. However, <the impact statement fails to idntifyt
114= riat-u . and- types -of- these induced-- activi:ti s.
There is no justification for the statement "that retail
and other commercial activities are included within each these
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 75
•
•
•
categories (office, light industrial and hotel). Fundamental
land use planning plainly identifies the difference between such
activities between retail and commercial and the other types
mentioned. In any event, the revised DEIS and FEIS should
identify the nature and extent of commercial and other
activities "included within each of these categories" as
identified on page 3 -50 and how such calculations were made.
The concept that comprehensive plans and zoning regulations will
take care of the problems as is indicated in the first paragraph
under section 3.6.1.3 is an inappropriate avoidance of SEPA
responsibilities.
There similarly no discussion as to whether or not the
significant amounts of additional office, light industrial and
hotel space are consistent with land use plans around the
airport. Indeed, it appears that such uses will displace
existing uses and the type acreage and other details as to
displace land uses need to be identified. Do such displaced
land uses provide essential services for the community, such as
gas stations, grocery stores, drug stores, and the like? If
there are displaced residential uses, the nature and extent of
such displaced uses must be identified and how relocation will
occur.
The POS has estimated there will be several homes purchased
west of the airport because of fill required for the third
runway.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 76
•
•
•
12. We note that there is some discussion of household
employment and density at table 14, but no indication of
increased population over time.
13. With respect to induced land use, significant
satellite parking lots have cropped up adjacent to Sea -Tac in
the past several years. With respect to induced land use, a
discussion of the potential for induced new parking lots is
required. Given that parking lots are generally lower levels of
economic uses than office, light industrial, or hotel, please
indicate where such lots may be
l ocited- _ _ _ . surve of P _._a.. rk i n -�p
g
lts — in �uding --the - existing -- parking - facilities er �
should be,
dis5cused ==�
14. At page 3 -51 there is discussion that hotel
development in the area of Sea -Tac "appears to have been
constrained by limited circulation patterns." Please describe
the local circulation patterns and the descs db`'e_wh'ch _hotels',
vex=4 *- nitdiistrained- by_such .patterns : :Please comment on the
potential that other hotels would also be so constrained,
providing detail on traffic and circulation issues.
15. At page 3 -52, it is indicated that there will be
"approximately 140 acres of park land, commercial and industrial
use being induced."
We are curious about a con'c�lµus ion tth_atW
and!'- would =be_induedby the'aisport. How will such
inducement occur, where would such park lands be located, how
many acres of park land would be involved and describe the
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 77
•
•
•
nature and extent of such park lands.
16. Also at page 3 -52 it is indicated that construction of
the dependent third runway would require the acquisition of a
110 acres of property containing 230 homes. Inasmuch as it
appears that there will be new terminal, air cargo maintenance
and other facilities required, wi ;glWadOO4ona�1 lands -need to be
acquired -by _,the :- port -to- accommodate such _uses? 17. Page Page 3 -52 it is indicated that the Ft. Lewis and
McChord AFB alternatives may impact military operations and "may
impair and prevent the Army and Air Force from completing their
missions as presently defined at these locations." Please state
the source for such information giving names, addresses and
phone numbers. CPlease-define how there are "impacts to military
oppee t ions;, , -- from civilian -- operations.. It appears that
commercial operations could be separated such that the only
impacts would involve joint use of air space. As you understand
it, also identify what impairment to these "missions" would
occur, defining the missions as identified here.
18. As indicated at Ft. Lewis and McChord are "expanding"
through receiving additional military personal. Please identify
the number of additional military personal involved and the
nature and extent of the proposed expansion at these areas.
dent -Oy whether or—riot such expansion would conflict with;
operation of a civilian airport:
19. At page 3 -53 the acreage affected by induced land uses
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 78
•
•
•
are described. Does "effect" in this context mean actual use by
such uses or impacted through environmental and other impacts
from uses on other properties. We're also confused about the
contradiction found between the final paragraph on that page and
the fourth paragraph of that page where at one place induced
land uses from central Pierce are 80 acres and at another place
260 acres; similar discrepancies exist for the Olympia Black
Lake proposal.
20. Table 15 discusses induced_land-Auseestimates, however
no maps of the expected jlocatic ref, `such land use activities are
described. Maps showing likely locations of such activities
must be provided. In addition, estimates should be provided as
to the type and location of commercial and retail activities, as
we have discussed before.
21. In the alternatives including Arlington and others, it
is also indicated that road improvements and /or relocations
would likely be involved. The location for such new roads the
number of lanes, type of construction involved and the likely
location of such roads should be provided. Also, the
environmental impacts of the roads themselves should be
considered. We do not believe it is consistent with SEPA the
law to simply defer to other potential plans developments and
laws as a substitute to defining impacts here.
22. We note at page 3 -56 that impact statement concedes
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 79
•
•
that "a regional decision on how to distribute the economic
activity and the related lanes use resulting from an airport is
a very important aspect of selecting an airport system
alternative." We certainly agree with this statement but find
that the discussion of economic activity and land use is so
vague and uninformative as to provide no basis upon which
programmatic decisions regarding airport locations and service
to be provided at such airports.
23. A major defect in the impact statement is its failure
to provide any reasonable discussion of housing or residential
impacts. The only discussion of such impacts occurs on pages
3 -56 and 57. There is some discussion of displacement of
housing caused by acquisition of new property for airport
development. However, given the substantial degree of induced
land uses including hotel, office, light industrial, commercial
and retail development, the impact of these activities on
residential uses must be discussed. How much housing will be
displaced by these induced uses as well as the primary area for
an airport
Housing availability and affordability, while discussed as
a "factor" in decision making are not quantified or described in
any fashion. Is there available housing of the same type within
areas which will be either acquired for airport development or
displaced as a result of induced land uses? Aehprotigh'sury y>
roa housing availability - and- af- for-dability in the vicinity -of --the,
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 80
•
•
•
airport -- proposal; must "'b'e�suppl-ied A statement that "new
housing is generally available in the Puget Sound region" is
utterly uninformative to resolve impacts on housing.
--7-41Le impact —on— hoes ing- -musts also be discussed with the
respect --to —noise — impacts —by -- such noise. -Ifni much area is
significantly impacted by the airport. How much of this housing
will be depreciated in value by overflights and what are
expected depreciation within the planning period. The
discussion at the bottom of page 3 -56 that people may have to
move is too general to be of any help in analyzing alternate
locations. Indeed, the discussion of housing needs at each
airport location is without significant discussion of housing
impacts, such that no comparison, between proposals can be made.
At the top of page 3 -57, it is noted that $2,000 is
available for low income relocation assistance. How much of the
housing to be relocated is low income? Is other assistance
available either under law or through voluntary mitigation
measures to provide assistance to low income and other property
owners.
24. A section on consistency to GMA is confusing. We read
this section to provide that GMA applies to the decision to
locate an airport and that the Port of Seattle will be bound by
GMA consistency requirements. This is not the case please
advise us.
This section should also discuss in an institutional sense
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 81
•
•
who will build the various airport proposals. We are aware that
the Port of Seattle is in charge of Sea -Tac. However; =swhata
aaguency will be responsible -for -the— ownership; - construction,
velopm"ent and operation of-Paine Field, Arlington, McChord,
Ft. Lewis or the Olympia alternatives. WlIa0i t he's ". "f'nanciaol
capabil.ity of =such ownership organizations?
3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES.
Again, the discussion of these issues is totally
inadequate. The discussion is so vague and incomplete that it
forms no basis for environmental analysis and use in comparing
impacts of alternative actions. This section of the DEIS
suffers, as does most of the rest of the document, from a
-complete_lack of quantification,; leaxing-no-basis-for-comparison
` fa a3ternat ves.aa CenCA)560116 itA
Our specific comments on this section are as follows.
1. The document provides no quantification of the
consumption of public services or utilities. How much of these
services will be consumed by the activity in general, and are
there differences between the sites? In some instances these
should include absolute amounts (e.g. gallons of water consumed,
electricity consumed etc.). In other cases, the costs of
providing services should be given, (provision of police
services, fire services etc) . Since certain land uses "induced"
by airport expansion are also expected, the public service and
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 82
•
utility impacts of these uses must also be included, especially
for potentially consumptive activities such as light industrial
and hotel uses.
2. The DEIS also fails to provide any discussion of
impacts of the proposal on energy facilities. An energy budget
must be developed to allow assessment of impacts of the proposal
on energy supplies. WAC 197- 11- 444(1)e) requires consideration
in an EIS of "Energy and natural resources; amount required /rate
of use /efficiency; source /availability; nonrenewable resources."
There is absolutely no discussion of this critical element of
the environment. TW6-7failure:to discuss this element of the
tnvir no ment is particularity galling_because- of- the -- significant
c consumption of- fossil fuels �by aircraft.
Discussion of energy matters should include consumption by
both aircraft using the runways, but also by passengers
traveling to the airport in cars or other transportation modes.
cic-compari§son- should -be provided between the use of aircraft -as
IF
a^ transportation -mode and- other methods of transportation)
,includes bus,
automobiles —arid trai. Such a comparison is
especially useful in describing comparisons on short haul routes
to e.g. Portland or Vancouver B.C..
Energy comparisons should also be provided between various
types of aircraft, especially commuter aircraft (turbo props)
and larger and smaller jets. We note particularity that
commuter flights to Vancouver and Portland often run with very
• RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS Page 83
•
•
small load factors. An energy comparison between the various
types of aircraft flying these routes is essential.
3. At page 3 -61 it is indicated that "all public services
would require expansion to accommodate direct and induced levels
of activity at Sea -Tac airport." To allow review ;th a level's ont
lsuc h expansion must be discussep. In addition the costs of such
---- -- --- - -- -- --
expansion should be included as well as who will bear the costs
and how they will be financed. Indeed, the SEPA Rules require
that an DEIS include the following:
Discussion of significant impacts shall include the
cost of and effects on public services, such as
utilities, roads, fire , and police protection, that
may result from a proposal.
- 440(6)(e). Does the POS intend to agree to bear any portion of
such costs, and if so, how much?
IV. CONCLUSION
The decision on the long -term location and operation of
airports is one of the most important decisions that will be
made by government in the next 30 years. A decision of this
nature must be made with the utmost of environmental care and
foresight.
The draft impact statement prepared by the PSRC and the POS
is unfortunately not even sufficient to meet minimum SEPA
standards, much less the effort required by the importance of
the decision. Its failure to consider significant aspects of
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 84
•
•
•
the proposals, nc' lud ng noise, air,— earth; traffic - -ands
try ansportation, hoois, land' use and other impacts render -the
DE +IBS legally
and factually insufficient,
We ask that the DEIS be completely revised and recirculated
as a new DEIS. Once the revised draft EIS is reviewed, a
complete and adequate final EIS must be prepared before any
actions are taken by anyone passing on the proposal.
RCAA Comments on
Flight Plan DEIS
Page 85
•
•
•
EXHIBIT A
City of Des Moines
City of Normandy Park
City of Tukwila
Highline School District
Highline Community College
Highline Community Hospital
Des Moines Chamber of Commerce
Wesley Homes
Aircraft Noise Coalition (ANC)
Aircraft Noise Group of Seattle Community Council
Federation (ANG)
(35- member neighborhood councils)
Citizens Alternatives to Sea -Tac Expansion (CASE)
29- member neighborhood councils)
Eastside Citizens Against Aircraft Noise (ECAAN)
Aircraft Noise Abatement Council (ANAC)
Southwest King County Citizens Against Aircraft Noise and
Pollution (SWKCCAANP)
RCAA Federal Way
Sea -Tac Airport Action Committee (SAAC)
Queen Anne Community Council
•
•
EXHIBIT B
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS INCORPORATED INTO RCAA COMMENTS
1. Citizens Alternatives to Sea -Tac Expansion (CASE) March 16,
1992
2. City of Mercer Island by Cutler and Stanfield, March 23,
1992
3. Dr. Terrance Newby, January 31, 1992
4. Ravenna - Bryant Community Association, February 2, 1992
5. Northeast District Council, Undated
6. Seattle Community Council Federation, Undated
7. Edmonds School District, March 5, 1992
8. Senator Phil Talmadge, February 13, 1992
9. Washington State Department of Transportation, February 24,
1992
10. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, February 18, 1992
11. Len Oebser, Undated
12. John Whitlock, January 29, 1992
13. Charles E. Higbee, M.D., February 15, 1992
14. Highline Community Hospital, March 5, 1992
15. Minnie O. Brasher, March 17, 1992
16. Ann Bonney, March 17, 1992
17. Charlotte McGaughey, February 2, 1992
18. Janice Strama and Michael Heil, February 17, 1992
19. Lynn Michaelis
20. City of Everett, March 4, 1992
21. Washington Association of Railroad Passengers, February 6,
1992, except the first paragraph and the second paragraph,
parts 1 and 2
• 23. Burien Area Support Incorporation Committee, February 13,
1992
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT
f/ DDo�( -T 2ie-OtA
efireVS
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
and
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
(INCLUDING DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT)
PLANNING DEPT.
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
PORT OF SEATTLE
JANUARY 1992
ea -Tac with New Dependent Runway
-/C5 ItIV
(C.
/'...- _ / L-- _.50.509 :1111 . j( - 1 -. -. •-.
•
y' / y i. �',,41 /: 1 1 ZTi ACt'a aS�rehi AREA
_ _ - - - .. - II
I
.1 .... ': , ........ . ... • • re.........; .z.,.....i
t x !1
I `.J 1
I '-LF,i:-,'- II I I II
.Je I �r, '�� _ �1' 11 11 P 1
L•■•_•--� - �q5. /1E1:
L- --Al:
i r. '` a>
�F4^ " '• Ol
i1 s ' • (l _ 1
1
i ;,
.
•
b'-
i !
•
.r-
•
CS• —
1 �
• i -
i • •, ,
37- a 0 - - - --
', 09• 0 /0b17" 20
REPORT TITLE:
ABSTRACT
Flight Plan Project Draft Final Report and Technical
Appendices (including Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement)
PROJECT TITLE: Flight Plan
SUBJECT:
Study findings and draft recommendations for the
long -term air carrier system needs of the Puget Sound
Region
DATE: January 1992
SOURCE OF COPIES: Puget Sound Regional Council
Information Center
216 First Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464 -7532
SPONSORSHIP:
The Flight Plan Project was sponsored by the Puget
Sound Regional Council and The Port of Seattle and
by grants from the Federal Aviation Administration
of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMM11"1'EE
PAUL BARDEN
King County Council
M. R. DINSMORE
•Port of Seattle
RAY DINSMORE
Port of Olympia
ROY FERGUSON
State Representative
DAVID FIELD
Federal Aviation Administration
BERNARD FRIEDMAN
Snohomish County Citizen
WILLIAM HAMILTON
State Department of Transportation
FRANK HANSEN
Mayor of SeaTac
GWIN HICKS
Thurston County Citizen
RICHARD KENNEDY
Des Moines City Council
ROBERTLARSON
Mayor of Stanwood
HARRY LEHR
Alaska Airlines
DARLENE MADENWALD
Washington Environmental Council
Phase III Consultants
P & D Aviation
Parametrix, Inc.
Mestre Greve & Associates
CHAIRMAN
ROBERT WALLACE
Pacific Group Properties
Membership Roster
JOHN MCCARTHY
Commissioner, Port of Tacoma
LIZ MCLAUGHLIN
Snohomish County Council
JOHN MCNAMARA
Air Transport Association
PAIGE MILLER
Commissioner, Port of Seattle
RENEE MONTGELAS
Office of the Governor
GREG MYKLAND
Tacoma City Council
KIT NARODICK
Representing King County Business
MARTIN NEEB
Pierce County Citizen
ROBERT NEIR
Kirkland City Council
GREG NICKELS
King County Council
ED NIELSON
United Airlines
DON PADELFORD
King County Citizen
FRANK PARTIN
Representing Snohomish County Business
Project Staff
Peter Beaulieu, Project Manager, Puget Sound Regional Council
Michael Feldman, Project Manager, Port of Seattle
Phase II Consultants
Apogee Research
Tumer Collie & Braden
Hockaday & Associates
Jim Billing, former Project Manager, Puget Sound Regional Council
Troy Brown, Planning Consultant, Port of Seattle
Doug Clinton, Graphics Specialist, Puget Sound Regional Council
Kathleen Drew, Public Involvement Coordinator, Port of Seattle
Cynthia Felice, former Project Manager, Port of Seattle
Rachel Garson, Media Relations Officer, Port of Seattle
Teri Grosvenor, Administrative Assistant III, Port of Seattle
Tony Lickteig, Assistant Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council
Stacy Magerstaedt, Administrative Secretary, Puget Sound Regional Council
ANDREA RINIKER
Port of Seattle
FRED SCHONEMAN
Commissioner, Port of Bremerton
ROGER SCHAEFFER
Clyde Hill Council
EARLE SMITH
Kitsap County Citizen
SVERRESTAURSET
Representing Pierce County Business
BILL STONER
Pierce County Council
LEO THORSNESS
State Senator
TOM TIERNEY
Office of the Mayor, City of Seattle
LARRY VOGNILD
State Senator
RAY WHITE
Representing Kitsap County Business
NEIL E. WOODY
Representing, Thurston County Business
PAUL ZELLINSKY
State Representative
Phase I Consultant
KPMG Peat Marwick
Ron McCready, Director of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council
Nick Roach, Associate Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council
Barbara Stewart, Airport Communications Officer, Port of Seattle
Burr Stewart, Manager of Aviation Planning, Port of Seattle
Rebecca Stewart, Graphics Technician, Puget Sound Regional Council
Marlys St. Laurent, Airport Communications Officer, Port of Seattle
Judy Stoloff, former Project Manager, Port of Seattle
Diane Summerhays, Planning Program Manager, Post of Seattle
Maureen Travaille, Planner II, Port of Seattle
FOREWORD
The Flight Plan Project is a forward - looking effort that addresses one of many
growth- related issues vitally important to our region, as well as to the entire State
of Washington. To ignore the role that an efficient air transportation system plays
in the quality of life we now enjoy and want for the future would be irresponsible.
To not recognize or attempt to minimize the social and environmental costs of
maintaining such a system would also be irresponsible. At the same time, the
solution that is chosen must be cost - effective and technically feasible to assure it
is implemented. These are the issues and value -laden trade -offs that made the
Flight Plan Project so challenging.
It is often difficult to maintain perspective when addressing an issue like air tans -
portation system capacity a decade before it reaches crisis proportion. However,
ten years is the lead time required to decide what needs to be done and then to do
it. As this document is reviewed, the region- shaping influence of the recommen-
dations should be kept in mind. No other region in the country is as dependent
on high -tech manufacturing and international trade as is the Puget Sound. The
role of efficient air transportation which is convenient to our primary market areas
cannot be over - emphasized when considering ecomomic benefits like the retention
and creation of jobs. The ability to effectively mitigate related environmental costs
is also an integral component of a healthy regional economic framework.
The people of the Puget Sound Region are recognized for our vision and innovative
approaches to decision - making and problem solving. This vision, however, has
always been tempered by a firm understanding of the most practical and feasible
solutions available. We are also influenced by a real respect for the natural envi-
ronment and appreciation of the unique and physically constrained geographical
region which we inhabit. The draft Flight Plan recommendation which is de-
scribed in the following text and supported by extensive technical and environ-
mental analysis provides a balanced solution that is sensitive to a wide range of
competing objectives.
The draft Flight Plan recommendation is based on a great deal of thoughtful con-
sideration. This Draft Final Report includes a programmatic Environmental Im-
pact Statement, which is used to assess a range of alternatives at the system
planning level. This level of analysis is the first step of a multi- phased process
and will be followed by more detailed analysis for each specific component of the
approved system plan. Your review and comment on this document initiates a
process that is very important to the future of our region. Your active participa-
tion is and will continue to be highly valued.
PUGET SPUN()
AIR TILINSrOP ATHJN
COMMI T•T EE
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
January 7, 1992
Dear Citizen of the Puget Sound Region,
Quality air service for passengers and shippers is a prime component of both
the economic vitality and quality of life we enjoy in this region. As a matter
of fact, efficient and convenient commercial air service is vital to the State of
Washington and the entire Pacific Northwest. As you may have heard from
news reports over the last few months, our region's only commercial service
airport, Seattle- Tacoma International, is quickly nearing its runway capacity.
The population growth in our region along with the increasing attractiveness
of air travel means that within the next decade, Sea -Tac will be saturated in
terms of the number of take -offs and landings it can handle. While the quality
of air service at Sea -Tac is still quite good, without action, growing numbers
of flights will lead to increased delays for travelers and shippers and a decline
in our region's ability to remain a key player in domestic and international
trade.
During the last two years, I have had the privilege of working with a wide
range of people on the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC).
The PSATC is comprised of citizens, environmental interests, local and state
elected officials, and representatives of the airlines and the business commu-
nity who were assembled to recommend a plan for the long term air carrier
needs of our region. Members represented the Central Puget Sound Region
Counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston. The PSATC was
co- sponsored by the Puget Sound Regional Council (the region's transporta-
tion planning agency) and the Port of Seattle (operator of Sea -Tac). The study
conducted by the PSATC was called the Flight Plan Project.
The PSATC began the Flight Plan Project in late 1989. Since then, forecasts
of future air traffic growth were prepared and alternatives studied for meeting
air travel demand through the year 2020 and beyond. Numerous experts and
Pro „err;.:,. r,tc
! J,'i of Se:,::!
>mrr;!
F';'r.yin t' "ter: =n Uni,torsi!y
wrrcN ,in.,,,slf,n l;nm:n; ring
.i;: •h:: �'r:4, Mrim.,!.7e!uriin7
For: a S eatt!e
Co .'rr, ;;os!nrrr, Port of Rremenon
^,yde Hitt Carnci!
tenronlr JrvelePment
Crgiw iI It! .K,!Snp Caurty
?roe County Council
or Stall. Si Attie
Pug_! Srr ;a! r^wor R ugh:
C ?r ^s;! ;d Company
1. ;�le Rvpresenta!ive
several consultants assisted the PSATC in collecting technical data and provided advice on how to
seek a solution. After looking at a variety of system alternatives and site options and after much
indepth analysis, the PSATC formulated its draft final recommendations.
The purpose of the Flight Plan Draft Final Report is to present the PSATC's draft final recommenda-
tions and to summarize the process used to develop them. Included are a set of Appendices which
deal with the operational/technical, economic /financial, institutional, and environmental issues
which were examined in detail in order to arrive at the draft recommendations. The Appendices are
comprised of the working papers prepared by the consultants and staff during the the third phase of
the project. The complete Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared as
part of the study is Appendix E.
Before the recommendations are finalized, the PSATC will gather further input from interested citi-
zens and agencies during January and February. Taking into consideration the feedback received,
final recommendations will be prepared and presented for adoption and action to the governing
bodies of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Port of Seattle. It will then be up to these and
other agencies to conduct further studies and to implement the recommendations.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the citizens who have been involved in the Flight
Plan Project and who have shared your ideas and concerns with the PSATC over the last two years.
I encourage you to remain involved in this important process during the next few months and I look
forward to working with you in the future.
Robert Wallace, Chair
Puget Sound Air Transportation. Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
SECTION ONE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction . 1
Unfeasible Alternatives 1
Preferred Alternative . 2
Secondary Alternatives 6
Finalization of Draft Recommendations 7
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Summary 7
SECTION TWO: PROJECT PROCESS
Introduction
Project Overview
11
12
Phase I Summary . 14
Mission Statement 14
Vision Statement 15
Initial Forecasts 15
Phase II Summary 18
Revised Forecasts . 18
Development of System Alternatives . 18
Screening of System Alternatives . 19
Alternatives Recommended for Further Analysis . 21
Alternatives not Recommended for Further Analysis 22
Phase III Summary . 24
Refinement of Alternatives Recommended for Further Analysis 24
Further Study of Boeing Field as a Close -In
Remote Airport 24
Indepth Analysis of Demand Management . 24
Multiple Airport System with Three Airports 25
Development of Site Concepts 25
List of Alternatives /Options . 27
Distribution and Satisfaction of Regional Demand 28
Evaluation Methodology . 28
Summary of Evaluation Results 31
Operational/Technical Elements 31
Economic/Financial Elements 34
Environmental Elements 36
Public Hearings on the Draft Recommendations and
Draft Programmatic EIS 39
Public Involvement . 40
SECTION THREE: APPENDICES
Appendix A: Evaluation Methodology
(Working Paper # 2)
A -1
Appendix B: Operational/Technical Elements
Boeing Field Airspace Review (Working Paper # 1) . B -1
Demand Management (Working Paper # 4) . B -11
Airport Site Concepts (Working Paper # 6) . B -29
Level of Service (Working Paper # 3) B -59
Allocation of Passengers and Aircraft Operations
(Working Paper # 5). . B -69
Airspace, Capacity, and Delay (Working Paper # 7) B -79
Accessibility/Interaction with Other Modes
(Working Paper #9) B -99
Appendix C: Economic/Financial Elements
Economic Benefits and Strategic Economic Issues
(Working Paper # 8) .
Capital Costs and Funding (Working Paper # 11) .
Appendix D: Institutional Elements
Institutional and Implementation Analysis
(Working Paper # 10) .
C -1
C -79
D -1
Appendix E: Draft ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement E -1
Noise Assessment Study (Working Paper # 12A)
Air Quality Assessment (Working Paper # 12B)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sea -Tac with New Dependent Runway 3
Figure 2: Paine Field with Existing Airfield . 4
Figure 3: South Puget Sound Region Airport Sites 5
Figure 4: Environmental Impacts Summary . 8
Figure 5: Possible Mitigation Measures Summary 9
Figure 6: Flight Plan Project Schedule . 13
Figure 7: PSATC Mission Statement . 14
Figure 8: PSATC Vision Statement . . . 16
Figure 9: System Alternatives Data Summary . 32
Figure 10: Site Options Data Summary . . 33
Figure 11: System Alternatives Comparative Summary . 37
Figure 12: Site Options Comparative Summary . . 38
1
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
After a year- and -a -half of work, at the completion of Phase II of the Flight Plan Project, the Puget
Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) developed a list of system alternatives and site
options which were recommended for further analysis during Phase III of the Project. These alterna-
tives and options represented a short list of the potential solutions for meeting the Puget Sound
Region's air capacity needs to the year 2020 and beyond.
In Phase III, the PSATC conducted an indepth analysis of the system alternatives and site options
recommended for further analysis. Data were collected for the alternatives and site options in terms
of operational/technical, economic /financial, and environmental elements. Institutional factors were
also examined to make sure that the alternatives could actually be implemented and to assist in the
development of an action plan. At its December 4th, 1991 meeting, the PSATC used the collected
information to first eliminate those alternatives and site options it considered to be unfeasible and
then to develop a preferred alternative for the Puget Sound Region's future air transportation system.
A list of secondary alternatives was also developed. The purpose of the secondary alternatives was
to provide a set of potentially feasible solutions which could be compared with the preferred alterna-
tive in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
Unfeasible Alternatives
Following is the list of alternatives which the PSATC determined would not be adequate to meet our
region's future air transportation needs:
* Do Nothing and allow the region's population to grow without ade-
quate air service
* Implement demand management at Sea -Tac and do nothing else to
expand air capacity
* Force people to travel to international airports at Portland or Vancou-
ver, B.C. with or without heavy -rail service
* Close Sea -Tac and replace it with a new international airport or re-
gional airports
The first three alternatives listed above were deemed to be unfeasible because it was found that they
would not be able to meet our region's projected demand for air travel out to the year 2020 and
beyond. The last alternative above was considered unfeasible because it was found to be prohibi-
tively expensive and to cause severe environmental impacts.
2
Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is a phased multiple airport system which calls for scheduled airline service
at Paine Field in Snohomish County and a new dependent runway at Seattle- Tacoma International
Airport. Both of these actions would be taken concurrently and would be in place by the year 2000.
It was also recommended that a site for a third commercial service airport be master planned and
preserved in the southern portion of the Puget Sound Region. The third airport would be imple-
mented sometime after the year 2010 either at McChord Air Force Base or at a new site on Fort
Lewis if coordination with the military could be achieved. If military coordination is not possible,
then the third airport would either be implemented in the Loveland area of Pierce County or in the
Olympia/Black Lake area of Thurston County. Schematic layouts of Sea -Tac with a new dependent
runway and of Paine Field can be found in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The locations of the recom-
mended supplemental airport sites in the south part of the region can be found in Figure 3.
The preferred alternative was chosen due to its ability to fulfill several key evaluation criteria which
were based on the PSATC's Vision Statement. A list of the considerations used in choosing the
preferred alternative follows:
Environmental Quality and Livability
* By the year 2000, virtually all aircraft using Sea -Tac will be classified
as Stage III (the quietest type) and the number of people impacted by
noise will be reduced by nearly ninety percent, even with the addition
of a dependent runway.
* Airport locations within the growing urban area of the region, as
opposed to in undeveloped rural areas, help to preserve open space and
limit urban sprawl.
* A multiple airport system helps minimize air pollution by reducing the
amount of ground travel required to reach an airport. Also, since
aircraft delay is lessened with a multiple airport system, aircraft are not
required to idle as long and air emissions are further reduced.
Regional Economic Vitality
* A multiple airport system strengthens the region's ability to compete
for business both domestically and internationally by providing addi-
tional air capacity as it is needed.
* A multiple airport system distributes the economic benefits and the en-
vironmental costs of airport facilities throughout the region.
FIGURE 1
Sea-Tac with New Dependent Runway
;I. .1 1 .`
/ I
!
- = — - -
• • • - " — •
)
•••■••■••••■•••■••■••■••■••••
, ,....
1/h I , , . •
i ii,.../.."-----------. •-----1."
r----L. 1 i I
i - /---------- • :••
i'saf1-14-77 AGCZOSireiv AAWA
.'...l'i
7 /; ,
' I I
: 11:
? --- .ARY A ,11: ClitO? guypv.4 r -
"5 rl•••••7 .1.- ''...••■•••■,■••••■••■•=.............,
- \
■ . . ■ %
1 I I ■■ ■R"Z .
T. ■ II
.. C____ _ _ .. -L jk_ .. - il
L__
, . ....., •
• l / '.; ( ) /// J., JO
I • %
•
• .1
0 • 2 1 . . i,3
;I
- •
ic",4 ( )
TERM/NAL I
•
st. .• • -• • •• =Fe
'1.
11
.1
;
Ck 0 / 09o-
- -
I
FIGURE 2
Paine Field with Existing Airfield
_ - -•
1 rr==
rP51°
______.1 k. ---
/ I [EASE
AGrA
U. 5. A14 yr •
�� o 0 n
L -O
,Z, z_�ctz. �O� I �
00
GETC PAL 1
SJ 41-24 hat'
1IE
}
Central Pierce Sit,
Loveland Site
Ft. Lewis Site
6
* By using existing facilities to the greatest feasible extent, the preferred
alternative minimizes construction costs and lessens the possible need
for tax subsidies.
Integrated Transportation System
* The existing airports and potential airport sites of the preferred alterna-
tive are in close proximity to harbors, rail lines, and the state and Inter-
state Highway network.
* Both Paine Field and Sea -Tac are currently being considered as stops
on the region's proposed light rail transit system.
$econdary Alternatives
Alternatives in this category represent secondary solutions to our region's long term air travel needs
that the PSATC found less- desirable than the preferred alternative. Each of the secondary alterna-
tives is a variation of a multiple airport system. The list of secondary alternatives is as follows:
Alternatives without
Paine Field:
* Sea -Tac with a new dependent runway
and a supplemental airport at the
Arlington Airport site in Snohomish
County with two air carrier runways
* Sea -Tac with a new dependent runway
and a supplemental airport at the
Central Pierce County site with two air
carrier runways
Alternative without * Sea -Tac without a new runway and
a new dependent supplemental airports at Paine Field
runway at Sea -Tac: and the Central Pierce site each with
one air carrier runway
Alternatives without
a new dependent
runway at Sea -Tac
and without Paine
Field:
* Sea -Tac without a new runway and a
supplemental airport at the Arlington
Airport site with two air carrier run-
ways
* Sea -Tac without a new runway and
supplemental airports at the Arlington
Airport site and the Central Pierce site
each with one air carrier runway
* Sea -Tac without a new runway and
supplemental airports at the Arlington
Airport and Olympia/Black Lake sites
each with one air carrier runway
Finalization of Draft Recommendations
During late January and early February of 1992, eight public hearings will be held throughout the
region in King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties. The purpose of the hearings is to
gain citizens' and interested agencies' comments on the draft recommendations and on the Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. After considering comments received at the hear-
ings and in writing, the PSATC will develop in March its final recommendations for the region's
future air transportation system. The final recommendations will then be presented to the Puget
Sound Regional Council and to the Port of Seattle for adoption and further action. These actions
will include amendments to Port of Seattle and uget S and Regional Council plans and will call for
updates to local and regional plans. Other action necessary to implement the Final Recommenda-
tions may also be nee ed d.` An ekp ic1i i action plan ill be developed as part of the Final Recommen-
dations.
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Flight Plan Project is found in
Appendix E. Listed here for ease of reference is a summary of the environmental impacts and
possible mitigation measures for the preferred and secondary alternatives. The environmental
impacts summary is Figure 4 and the list of possible mitigation measures is Figure 5.
Environmental issues were one of the primary concerns addressed during the Flight Plan Project. In
addition, three other categories of issues were studied. These were: operational/technical elements,
economic /financial elements, and institutional elements. A summary of the data for the operational/
technical and economic /financial elements can be found in Figure 9 later in the report. A discussion
of institutional concerns can be found in Working Paper #10 in Appendix D.
8
FIGURE 4
Environmental Impacts Summary
Impacts Summary by Preferred and Secondary Alternatives
Alternative
Noise
Transportation
Air Quality
Plants & Animals
Earth
land Use
Public Services
St Utilities
Preferred
Alternative: Sea•
Tac with
Dependent
Runway, Paine
Field: plan for
southern aupon.
Total 65 Ldn
population affected:
12400 - 13,100.
With runway use
mitigation:
8,100 - 8,600
population affected.
Overall auto
passenger mileage
generally lower than
other system
alternatives:
Daily passenger
mileage: (DPM, in
thousands) - 1,536 •
1,689;
Annual passenger
indulge: (APM, in
millions) - 567664.
Lamm overall air
pollutant cmismoos:
28.0 - 35.0 Tons
CO /Day:
7.8 - 8.6 Tons
NOX/ Day.
Wetlands on the Paine
Field and Olympia/
Black Lake .ne could
be impacted.
Salmon•prodteing
streams on the Fort
Lewis and Olympia/
Black Lake could be
impacted.
Two endangered plants
and two endangered
birds may be impacted
on the Fort Lewis cite.
Soils types at the
proposed cites
are appropriate
for airport
construction.
Compatible
vicinity of Sea.
Tac and Paine
Field. Southern
airport changes
vicinity land use.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea -Tac - 230 +:
Paine.Fteld -
Several'
Southern - Up
to 1.060.
Minor impacts
to Sea-Tac and
Paine Feld,
mots facilities
in place.
Major impacts
to southern
airport options,
new facilities
needed.
Existing Sra -Tac:
Arlington: Central
Pierce County.
Total 65 Lein
population affected:
7,900.
Overall passenger
mileage slightly
higher than
preferred
alternative:
DPM = 1.596:
APM = 494 - 694.
Slightly higher
emissions than
preferred alternative
due to delays at Sea-
Tac: 29.0 - 36.0
Tons CO /Day,
7.7 - 8.9 Tons
NOX /Day.
No impacts.
Soils are
appropriate for
construction.
with the
exception of the
Arlington site.
Compatible
vicinity of 5ca-
Tac and
Arlington.
Centel Pierce
airport changes
vicinity land use.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea -Tac - None;
Arlington -
20+;
Cent. Pierce =
594 +.
Minor
upgrading to
facilities at the
Sea•Tac and
Arlington sues.
Major
upgrading to
facilities at
Central Pierce
site.
Existing Sea-Tac;
Arlington:
Olympia /Black
lake.
Total 65 loin
population affected:
7500.
Highest auto
passenger mileage of
three aicpon
systems:
DPM = 1.902:
APM - 494 - 694.
Emissions
comparable to
existing Sea-Tac.
Arlington. and
Central Pierce
(above):
29.0 - 36.0 Tons
CO /Day; 7.7 - 8.9
Tons NOX /Day.
Salmon - producing
stream on the
Olympia /Black Lake
site would be
impacted.
Soils em
appropriate for
construction,
with the
exception of the
Arlington site.
Compatible
vicinity of Sea-
Tac and
Arlington.
Olympia/ Black
Lake airport
changes vicinity
land use.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea -Tac = None:
Arlington =
20.:
Olympia /Black
Lake = 511..
Minor
upgrading to
facilities at Sea-
Tac and
Arlington situ.
Major
upgrading to
facilities at
Olympia/ Black
lake site.
Existing Sea-Tac: 2
Runway Arlington.
Total 65 Ldn
population affected:
7503.
Comparable to other
comparable 2-
runway supplemental
airport alternatives:
DPM = 2.093:
APM = 534 - 1,019.
High CO emissions
due to distance from
major centers:
30.0 - 48.0 Tons
CO /Day. 7.9 - 10.8
Tons NOX /Day.
No impacts.
Soils are
appropriate for
construction,
with the
exception of the
Arlington site.
Compatible with
vicinity of Sea-
Tac and
Arlington.
Homes directly
impacted:
Su-Tac None;
Arlington: 95.
Minor
upgrading to
Sea-Tac and
Arlington sites
Existing Sea -Tac;
Paine Field;
Central Pierce
County
Total 65 Ldn
population affected:
7,600.
Overall auto
passenger mileage
lower than preferred
alternative:
DPM = 1354:
APM - 494 • 694.
Slightly higher
overall emissions
than preferred
alternative:
29.0 - 36.0 Tons
CO /Day, 7.7 - 8.9
Tons NOX /Day.
Wetlands on the Paine
Feld site would be
impacted.
Soils are
appropriate for
construction.
Compatible with
vicinity of Sea-
Tac and Paine
Field. Central
Pierce airport
changes land use.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea•Tac - None:
Paine Feld =
Several:
Cent. Pierce =
594 +.
Minor
upgrading to
facilities at Su-
Tac and Paine
Feld.
New facilities
needed at
Central Pierce.
Sca•Tac with
Dependent
Runway, 2 Runway
Arlington.
Total 65 Ldn
population affected:
13.000.
lower overall auto
passenger mileage
compared to existing
Sea -Tac:
DPM = 1,747;
APM - 604 - 732.
Overall emissions
relatively high due
to travel distance:
33.0 • 38.0 Tons
CO /Day, 8.3 - 9.1
Tons NOX /Day.
No impacts.
Soils at all sites,
except Arlington,
am appropriate
for construction
of the airport.
Compatible with
vicinity of Sea-
Tac and
Arlington.
Homes directly
impacted:
Su -Tac = 230+;
Arlington = 95.
Minor impacts
to Sca Tac,
most facilities
in place.
Upgrading of
facilities
required at
Arlington.
Sea-Tat with
Dependent
Runway, 2 Runway
Central Pierce
County.
Total 65 Ldn
population affected:
13500.
Lower overall auto
passenger mileage
compared to existing
Sea -Tac:
DPM = 1,747:
APM - 604 - 732.
Emissions same as
Sca -Tac with
Dependent Runway,
2 Runway Arlington
(above):
33.0 • 38.0 Tons
CO /Day. 8.3 - 9.1
Tons NOX /Day.
Three acres of wetland
on the Central Pierce
site would be
impacted.
Soils types at the
proposed sites
arc appropriate
for airport
construction.
Compatible with
vicinity of Sea-
Tac. Central
Pierce airport
changes land use.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea-Tac = 230+;
Central Pierce =
Minor impacts
to Sea -Tac,
most facilities
in place.
New facilities
needed at
Central Pierce
site.
FIGURE 5
Possible Mitigation Measures Summary
Noise
• Preferential runway use and direction
• Flight track modifications
• Special nighttime procedures (i.e. Puget Sound departures)
• Nighttime operational restrictions
• Aircraft use restrictions (i.e. using only quieter Stage 111 aircraft at night)
• Noise abatement arrival and departure procedures
• Nighttime ground control measures (Le. engine run up restriction)
• Land use compatibility enhancement and retrofit (i.e. soundproofing)
Transportation
• Development of regional light rail and high - capacity transit systems.
• Roadway improvements including addition of lanes and added capacity to
regional arterials and freeways
• New regional arterials and freeways
• New or modified intersections and local street improvements in vicinity of
airports.
Air Quality
• Reduction of vehicular travel associated with project.
• Improvement of mass transit facilities.
• Support and compliance with the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020
plans and programs.
• Implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs and transportation
demand management programs.
Plants & Animals
Wetlands
• Protect wetlands with 25 to 300 foot buffer.
• If buffer is not feasible, prepare a mitigation plan which seeks to replace the
wetland functions and values that will be impacted by the project.
Streams
• Create or enhance sufficient stream habitat in the general area.
Vegetation /Wildlife
• Revegetating the sites, after construction, would reduce the impacts to plant
and animal communities.
• Avoiding areas with wetlands would serve to ensure no disturbance in
valuable areas.
Earth
• Avoiding all sensitive areas with potential geologic hazards would eliminate
significant impacts to earth resources.
• Modern construction practices and minimizing earth movement during rainy
seasons should control most earth impacts.
Land Use
• Local comprehensive plans and zoning regulations modified and implemented
in accordance with the Growth Management Act to accommodate planned
airports and facilties.
Public Services and Utilities
• Local facility plans modified and implemented in accordance with the
concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act to accommodate
planned airports and facilities.
11
INTRODUCTION
Just as the highways of our metropolitan area are becoming increasingly over - crowded, so too is our
region's only commercial air carrier airport, Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Sea -Tac). As the
population of the Puget Sound Region expands and as air travel becomes increasingly popular,
airfield congestion at Sea -Tac will continue to worsen. Airport congestion leads to longer delays for
those of us using air travel and to a general decline in the quality of airline service. In the end, this
will negatively affect the Puget Sound's trade dependent economy.
As part of its ongoing transportation planning for the region, the Puget Sound Regional Council
(formerly Puget Sound Council of Governments) in September of 1988 adopted the "Regional
Airport System Plan" which is a part of the "Regional Transportation Plan." One of the findings of
the plan was that Sea -Tac would reach its capacity sometime around the year 2000. As a result, the
airport will not be able to meet the growth in air passengers that is expected through the year 2020
and beyond. In response, the plan recommended that the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), in
cooperation with the Port of Seattle (operator of Sea -Tac), undertake a study to define a solution and
an action plan to meet our region's air travel needs to the year 2020 and beyond.
In May of 1989, the PSRC and the Port of Seattle entered into an interagency agreement which was
designed to "...establish a joint planning process between the Port and the [PSRC] for developing a
regional air carrier system plan for the Puget Sound Region." A major goal of the Project would be
to involve interested parties, governments, and citizens from throughout the region in the planning
process.
The interagency agreement created the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) which
was given the task of studying the precise nature and extent of the airport congestion problem and to
recommend a solution to the governing bodies of the PSRC and the Port. The PSATC is a thirty -
nine- member steering group made -up of citizens, local and state elected officials, representatives of
the business community, and aviation and environmental interests from King, Pierce, Snohomish,
Kitsap, and Thurston Counties. The air transportation system study undertaken by the PSATC was
called the "Flight Plan Project."
12
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Flight Plan Project was conducted in three phases.
Phase I consisted of the development of a mission statement and project objectives, a vision state-
ment, and preliminary forecasts of regional air travel demand. These products established the
character of the study effort and the scope of the commercial air transportation problem facing Puget
Sound residents and those who wish to travel and do business here.
The purpose of Phase II was to develop a broad range of conceptual aviation and non - aviation
system alternatives and to identify generic sites which would be used to help evaluate the system
alternatives. The system alternatives and sites were assessed at a basic level to eliminate those
which had significant impediments to implementation or were incompatible with the PSATC's
Vision Statement. The remaining system alternatives and sites were deemed to be potentially fea-
sible. After a series of public meetings to gather citizen's comments on the alternatives, the PSATC
finalized a list of feasible alternatives for extensive analysis in Phase III.
Phase III was designed to analyze and develop the remaining alternatives and options in depth and to
formulate the PSATC's draft recommendations. Alternatives were studied according to operational/
technical elements, economic /financial elements, institutional elements, and environmental ele-
ments.
Throughout all Phases of the Flight Plan Project, an extensive public involvement program was
carried out to keep citizens informed and to encourage them to be involved in the PSATC's work.
An overview of the public involvement process is presented at the end of Section Two.
Figure 6 shows the overall project schedule and includes the major tasks and milestones, completed.
•
FIGURE 6
Flight Plan Project Schedule
1990 1991 1992
IDec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Public Involvement Program
PHASE I
Issue Orientation
Mission Statement (objectives)
Vision Statement
PHASE II
Initial Forecasts .
Revised Forecasts
Development of System Alternatives
Analysis of System Alternatives
Development of System Altematives
Recommended/not recommended for further analysis
■NI■4111 approved 4/18/90
approved 9/19/90
am. approved 6/21/90
PHASE III
Indepth Analysis of Alternatives
(Operational/technical, economic /financial, institutional, environmental elements)
Evaluate Alternatives
Final Recommendations/Implementation Plan
approved 1/16/91
approved 11/28/90
• PSATC Decision ❑ PSATC Recommendation to Puget Sound Regional Council and Port of Seattle
approved 5/22/91
14
PHASE I SUMMARY
Mission Statement
The first step in the Project was for the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee to-formulate a
mission statement which presented their objectives for the region's air transportation system. Based
on several months of discussion, the PSATC adopted the following statement in April of 1990:
FIGURE 7
MISSION
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
The mission of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee is to strive
to meet our region's commercial air transportation needs for the first half
of the 21st century.
OBJECTIVES
Our air transportation system should:
* Utilize a planning process that involves all interested parties, govern-
ments, and citizens so as to seek broad public input and to ensure broad
public support of our eventual recommendations.
* Be compatible with the human and natural environment and avoid
adverse environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible.
* Be coordinated and integrated with all other transportation modes.
* Remain competitive nationally and internationally and meet the needs
of passengers and air cargo shippers.
* Accommodate regional population and economic growth and be inte-
grated with statewide economic and transportation plans.
* Consider and accommodate new and developing technologies.
The mission statement provided the PSATC with broad policy guidance for conducting the rest of
the Flight Plan Project.
15
Vision Statement
Following the agreement on the mission statement, the next step was to develop a vision statement
for the region's air transportation system in the year 2020. The purpose of the vision statement was
for the PSATC to set general goals and to delineate what issues it felt were most important in re-
gards to the air transportation system. It was written to guide the PSATC as it later developed and
evaluated system alternatives. Essentially, the vision statement is a goal for our future air transpor-
tation system and provided a standard by which the sytem alternatives could be compared. The
complete text of the vision statement can be found in Figure 8.
Initial Forecasts
In order to provide a measuring stick for the amount of demand the region's air transportation
system would need to accommodate in the coming decades, the PSATC developed preliminary
forecasts of air travel passengers out to the year 2020 and the aircraft operations (take -offs and
landings) needed to serve them. Predictions for air cargo levels were also made. The PSATC was
assisted in this effort by the aviation consulting firm of KPMG Peat Marwick.
The purpose of the initial forecasts prepared during Phase I was to determine the nature and extent
of the air traffic congestion problem facing the region at Sea -Tac and to determine how much addi-
tional air travel capacity would be needed in the future. The forecasts were then revised and en-
hanced in Phase II.
The major findings of the forecast process, which were adopted by the PSATC in June of 1990, were
that:
* 25.4 million annual airline passengers are forecast for the Puget Sound
Region in the year 2000 (Sea -Tac had 16.2 million passengers per year
in 1990).
* Saturation of Sea -Tac will begin when aircraft operations
380,000 per year - forecast to occur close to the year 2000. (Sea -Tac
handled 355,000 operations in 1990).
* Hourly capacity at Sea -Tac is greatly reduced during bad weather,
which occurs approximately 45 percent of the year.
* Delays at Sea -Tac in 2000 will be similar to those currently experi-
enced at airports like Chicago's O'Hare, New York's La Guardia, and
Washington, D.C.'s National.
* Airline passenger levels are growing mainly because of growth in the
region's economy, population, and increase in per capita demand for
flights. Most of the demand is for domestic flights.
16
FIGURE 8
VISION: AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 2020
This is our shared vision for the air transportation system in the year 2020.
We have an integrated air, land, and sea transportation system that will serve the region's travel needs world-
wide to the year 2050 and thereafter. The transportation system enhances the livability and environmental
integrity of the Pacific Northwest, is convenient and accessible to its users, promotes the economic vitality of
the state, and serves as a gateway to all domestic and world markets. This transportation system is recognized
worldwide as a leading model of transportation development.
THE VISION DEFINED
Environmental Ouality and Livability
The air and related ground transportation system enhances the overall environmental quality and livability of
the entire region, and particularly those communities surrounding transportation facilities. Specifically, it
enhances a quality environment relative to:
* Noise Exposure
* Air and Water Quality
* Accessibility and Freedom of Movement
* Health and Safety of People
* Protection of Sensitive Areas
The planning and development of the air and related ground transportation system has been used as an oppor-
tunity to shape the general development pattern of the region.
Regional Economic Vitality
The air transportation system enhances and stimulates the Puget Sound Region as an economic center for the
Pacific Northwest. The system serves as a major international gateway for domestic and world markets, thereby
promoting the economic vitality and well -being of the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest.
Integrated Transportation System
Air and surface transportation systems are totally integrated and support the fast, convenient, and cost - effective
movement of people and goods to and from communities within Washington, and between Washington and the
rest of the United States, the Pacific Rim, and the rest of the world.
The implementation of the integrated transportation system is coordinated among the affected and appropri-
ate parties.
Existing and emerging technologies are used to the greatest extent possible in a flexible system designed to
accommodate the future.
17
* The primary cause of Sea -Tac saturation will be caused by growth in
passenger aircraft operations.
* Air cargo and international flights are a small portion of total aircraft
operations. Only 3% of operations are by all -cargo flights, while
overseas international flights comprise only 5% of total operations.
No increase in all-cargo flights is expected since the growth in tonnage
will be carried on larger planes or in passenger planes.
* Sea -Tac moves more Asia - Europe "sea -air" cargo than any other
airport in the world. To stay competitive in the Far East -to- Europe
cargo market, the region must continue to provide adequate air service
facilities.
* Timely implementation of the PSATC's recommendations is needed to
accommodate the region's air travel needs.
Further information on the forecasts and the methodology used can be found in the Phase I Final
Report entitled "Phase I Forecasts, Flight Plan Study, Puget Sound Region" dated July 1990.
It is important to note that the future cannot be predicted with certainty. In the short term, there may
be substantial variations from the forecasts. However, short-term variations are not expected to alter
the long -term trends. Because of possible variations, the forecasts are best considered as activity
levels at which airport capacity decisions will need to be made. In other words, the forecasts indi-
cate what required facilities and capacity level will be needed in the future, but actual levels of
demand will drive when those facilities are actually implemented.
18
PHASE II SUMMARY
Revised Forecasts
The initial forecasts of aircraft operations made during Phase I of the Flight Plan Project were
revised in Phase II to tailor the operations forecasts to the specific trends of the Puget Sound Region.
Passenger and cargo forecasts remained the same. The revised forecasts examined more closely the
air travel characteristics in markets served from Sea -Tac.
The main result of the additional forecast analysis was that the number of total operations predicted
was moderately lowered. For example, in the year 2020 the initial forecasts anticipated 575,000
operations per year, while the revised forecasts lowered the number of operations for the same year
to 524,000. This was primarily due to the assumption that airlines serving three of Sea -Tac's key
markets (Spokane, Portland, and Vancouver, B.C.) would use larger planes in the future and would
therefore be able to carry more passengers for a given number of flights. The revised forecasts were
used through the remainder of the Flight Plan Project in developing and analyzing air transportation
system alternatives. A complete explanation of the revised forecasts can be found in Appendix J of
the Phase II Final Report entitled "Phase II: Development of Alternatives," dated June 1991.
Development of System Alternatives
With forecasts indicating the nature of the airport capacity problem within the region, the next step
for the PSATC was to begin to look for solutions. After hearing from several aviation experts and
airport professionals from other cities, the PSATC developed a comprehensive set of system alterna-
tives which can be classified into nine categories. The system alternatives below include both
aviation - related and non - aviation - related solutions and were the PSATC's first -cut at what potential
means were available for meeting the region's long term air travel needs.
System Alternatives
Base Case A: No major facility improvements at any Puget Sound air-
ports, except for those already underway
Base Case B: Short-term capital projects and policies that may be imple-
mented at Sea -Tac before the year 2000
Expand Sea -Tac: Full development of the existing airport site, roughly
within the current boundaries
Replacement Airport: Close Sea -Tac and build a single new airport
designed to meet the long -term aviation needs of the region.
19
Remote Airport: Development of a second airport operated in tandem
with Sea -Tac, with direct ground transportation connection to Sea -Tac
(either a close -in airport like Boeing Field, or a distant airport like Moses
Lake /Grant County). This alternative differs from a multiple airport
system in that the airports would be functionally linked.
Demand Management: Pricing and/or regulatory techniques which en-
courage the use of larger aircraft, flights during non -peak hours, and the di-
version of passengers to other travel modes.
New Technologies: New aircraft, air traffic control procedures, and other
technologies which enhance airport capacity
High -Speed Ground Transportation System: Development of a high-
speed ground transportation system (such as steel wheel or magnetic -
levitation trains) linking major urban areas to each other and the airport,
replacing a number of trips now taken by air and automobile
Screening of System Alternatives
The system alternatives selected by the PSATC represented a broad range of potential solutions to
the future commercial aviation capacity problems facing the Puget Sound Region. A two -stage
process was used to look at the alternatives and to eventually choose a preferred solution. The first
step was a preliminary screening of the alternatives in Phase II and the second step was an indepth
evaluation of the remaining alternatives during Phase III.
As a test to the technical feasibility and ability to meet the PSATC's vision, each of the alternatives
was analyzed to determine if any had fatal flaws that would make its implementation impossible or
impractical. A consulting team lead by Apogee Research assisted the PSATC in the analysis of the
alternatives.
In order to determine the workability of any of the system alternatives, it was necessary to make sure
that adequate sites would be available for each. Both existing airports and potential airport sites
were examined. The sites were used to develop a range of the benefits and impacts that would be
realized from each system alternative.
PSATC preferred alternative per draft recommendations
20
One of the first tasks in this process was to inventory existing airports throughout the region to see if
they could be used as sites for any of the airport- related alternatives. Fourteen airports were identi-
fied as candidates for further analysis. These were:
* Arlington Municipal Airport
* Auburn Municipal Airport
* Bellingham International
* Boeing Field (King County Airport)
* Bremerton National
* McChord Air Force Base
* Moses Lake Airport (Grant County)
* Olympia Airport
* Paine Field (Snohomish County Airport)
* Port Angeles Airport (Fairchild International)
* Renton Municipal Airport
* Seattle- Tacoma International Airport
* Skagit/Bayview Airport
* Tacoma Narrows Airport
The above sites were studied to see if they met basic acreage and facility requirements to accommo-
date each of the airport- related alternatives. If they did not currently have adequate facilities for any
of the airport- related alternatives, they were further examined according to a set of expandability
criteria to see if they could potentially be enlarged.
As a result of this initial screening, the Auburn, Port Angeles, Renton, and Tacoma airports were
dropped from further analysis. It was found that the sites were too small and too constricted by
urban development or topography to be used for any of the system alternatives. Although Belling-
ham International had promise in terms of size and existing facilities, the PSATC determined that it
was too far from existing and projected population centers of the Central Puget Sound to adequately
serve the region and was discarded on that basis.
A preliminary search for technically feasible sites for building new airports was also conducted. In
essence, the search criteria focused on areas throughout the region which would be large enough, flat
enough, and without apparent environmental roadblocks that could accommodate either a new
supplemental or a new replacement airport. The search was an initial screening of potential sites
only and was not a comprehensive site selection exercise. Counties searched were: Skagit,
Snohomish, Kitsap, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Lewis. This effort yielded the following five
"search areas:"
* Arlington/Stanwood Area (Snohomish County)
*
Enumclaw/Buckley Area (King/Pierce Counties)
* Fort Lewis /Spanaway Area (Pierce County)
* Olympia/Black Lake Area (Thurston County)
* Napavine Prairie Area (Lewis County)
21
A search area was not a specific site, but rather a small portion of the region in which potential sites
might be found. Other areas within the region were excluded from being search areas due to topog-
raphy, environmental problems or severe impacts to urban areas.
Concerning potential high -speed ground transportation alignments, two corridors had been sug-
gested in the past: 1) Vancouver, B.C. to Seattle to Portland via Sea -Tai Airport, and 2) Seattle
(Sea -Tac) to Moses Lake. The PSATC chose both of these alignments for further study as potential
options.
After identification of sites for each of the system alternatives was completed, the following ques-
tions were studied:
* Airspace: Are there conflicts with other airports or terrain?
* Capacity: How many aircraft operations can be accommodated (or
diverted)?
* Ground Access: How accessible is each site option to residents of the
Central Puget Sound Region?
* Investment Requirements: How much money would be needed for
construction?
* Economic Impact: What are the economic implications for the region
and its subareas?
* Implementation Feasibility: What major roadblocks might be en-
countered during implementation?
A three -step screening process was used to assess the system alternatives based on the answers
received to the above questions. The first step was to eliminate those alternatives that were found to
have serious problems in terms of the above issues. The second step was to create packages of
system alternatives from those that remained. This involved combining alternatives in such a way
that the resulting packages would be able to meet the air travel demand forecasts for 2020. The third
step was to measure the resulting packages in terms of how well they met the PSATC's vision
statement of providing adequate capacity to the year 2050.
System Alternatives Recommended for Further Analysis
In March of 1991, the Options Subcommittee of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
developed draft conclusions of what it considered to be alternatives that might be feasible or alterna-
tives which were not feasible as a result of the screening process. After a series of public hearings in
March and April of 1991 to gain public input on these conclusions, the PSATC approved the follow-
ing alternatives for indepth technical/operational, economic /financial, institutional, and environ-
mental analysis during Phase III of the Project:
22
* Replacement Airport: Close Sea -Tac and build a new airport capable
of meeting the region's long -term air travel needs.
Packaged with the above two alternatives were Demand Management
Techniques and New Technologies used to the maximum extent pos-
sible.
* Sea -Tac in conjunction with the maximum feasible package of: a)
demand management techniques, b) new technologies, and c) alternate/
modes of transportation. This package of previous solutions would r
attempt to meet future demand without additional runways. Y�
* Boeing Field as a Close -in Remote Airport: Earlier analysis of this al-
ternative by the FAA and the consultants to the PSATC concluded that
increased air traffic interaction between Sea -Tac and Boeing Field
would result in unacceptable operational reliability at Boeing Field
with no net capacity gain for the region. Additional analysis of the
airspace situation was requested to determine if it could be resolved. If
the airspace issue could be resolved, the Committee could consider this
as an additional alternative warranting further study.
The PSATC found that supplemental airports under the multiple airport system alternative might be
feasible at the Arlington, McChord Air Force Base, and Paine Field airports.
New supplemental airports or a new replacement airport might be built in the Arlington/Stanwood,
Fort Lewis /Spanaway, and Olympia/Black Lake search areas.
System Alternatives Not Recommended for Further Analysis
The remaining system alternatives from the initial list were determined not to be feasible as "stand
alone" alternatives. This means that any one of them by itself would not be able to meet the air
travel demands of our region in the year 2020. However, when it was practical, these alternatives
were packaged with the alternatives which were recommended for further analysis in Phase III.
Alternatives in this category were:
aPSATC preferred alternative per draft recommendations
23
* All of the initial Sea -Tac alternatives (Base Case A & B, and Expand
Sea -Tac) - Dropped due to inadequate capacity to meet the PSATC's
Vision.
* Distant Remote Airport linked to Sea -Tac by high -speed rail (the
Moses Lake option) - Dropped due to difficulty to implement, ex-
tremely high capital costs, and lack of accessibility to users.
High -Speed Ground Transportation linking Sea -Tac to Vancouver,
B.C. and Portland - Dropped due to extremely high capital costs and
small incremental benefit to airport capacity. However, the PSATC
encouraged and supported the study of rail by the State Air Transporta-
tion Commission and the State High -Speed Rail Commission.
* Demand Management as a stand -alone alternative - Dropped due to
inadequate capacity enhancement to meet the PSATC's Vision.
* New Technologies as a stand -alone alternative - Dropped due to inade-
quate capacity enhancement to meet the PSATC's Vision.
For more information on both the alternatives that were recommended for further analysis and
those that were not, as well as the results of the technical analysis and screening, please refer to
the Phase II final report entitled "Phase II: Development of Alternatives" dated June 1991.
24
PHASE III SUMMARY
Refinement of System Alternatives Recommended for Further Analysis
Phase III of the Flight Plan Project was designed to develop a specific list of alternatives by refining
the system alternatives and sites which were determined to be feasible or potentially feasible during
Phase II. This was done by re- examining those system alternatives which were determined to be
potentially feasible and by developing conceptual site layouts for each of the combinations of system
alternatives /site options. Using the site layouts, the alternatives were then evaluated indepth accord-
ing to a set of operational/technical, economic /financial, institutional, and environmental criteria.
Based on the indepth analysis, a preferred alternative was chosen.
One of the four system alternatives carried forward for further study from Phase II of the Flight Plan
Project - Boeing Field as a Close -In Remote Airport- was classified by the Puget Sound Air Trans-
portation Committee as "potentially feasible." This meant that the PSATC thought that this alter-
native might be workable, but further study was needed than was provided in Phase II.
In addition, a more broadly- defined Demand Management alternative was also examined in detail in
Phase III as well as a new iteration under the multiple airport system alternative which consists of a
three - airport system.
Further Study of Boeing Field as a Close -In Remote
Preliminary study of Boeing Field as a Close -In Remote Airport in Phase II indicated that serious
airspace conflicts with Sea -Tac would limit Boeing Field's feasibility for use as a commercial air
carrier airport. However, the PSATC wanted further study of this alternative to see if it could be
made to work before it was rejected. Therefore, in Phase III, a thorough examination of the Boeing
Field Airspace was done in a working paper entitled "Working Paper #1 - Boeing Field Airspace
Review." A copy of this paper can be found in Appendix B.
Essentially, the analysis revealed that the airspace between Boeing Field and Sea -Tac is already
congested and that adding commercial flights into Boeing Field would greatly increase airborne
delays in the system. Also, since the two airports are so close together, a unique air traffic control
procedure has already been developed (in 1989) to safely handle traffic using them. An increase in
flights into Boeing Field would eventually exceed the ability to use the procedure safely. Due to
these problems, the PSATC chose to drop the Boeing Field alternative from further consideration.
Indepth Analysis of Demand Management
In Phase III, the PSATC studied the application of Demand Management techniques in detail. A
panel of experts was convened to help the PSATC determine what specific methods were available
and what their benefits and drawbacks would be. In addition, a working paper (Working Paper # 4)
entitled "Demand Management" was prepared. Working Paper # 4 can be found in Appendix B.
25
The working paper explained that some forms of Demand Management are already being used at
Sea -Tac and that the Flight Plan Forecasts also took into account demand management concepts
such as larger -sized aircraft and higher load factors (number of seats filled on each flight). The
primary conclusion reached in the analysis was that Demand Management can be used to help shape
demand, but it is not designed to curtail demand. Also, Demand Management should be used as part
of a comprehensive package of solutions and is most effective for buying time in the short term until
additional airport capacity can be implemented. New technologies and alternate modes of transpor-
tation are part of a broad Demand Management concept that was incorporated into the "Do Noth-
ing" alternative that is presented in the EIS.
Multiple Airport System with Three Airports
Coming out of Phase II, one of the the alternatives recommended for further analysis was a multiple
airport system with Sea -Tac and one supplemental airport. Four iterations were defined under this
alternative depending on whether Sea -Tac would stay as it is or would add another runway and
whether the supplemental airport would have one runway or two.
At its August 15, 1991 meeting, the PSATC chose to add another series of cases under the multiple
airport system alternative - Sea -Tac with two supplemental airports (a three airport system). Under
this alternative, Sea -Tac would remain the primary commercial service airport and would handle all
types of service (including foreign and long haul domestic flights) while the two supplemental
ai . orts would • . I • - - rvi .: to re .1* • . -, ike P • rtland Vaneouver B.C. and Spokane a
to some major hub airports in the west like Salt Lake Cit enver and San Francisco. One of the
supplemental airports would be located in the northern part of the region and the other in the south-
ern part. The supplemental airports could either have one or two runways each.
This iteration was added due to the PSATC's interest in planning for air travel demand not only to
2020 but also beyond. Under the concept, development of the system would be phased, with each
supplemental airport being added or expanded only when demand warranted.
Development of Site Concepts
In order to evaluate the system alternatives according to specific, localized impacts, it was necessary
to develop conceptual site layouts in actual locations. The Flight Plan Project looked at two types of
sites: existing airports and potential sites for construction of new airports. The first type already had
a specific location which could be used to test the alternatives, but for the latter type, a specific test
site had to be chosen from the search areas carried - forward from Phase It
Both types of sites served as test cases for the future noise levels, traffic impacts, site acquisition and
construction costs, airspace, and economic impacts, etc. that would be encountered in implementing
one of the system -level alternatives.
Sites were initially screened for fatal flaws in Phase II of the Project. For the sites that remained, the
Phase III consultant prepared layouts of each of the system alternatives as they applied to each of the
26
individual sites. Included were locations of runways, parking areas, passenger terminal, and other
airport support services.
For the new airport search areas developed in Phase II, it was necessary to define a particular loca-
tion within the area for the site. This was done with preliminary research and was not intended to be
a thorough siting exercise. Additional comprehensive studies would need to be completed in order
to choose a best site for any newly - constructed airports.
For existing airports, additional facilities were located based on the consultant's initial examination
of existing facilities and surrounding development. The layout drawings for each site and alternative
as well as text describing them can be found in Working Paper #6 in Appendix B.
One of the search areas recommended for use as a test case in Phase II, the Fort Lewis /Spanaway
Area, was renamed the "Central Pierce County Area" in Phase III to reflect that it not only included
the military land of Fort Lewis, but also the land off of the Fort to the east. This expanded definition
of the search area allowed the PSATC to include sites in the southern portion of the region that
would be either on or off of federal land.
The resulting list of alternatives and sites for which conceptual layouts were developed included:
Sea -Tac Airport Alternatives
* Sea -Tac with or without a new commuter runway
* Sea -Tac with or without a new dependent air carrier runway
Supplemental Airport Alternatives
* Existing Arlington Airport with runway extension
* Arlington Airport with a new runway
* Existing Paine Field
* Paine Field with a new runway
* Existing McChord Air Force Base used jointly with military
* McChord AFB with a new runway used jointly with military
* Supplemental airport at Central Pierce site with one runway
* Supplemental airport at Central Pierce site with two runways
* Supplemental airport at Olympia/Black Lake site with one runway
* Supplemental airport at Olympia/Black Lake site with two runways
Replacement Airport Alternatives
* Replacement airport at Central Pierce site with three runways
* Replacement airport at Olympia/Black Lake site with three runways
* Replacement airport at Fort Lewis site with three runways
27
List of Alternatives/Options
From the system alternatives carried forward from Phase II and the site concepts outlined
above, a comprehensive list of the various combinations of alternatives /site options was pre-
pared. The 34 alternatives presented in the list below were then extensively evaluated and a
preferred alternative was chosen:
System Alternative Airport Options
Do Nothing 1
2
Sea -Tac without commuter R/W
Sea -Tac with commuter R/W
Multiple Airport 3 Alternate 1 & Arlington 1 R/W
System with Two 4 Alternate 1 & Paine 1 R/W
Airports 5 Alternate 1 & McChord 1 R/W
6 Alternate 1 & Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 Alternate 1 & Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Alternate 1 & Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 & Paine 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 & McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 & Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Ali`emate 1 & Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Arlington 1 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Paine 1 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & McChord 1 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Oly/Blk Lake 1 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Arlington 2 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Paine 2 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & McChord 2 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Cent. Pierce 2 R/W
Sea -Tac w/ Dependent R/W & Oly/Blk Lake 2 R/W
Multiple Airport 23 Alternate 1 & Arlington 1 R/W & C. Pierce 1 R/W
System with Three 24 Alternate 1 & Paine 1 R/W & C. Pierce 1 R/W
Airports 25 Alternate 1 & Arling. 1 R/W & Oly/Blk Lake 1 R/W
26 Alternate 1 & Paine 1 R/W & Oly/Blk Lake 1 R/W
Alternate 13 & Central Pierce 1 R/W
Alternate 14 & Central Pierce 1 R/W
Alternate 13 & Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
Alternate 14 & Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
1
Li \IPSATC preferred alternative per draft recommendations (note: alternative 30 to
/ be used only if a supplemental site cannot be acquired in the Central Pierce area)
28
Replacement 31 Central Pierce w/ 3 R/W
Airport 32 Olympia/Black Lake w/ 3 R/W
33 Fort Lewis w/ 3 R/W
Do Nothing 34 Alternate 1 & Demand Management
Distribution and Satisfaction of Regional Demand
In Phase I of the Flight Plan Project, forecasts of regional air passenger demand to the year 2020
were prepared. These indicated total air passengers that would use airports in the Central Puget
Sound Region. As part of the analysis of the alternatives in Phase III, market areas were defined for
each of the site options and the regional demand was disaggregated to each. This was done . to show
what the expected number of passengers would be that would use each site and what number of
aircraft operations would be needed to serve them.
Under single airport systems, the market area for the airport was defined as the entire Central Puget
Sound Region. For multiple airport systems, the market area for each airport was delineated by
determining which people in the region could get to that airport in less travel time than to any other
airport in the system. A thorough explanation of the methodologies used to determine the market
areas and passenger demand for each airport site can be found in Working Papers #3 and #5 in
Appendix B. Working Paper #3 was an initial disaggregation of regional demand to smaller sub-
regions and lead to the conclusion that a three - airport multiple airport system should be examined.
Working Paper #5 was a more - thorough examination of individual airport market areas.
It is important to note that the market areas described above were based on year 2020 data and that
the demand figures for each represents a likely eventual outcome. In the decades before 2020, the
market areas for individual sites will become viable to support commercial aviation at different
times. This is based on differing population bases and growth rates that exist in different parts of the
region. As markets become viable from a profit point of view, airlines will begin to serve an airport
with a few flights per day during peak travel times. With growth in the market, more and more
flights will be added and service will improve.
lEvaluation Methodology
The major portion of work done in Phase III was the preparation and application of a series of
working papers which dealt with the operational technical, economic /financial, institutional, and
environmental factors which were used to evaluate the 34 alternatives /site options indepth. The
working papers as they were adopted by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee can be
found in the Appendices. The environmental working papers (# 12A, 12B & 12C) were later incor-
porated into the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement which is Appendix E.
The 34 alternatives /site options presented above were then evaluated indepth according to the spe-
cific methodology which is discussed in Working Paper #2 in Appendix A. The methodology was
designed to evaluate the system alternatives /site options in a rigorous and consistent manner by
researching a broad range of data.
Evaluation is a planning process that measures the relative conformance of alternatives to a set of
common factors. Factors which can be measured or quantified are expressed in units of size, vol-
ume, population, dollars, weight, etc.. Non - measurable or qualitative factors are usually ranked
according to their relative position on a rating scale that may be either weighted or not weighted.
The main focus of the evaluation was to allow for system alternatives /site options to be compared to
one another rather than studied in absolute terms. This means that the relative rank of the alterna-
tives /site options as compared to one another is more important than the absolute values obtained for
any single one.
The factors which were used to evaluate the system alternatives /site options are outlined below:
Operational/Technical Elements - Appendix B
* Runway Capacity:
(Working Paper #7)
Measured in aircraft operations
(take -offs and landings) per year, this
factor indicates the future air travel
demand that can be accommodated
* Airspace: A ranking based on a preliminary
(Working Paper #7) review of the amount of interaction or
conflict that would occur with planes
operating to and from other airports or
restrictions caused by terrain
* Accessibility:
(Working Paper #9)
Measured in terms of the percentage of
the region's population that can get to a
given site in sixty minutes or less and
total travel mileage, this factor indicates
convenience and market viability
Economic/Financial Elements, - Appendix C
* Capital Costs:
(Working Paper #11)
Measured in dollars, this factor
indicates the cost to build (including land
acquisition and construction)
29
30
* Aircraft Delay Costs:
(Working Paper #11)
* Funding:
(Working Paper #11)
* Economic Impacts:
(Working Paper #8)
Measured in dollars per year, this
factor indicates the costs incurred due to
an airport being operated above its
capacity (assuming service reductions are
not imposed due to congestion). It can
also be used to measure the amount of
operational capacity which is available .
relative to the number of passengers
served
A ratio of the funds which will be
generated over a twenty year period and the
capital improvement costs, this factor indicates
financial viability
A ranking based on the level and
distribution of economic benefits that would be
generated for the region
Institutional Elements - Appendix D
This evaluation element can not be quantified. It involves factors such as the socio-
political acceptance of the best alternative and the use of recent or potential new
legislation in order to implement and operate the recommended alternative.
The institutional analysis revealed that all of the alternatives could be implemented,
but instead of developing a ranking, the results of the analysis were used in the draft
recommendations to help develop an action plan for implementing the preferred
alternative.
It was also found that the Flight Plan Project Recommendations can become part of the
Puget Sound Region's framework for meeting the guidelines of the state's Growth
Management Act.
Environmental Elements - Appendix E, Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement
* Noise Impacts:
(Working Paper #12A)
* Air Quality:
(Working Paper #12B)
Measured in terms of five different
criteria, most important of which is the number of
people who would be exposed to a noise level of
65 Ldn or greater
Measured in tons per year of Carbon
Monoxide and Nitrogen Oxides emitted from
both vehicles and aircraft
31
* Wetlands Impacts:
(Working Paper #12C)
Measured in acres of wetlands affected
* Salmon Stream Impacts: Measured in feet of streams affected
(Working Paper #12C)
In addition to the above factors, the working papers examined other factors within each of the four
categories (operational/technical, economic /financial, institutional, and environmental). However,
the above factors were used as the best representatives for each of the elements.
$ummary of Evaluation Results
Both the system -level alternatives and the individual sites were evaluated according to the opera -
tional/technical, economic /financial; institutional, and environmental factors. Data was collected at
the site level and then aggregated for each of the system alternatives. The full details of the analyses
can be found in the various working papers in the Appendices.
In order to present the data from the working papers in a concise format, summary tables were
prepared. Data summaries at the system alternative level and by site options are presented in Fig-
ures 9 and 10 respectively. Following the data summary tables are the important points gathered
from the evaluation process.
Operational/Technical Elements
Runway Capacity
The capacity analysis found that Sea -Tac as it is now would not be able to meet the
region's air travel needs past the year 2000. Sea -Tac was determined to have a prac-
tical capacity of 380,000 take -offs and landings each year. Above this level, delays
would begin to rise rapidly. In 1990, Sea -Tac handled 355,000 operations.
It was determined that the best long -term alternative in terms of capacity would be a
three - airport system which included Sea -Tac and eventually two supplemental
airports. This alternative would provide adequate capacity through the year 2020
and beyond.
FIGURE 9
System Alternatives Data Summary
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
DESCRIPTION (NO. OF INSTRUMENT RWYS)
SEA -TAC WITH DEM MGT (1 )'
OPERATIONAL TECHNICAL
RUNWAY
CAPACITY
(1000 OPS)
Working
Paper 7
ECONOMIC /FINANCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCESSIBILITY
( %POPULATION
WITHIN 60 MIN.)
Working
Paper 9
CAPITAL
COSTS
($MILLIONS)
Working
Paper 11
DELAY
COSTS
($MILLIONS)
Working
Paper 11
JOBS
(1000)
Working
Paper 8
TOTAL
POPULATION
TO 65 LDN
Working
Paper 12A
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT (3)
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
}EXISTING SEA -TAC. & ONE 1 -RWY SUPL (2)
EXISTING SEA -TAC & ONE 2 -RWY SUPL (3)
SEA -TAC + AC RW & ONE 1 -RW SUPL (3)"
SEA -TAC + AC RW & ONE 2 -RW SUPL (4)
T)jREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
• XISTING SEA-TAC &'TWO 1 -FILM SUPL (3Y
SEA -TAC + AC RW & TWO 1 -RW SUPL (4)
SEA -TAC + AC RW & TWOs2 -RW SUPL (6)
$; Does not meet projected demand.
380
750
630
i60:810-)
730
860 -980
880
980-
1060 -1480 _
79
22 -34
79 -92
' 79 -92
79 -92
79 -92
92 -96
, 92 -96
92 -96
230
1,564 - 2,078
466 - 730
474 - 879
788 - 1,043
786 - 1,158
788 - 1,028
1,086 - 1,362
1,320 -1,760
4,900
1,600
4,900 - 5,100
4,900
2,500 - 2,900
2,500 - 2,900
4,400 - 4,900
1,800 - 2,500
1,500 2,100
246
310 -311
289 -307
303 -307
303-304
303 -304
305 -307
303 -305
303 -305
7,000
300 -2,800
8,200
8,300
13,500
14,000
7,900
13,600
13,600
AIR QUALITY
(TOTAL TONS /DAY)
CO NOX
Working Working
Paper 12B Paper 12B
34 -46
76 -85
30 -47
30 -48
33 -38
33 -38
x-29 = 36 /
28 -35
28 -35
8 -10
16 - 17
8 -10
8 -11
8 -9
8 -9
8 -9
8 -9
8 -9
SITES
FIGURE 10
Site Options Data Summary
OPERATIONAUTECHNJCAL
ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RUNWAY
CAPACITY
(OPS)
Worldno
Paper7
AIRSPACE
(RANK)
Waking
Paper 7
ACCESS
( %POP IN
60 MIN)
Working
Paper 9
CAPITAL
COSTS
(ZMILI IONS)
Working
Paper 11
DELAY
COSTS
(p.m LIONS)
Working
Paper 11
FUNDS/
COST
(RATIO)
Waking
Paper 11
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
(RANK)
Working
Paper 8.
LdN65 POP
YR 2000
11000 POI')
• Working
Paper 12A
TOTAL EMISSIONS
(TONS/DAY)
CO NOX
Working WordIng
Paper 12B Paper 12B
WETLANDS
(ACRES)
Working
Paper 13
TAC
Existing with Dem. Mgt. 380.000 2 79 230 • 4,900 4 2 7 46 jo 0
Now Air Confer Runway 480,000 2 79 616 1.500 - 2,900 2.8x.1 2 11 8-13.0 is -38 6- e 0
ARLINGTON
One Runway 250.000 2 14 156-252 30 - 50 0.8 -1.4 3 0 1 0.7 3 1 0 0
Two Runways 500.000 2 ' 14 201-358 30 - 50 0.7 -1.1 3 0 -0.5 - 3 2 0
Mt1CHORD AFB
One Runway 250,000- 4 39 139.263 30 - 50 1.5 2 0 1 0 8 2 1 2 0
Two Rummy. 250.000 5 - 39 . 170.294 30 - 50 1.1 -1.4 2 :0.1 -0.8 2 1 2
PANE FIELD
One Runway 250.000- 3 46 427 -549 20 - 50 0.4 -0.7 3 0 1 -1.2 5 .1 35
Two Runway, 500.000- 6 48 523- 645 20 - 50 0.4-0.6 3 0.1 -1.3 s .1 35 0
CENTRAL PIERCE a° - - ---_- r
One Runway 250.000 4 34 319-415 30 - 50 0.7 -1 0 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 - 0
wo Ruwray, 300.000 , Cli-s,' 34 542-698 20 - 50 0.4 -0.8 1 0-0.5 3 1 3 - 0
Thraa Runways 750.000 2 `34 2078 1,600 1.3 .2 2.8 76 16 28 0
OLYMPWBLACK LAKE
One Runway 250.000 1 22 314 433 30 • 50 0.4 .0 9 2 0 0 1 11 2 0 2.000
Two Runway, 300.000 1 22 ' 364-625 30 - 50 0.4 -0.7 2 0 -0.1 13 3 36 7,000
Three Runways 750.000 1 22 1809 1.600 1.5 3 0.3 65 17 81 21,600
FT. LEWIS
Three Runway, 750.000 4 34 1564 1.600 1.8 2 1 3 76 16 0 4.000
SALMON
STREAMS
(FEET)
Working
Paper 13
0
0
0
0
J
34
Accessibility/Demand
A three - airport multiple.airport system was found to best serve regional demand
because it would provide the greatest number of sites from which people could get
airline service.
Supplemental airport sites which are relatively close to the region's centers of popu-
lation (Sea -Tac, Paine Field, McChord, Central Pierce, Fort Lewis) are expected to
capture a larger market in a more reasonable time frame than those sites which are
relatively more distant (Arlington and Olympia/Black Lake).
The accessibility of replacement airport sites is worse than for any other option due
to the lack of suitable sites close to the region's population.
In terms of integration with other forms of transportation, Sea -Tac, Paine Field, and
McChord are the best. These sites are most proximate to the Interstate 5 corridor
and are accessible to rail lines, harbors, and highways. In addition, Sea -Tac and
Paine are the only sites which are being considered for service by the proposed
regional light rail system.
Airspace
No single metric exists which can be used to evaluate airspace issues. Rather,
airspace can be classified along a continuum of workable to non - workable which is
defined by the type of airspace restrictions and problems that may be encountered.
As a result, the Flight Plan consultant identified the various airspace conflicts that
would occur if commercial airline service were started at any of the airport sites and
developed a ranking.
It is important to note that although conflicts may be present, it does not mean that
the airspace cannot be made to work. The level of analysis conducted in Flight Plan
did not look at specific solutions to airspace conflicts.
In general, the most constricted airspace occurs over the Pierce County sites due to
interaction with current military activities at McChord Air Force Base and at Fort
Lewis and due to constraints caused by Mt. Rainier and the Cascade foothills.
Economic /Financial Elements
Capital Costs
In terms of capital costs alone, the most expensive alternative is a replacement
airport with the alternative of doing nothing being the least expensive.
35
Delay Costs
The most expensive alternatives in terms of delay costs involve doing nothing at
Sea -Tac or Sea -Tac with Demand Management alone. Overall, delay can best be
reduced with a replacement airport since it would be built large enough to accom-
modate all of the demand placed on the regional system. Other than the replacement
airport, the alternate that reduces delay the most is the three - airport multiple airport
system.
Delay can also be significantly reduced with a dependent runway at Sea -Tac since
Sea -Tac's capacity would then be in line with the demand being placed upon it. A
new dependent runway is needed at Sea -Tac to meet short-term demand that is
forecast by the year 2000. However, even after 2000 when a supplemental airport
would be in service, the new dependent runway will continue to be needed to meet
the demand for air service at Sea -Tac since the regional market will still be focused
at Sea -Tac.
Funding
In terms of overall costs (capital and delay costs), a phased three - airport multiple
airport system is the least expensive because it reduces delay costs and has only
moderate capital costs.
Supplemental airports may not be financially self - supporting in the short term, but
some forms of funding support and/or subsidy measures may be available (poten-
tially from Sea -Tac).
Economic Impacts
Airport activity leads to two basic types of economic impacts: 1) an increase in
jobs, sales, and tax revenues and 2) maintenance and enhancement of the Puget
Sound Region's strong position in national and global markets. A do nothing
approach would harm the region's and the state's economy because it does not
provide the high - quality air service needed to attract and retain higher -wage em-
ployers.
A phased three - airport system provides the highest total economic benefits to the
region and distributes the benefits to the most communities. A three - airport system
in which Sea -Tac has a new dependent runway ranks the best because it: 1) opti-
mizes the use of existing facilities which are closest to the region's centers of popu-
lation, 2) strengthens the region's ability to compete for global air- dependent com-
merce, and 3) preserves the best air connections to other airports throughout the
State of Washington.
36
Environmental Elements
Noise Impacts
Noise at Sea -Tac will be significantly reduced because of a quieter aircraft fleet
using the airport in the coming decade (nearly 100 per cent Stage III by 2001).
Noise at Sea -Tac will be further reduced if supplemental airports are used because it
will be required to handle less traffic than it otherwise would. Under a do nothing
alternative at Sea -Tac, air traffic would be forced into more noise sensitive times of
the day.
Using sites that currently handle jet aircraft operations minimizes the amount of
people newly exposed to aircraft noise.
A multiple airport system distributes the single event noise across the region, but
with a lower number of events at each site.
Total Air Emissions
The two primary sources of air pollutant emissions under all of the, alternatives are
cars and aircraft. Multiple airport systems with close -in supplemental airports have
the greatest accessibility and therefore reduce somewhat the total amount of vehicu-
lar emissions. If a regional rail transit system is implemented, fewer vehicle trips
would be generated by passengers and airport employees and emissions would be
further reduced. Also, since multiple airport systems reduce the amount of aircraft
delay, emissions from this source are also reduced.
Since possible replacement airports are less accessible, they increase vehicle miles
traveled and the amount of vehicular emissions.
Wetlands, Salmon Streams and Other Natural Environment
Alternatives at undeveloped sites tend to have the highest natural environmental
impacts related to wetlands, salmon streams and other flora and fauna habitats. Lo-
cating airports in developed areas protects rural areas and decreases the loss of open
space. Sites without existing airports are also subject to the greatest land use
changes if a new airport is built.
In order to facilitate the comparison of the data in the summary tables (Figures 9 & 10), letter
"grades" were assigned to each alternative and site according to each of the,evaluation factors.
These grade sheets are presented in Figures 11 & 12.
Both the data summary tables and the grade sheets were used by the PSATC to help choose a pre-
ferred alternative and secondary alternatives for analysis in the Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement.
•
FIGURE 11
System Alternatives Comparative Summary
OPERATIONAUTECHNICAL
ECONOMIC /FINANCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
DESCRIPTION (NO. OF INSTRUMENT RWYS)
SEA -TAC WITII DEM MGT (1 )'
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT (3)
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC & ONE 1 -RWY SUPL (2)
EXISTING SEA -TAC & ONE 2 -RWY SUPL (3)
SEA -TAC + AC RW & ONE 1 -RW SUPL (3)
SEA -TAC + AC RW & ONE 2 -RW SUPL (4)
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC & TWO 1 -RW SUPL (3)
SEA -TAC + AC RW & . WO 1 -RW SUPL (4)
SEA -TAC + AC RW & TWO 2 -RW SUPL 6
• Does not meet projected demand.
RUNWAY
CAPACITY
Working
Paper 7
1)
C
C-
C-
C
B
C
B.
A
ACCESSIBILITY
Working
Paper 9
B-
D-
B
B
13
B
A
A
A
CAPITAL
COSTS
Working
Paper 11
A
D
B+
B
B-
B-
B-
C.
C-
DELAY
COSTS
Working
Paper 11
1)
A
D
D
C•
C
C-
B
13+
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
Working
Paper 8
D
D
C
C
13
B
A
A
A
AIR
NOISE QUALITY
Working Working
Paper 12A Paper 12B
13 A
A D
B B+
B B
B B-
B 13-
B 13
B- 13
B- B
FIGURE 12
Site Options Comparative Summary
SITES
OPERATIONAL/TECHNICAL
ECONOMIC /FINANCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RUNWAY
CAPACITY
Working
Paper 7
AIRSPACE
Working
Paper 7
ACCESS
Working
Paper 9
CAPITAL
COSTS
Working
Paper 11
DELAY
COSTS
Working
Paper 11
FUNDS/
COST
Working Paper
11
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
Working
Paper 8
LdN 65
POPULATION
Working Paper
12A
OTHER
Working Pa-
pers 12b, 13
SEA -TAC
Existing with Dem. Mgt.
B-
B
A
A
D
A
B
C
A-
New Air Carrier Runway
B
B
A
C
C
A
B
C-
B+
ARLINGTON
One Runway
C
B
D
A
A
B
C
B+
A
Two Runways
B
B
D
B
A
B
C
A-
A
McCHORD AFB
One Runway `
C-
C-
B-
A
A
B
B
B +
A-
Two Runways
C
D
B-
A
A
B
B
B +
A-
PAINE FIELD
One Runway
C
C
B
C
A
C
C
B
B+
Two Runways
B
D
B
C
A
C
C
B
B+
CENTRAL PIERCE
One Runway
C
C- v
C
B
A
B
A
A-
A
Two Runways
B
D
C
C
A
C
A
A-
A-
Three Runways
A
B
C
D
C
B
B
C
-C+
OLYMPIA /BLACK LAKE
One Runway
C
A
C-
B
A
C•
B
A
A-
Two Runways
B
A
C-
C
A
C _
. B
A
B
Three Runways
A
A
C -.
D
C
B
C
A-
D
FT. LEWIS
Three Runways
A
C-
C
D
C
8
13
B-
C
39
Public Hearings on the Draft Recommendations and Draft Programmatic EIS
During late January and early February, a series of eight public hearings will be held in King, Pierce,
Snohomish, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties to gather public testimony on the draft recommendations
and on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. After considering the comments
received at the hearings and by mail, the PSATC will finalize its recommendations and a Final
Programmatic EIS will be prepared. It is expected that the PSATC will present its final recommen-
dations to the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Port of Seattle for adoption and action in April.
40
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
One of the components of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee's, Mission Statement was
to develop a recommendation that merits and attracts broad public support of the Committee's
recommendations by involving citizens in the Flight Plan Project. To this end, a wide variety of
means were used to keep citizens informed on what was happening with the Project and to allow
them the opportunity to provide input to the Committee and to help shape the recommendations.
The outreach activities of the PSATC were guided by the Public Involvement Subcommittee. An
overview of each of the public involvement tools used is presented below.
Informational Outreach
Newspaper Supplement
To assist in informing citizens about the PSATC's draft recommendations and how comments can
be made, a newspaper supplement will be inserted in weekday editions of fifteen papers throughout
the region (including the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Bremerton Sun, the Ever-
ett Herald, the Tacoma News Tribune, and the Olympian). The supplement will be released in mid -
January and will provide background information on the Flight Plan Project and will outline the
PSATC's draft recommendations as they are presented in this report. Dates and places for public
hearings on the Flight Plan draft recommendations and Draft Programmatic EIS, as well as where
written comments can be sent, will also be announced.
Newsletters
The PSATC produced six newsletters over the course of the Flight Plan Project which discussed
major milestones of the Project, important study findings, and announced upcoming Committee
meetings and other forums through which citizens could give the PSATC feedback. Newsletters
were distributed to the Project's mailing list and included approximately 4300 citizens, community
and business leaders, and local and state elected officials. Two additional newsletters are planned
for 1992.
Slideshow
Two slideshows were prepared which discussed the nature of the air capacity problem facing the
region and the alternatives being explored by the PSATC. Staff presented the slideshows to numer-
ous civic and community groups, clubs, representatives of local and state governments, and other
organizations. The slideshows were a concise and consistent way to educate and inform.
41
Ongoing Briefings
Flight Plan Committee members and staff met with a wide range of community groups, business
leaders, the press, and representative of governments to discuss the Project. The slideshows, news-
letters, and detailed Project summaries were often used to provide extensive background informa-
tion.
Press Releases and Media Contact
Before each PSATC meeting, media advisories were sent to reporters and editors throughout the
region. Project staff spoke regularly with area reporters to keep them abreast of the Project issues.
Press releases were issued to announce major PSATC decisions and clippings of relevant articles
were distributed to all PSATC members. In addition, two media "brown bag lunches" were held,
one during Phase II and one during Phase III. At the lunches, the staff provided detailed technical
information to the media and answered questions.
Constituent Services
A full -time public involvement coordinator was available to respond to questions and requests for
information both by phone and in writing. Several hundred citizens utilized this service.
Collection of Public Input
Public Open Houses /Scoping Meetings
During November of 1990, a series of six public meetings were held throughout the region to pro-
vide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the system alternatives and sites being considered,
to suggest other alternatives, and to identify the environmental impacts that should be addressed in
the Draft Programmatic EIS. The meetings were conducted in an open house format and provided
citizens the opportunity to submit scoping comments for the Project's Draft Programmatic EIS.
Notice of the scoping meetings and the address for scoping comments were published in the Seattle
Times, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Tacoma News Tribune, the Everett Herald, and the Bremer-
ton Sun.
Public Meetings
At the end of Phase II of the Flight Plan Project, the PSATC developed a draft list of alternatives
that it considered might be feasible. Before a final set of alternatives was chosen for indepth analy-
sis, the PSATC held four meetings throughout the region in March and April of 1991 to gather
42
testimony from citizens and agencies. Over 150 people testified at the meetings and over 200
written comments and letters were received.
To provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the PSATC's draft recommendations and on
the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, a series of eight public hearings will be
held in late January and early February. Citizens may also comment in writing.
Focus Groups
Focus groups provide a format for gauging public opinion by inviting a random group of people to
speak candidly on an issue. Two sets of focus groups were held for the Flight Plan Project. The first
set of focus groups were held in late 1989 and the second set were held in October 1991. The
purpose of the focus groups was to provide the PSATC with an indication of the public's feelings on
our air transportation system and to help the PSATC be more aware of citizen's concerns.
Public Opinion Survey
Along the same goals as the focus groups, a public opinion survey on the region's air transportation
system was conducted in December of 1990. The survey was conducted by phone and was designed
to provide a representative sample of public opinion. The results were presented to the PSATC in
January of 1991.
APPENDIX A
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
WORKING PAPER # 2
PRESENTED
JULY 25, 1991
ADOPTED
AUGUST 15, 1991
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: July 13, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
FROM: P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 2 - EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
A -1
This document presents the consultant's proposal of an evaluation methodology to be applied to
alternative airport development plans selected and identified in Phase II of Flight Plan. Phase III
will apply a more detailed evaluation of the alternative plans with the objective to identify the
best plan to adopt and implement.
Evaluation is a planning process that measures the relative conformance of alternatives to a set
of common factors. The factors are either those that can be measured or those that cannot.
Measurable or quantifiable factors are expressed in monetary units or other measures of quantity
such as size, weight, volume, etc. The non - measurable or qualitative factors are generally
expressed according to a relative position on a rating scale that is either weighted or not
weighted.
It is important that quantifiable evaluation factors be calculated to the same degree of accuracy
for all alternatives because the methodology depends on comparative differences rather than
absolute values. In the case of qualitative factors, a rating scale of 1 to 7 (based on the number
of strategies) may be used to rate conformance of each strategy to the factor. Since there will
be several qualitative factors, some planners prefer to place greater importance on certain factors
by placing a weighting value to those factors. This approach may increase the subjectivity of
a process that is already subjective.
Following this introduction section are discussions pertaining to a proposed evaluation
methodology that embraces the following broad subject areas:
• Operational
• Environmental
• Economic
• Institutional
• Financial
PaD Aviation A Division of P&D Tac/ndopias
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
OPERATIONAL FACTORS
WP2 -Page 2
Operational factors, generally, can be quantified. They have to do with comparative costs of
the alternative plans with respect to operational costs of the users and the providers. Operational
costs cover the expenses of the airlines, the airport sponsor, the passengers and other users of
the airport and related agencies responsible for infrastructure development and air traffic control.
Set out below are the significant operational factors to be considered in the evaluation process.
A. AIRCRAFT DELAY COSTS
Airlines may incur additional aircraft operating costs due to the ability (capacity) of each
alternative to handle traffic and the associated delay consequences. These additional aircraft
operating costs can be quantified by multiplying the delay hours (hours in addition to normal
operating time) by the hourly operating cost of each aircraft subject to delay.
B. AIRLINE STATION COSTS
The cost of operating an airline station is more or less proportional to the passenger and baggage
demand processed. This cost can be varied depending upon the efficiency of the station. For
instance, if the same number of passengers must be processed at two stations instead of a single
station (multiple airport system vs. single airport), there is a certain amount of redundancy in
personnel and equipment which will increase the station cost per passengers processed.
Therefore, a comparative airline station cost can be calculated for the alternative plans to be
evaluated.
C. AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING COSTS (M &O Costs)
Airport M &O costs will vary proportionally to the extent of facilities to be maintained and
operated. These can be calculated for each alternative plan evaluated.
D. GROUND TRAVEL COSTS (of Passengers)
The cost of traveling to the airport from the originating passenger's point of origin within the
region can vary depending upon the location of the airport within the region. The ground travel
cost has two components: the vehicle operating cost and the value of the passenger's time in
the duration of the ground trips. The latter component is difficult to quantify while the vehicle
operating cost is an easily calculable quantity. It is recommended that the value of the
passenger's time be disregarded in the calculation of the ground travel cost factor.
E. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL COSTS (ATC)
AID Aviation
A DiNsion of PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP2 -Page 3
A -3
ATC costs involve the expenses of FAA to provide personnel and equipment to control air traffic
in the region. It is obvious that ATC costs will be less if all commercial operations are
conducted at a single airport. A multiple airport system is bound to increase ATC costs in terms
of both personnel and equipment and can be calculated for each alternative plan evaluated.
F. SATISFACTION OF DEMAND
This operational factor is the most difficult to quantify. Most likely, it should be evaluated on
a rating scale varying between yes to no. The range of the scale should be on the order of 1 to
7 where "1" is total satisfaction of demand and "7" is the worst satisfaction of demand.
G. CONCESSION COSTS
This factor involves the concession's income derived from the population (passengers,
employees, visitors and vendors) that inhabit the airport. This population more or less is a
stable number; however, if it is dispersed over more than one airport, then the cost to service
the population by the concessionaires will increase. This can be calculated for each alternative
evaluated.
H. INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
The decision for airport facilities to serve the region well into the 21st Century will have
ramifications on the costs to provide infrastructure facilities such as utilities, roads, public
transit, etc., to serve the airport system. These costs may or may not be passed on to the airport
sponsor, but nevertheless, the costs will vary for each alternative being evaluated and can be
quantified.
I. EXPANDABILITY OPTIONS
The world won't come to an end at the end of the forecast period; therefore, an expandability
factor similar to the one used in the Phase II evaluation should be considered in the operational
factor evaluation. This cannot be quantified and should be rated on a rating scale varying
between yes and no. The range of the scale should be on the order of 1 to 7, where "1" is
excellent expandability and "7" is the worst case of expandability.
J. TIMING
This factor concerns the practicability of attaining the needed capacity to accommodate demand
throughout the forecast period and beyond. This factor should consider both the short and long
term needs and most likely should be evaluated on a rating scale varying between yes and no.
The range of the scale should be similar to the other rating scales varying between 1 to 7, with
"1" being consistent with the needs schedule and "7" being an unsatisfactory schedule.
Pao Aviation
A DMslon of Pao Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
WP2 -Page 4
• Total population
• Population newly exposed to aircraft noise
• Population that would experience and increase in noise or operations
PSD Aviation
A Division a PsD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
A -5
WP2 -Page 5
• New population that would experience single event levels 20 dBA over
background levels
B. AIR QUALITY
Emissions will be generated and certain volumes associated with each plan due to aircraft
operations, ground traffic, combustion of natural gas and the generation of electricity. The
emissions generated by these sources can be quantified and compared to regional and
subregional emissions to assess the potential for air quality impacts.
C. WATER QUALITY
Development of airport facilities may impact nearby rivers, streams, lakes or wetlands and the
impact can vary from plan to plan. The extent of impacts associated with each plan should be
assessed for comparative ranking of environmental factors.
D. WETLANDS /FLOODPLAINS
The impacts of airport development on these environmentally sensitive areas can be estimated
and quantified by determining the area of wetlands for airport development and determining
location of construction with respect to floodplains and the flood history of applicable water
courses.
E. PARK LANDS
The impacts of airport development on these resources can also be quantified by estimating
acreage required for airport development and removed from park or recreational use, and
wildlife /waterfowl reservations.
ECONOMIC FACTORS
These evaluation factors can readily be quantified in terms of monetary values. Task 5B of the
Phase III work program produces economic /financial analysis that will form the basis of the
economic evaluation factors. These are:
A. CAPITAL COSTS
The cost to provide the needed airport capacity can be readily quantified. Order of magnitude
capital costs will be calculated for each alternative plan. These will provide a common
economic basis _ for comparison of the alternatives.
P&D Aviation A Division of P&D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B. ECONOMIC EVALUATION
WP2 -Page 6
Several analyses will be undertaken with regard to each alternative plan. These are economic
RID Aviation A &vision of AID Technologies '
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP2 -Page 7
A -7
The results of the comparative evaluation shall be summarized in a two dimensional matrix to
facilitate an understanding of the analyses and a ranking of the alternatives. A by- product of
the evaluations and ranking will be an action plan for the recommended strategy. This action
plan will outline future steps necessary to implement the recommendation. Included in the action
plan will be a discussion of the various institutional issues needing to be addressed.
PAD Aviation A Division d PAD Todrwbglas
APPENDIX B
OPERATIONAL/TECHNICAL ELEMENTS
WORKING PAPERS # 1, 4, 6, 3, 5, 7, 9
WORKING PAPER #1
BOEING FIELD AIRSPACE REVIEW
PRESENTED
JULY 25, 1991
ADOPTED
AUGUST 15, 1991
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -1
DATE: July 11, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
FROM: P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 1 - BOEING FIELD AIRSPACE REVIEW
SUMMARY
The use of Boeing Field as a commercial airport site is not recommended from an airspace point
of view due to complexities which result from its proximity to Sea -Tac. The airspace interaction
between the two facilities has resulted in development of air traffic control procedures unique
to Seattle. The procedure accommodates present traffic volumes but future effectiveness under
increased traffic generated by commercial flights at BFI is uncertain. Additionally, since this
is a newly developed, site specific procedure, the possibility of the procedure being abandoned
is greater than standard procedures commonly applied to other airports. These uncertainties
create an element of risk which diminishes the attractiveness of the BFI commercial service
alternative. It is further noted that additional traffic in the limited terminal airspace will increase
congestion, thus resulting in increase aircraft operating costs to airlines.
INTRODUCTION
King County /Boeing Field (BFI) is located approximately 4 miles north of Sea -Tac (SEA). The
proximity of the two airports combined with their non - parallel runway alignments results in air
traffic interactions. The effects of these interactions have been the subject of several previous
studies and it is not the intent of this paper to redocument the full extent of this work. Rather,
it is the purpose of this paper to review, update and summarize previous information to
determine if the airspace interaction between BFI and SEA precludes Boeing Field from being
considered as a site for a supplemental regional airport. For the purposes of this analysis it is
assumed this type of airport (e.g., BFI) would provide scheduld air service to Pacific
Northwest, California and some national hub airport (i.e., Salt Lake City, Denver) destinations.
EXISTING INTERACTIONS
The airspace interactions pertain primarily to operations conducted during conditions when the
cloud ceilings are less than 2,500 feet. These conditions necessitate the provision of mandated
traffic separation and sequencing by air traffic controllers. In south traffic flows (which occur
approximately 70 percent of the time) the final approach courser for arrivals to SEA and BFI
converge.
Further, the instrument landing system (ILS) approach to Runway 16R at Sea -Tac crosses
Boeing Field's approach path to Runway 13R. During IFR south traffic flows, this convergence
causes occasional delays to Sea -Tac arrivals in the event of a missed approach at Boeing Field.
Additionally, Boeing Field approaches may be delayed due to circuitous routing.
P&D Aviation
A Division of P&D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP 1 -Page 2
During north traffic flows in IFR conditions Boeing Field arrivals impact Sea -Tac departures.
As a Boeing Field arrival nears the final approach fix, located just east of Sea -Tac, departures
at SEA are held on the ground until the BFI tower reports the landing is assured or until visual
separation can be provided. This reduces departure capacity at Sea -Tac (approximately 3 percent
of the time).
The interaction between the airports is a result of minimum separations required by FAA for
aircraft on IFR flight plans. In a radar controlled environment such as exists at Sea -Tac, aircraft
not separated horizontally by at least three miles must be provided with 1,000 feet of vertical
separation.
Figure 1 presents an illustration of ILS approaches to the airports in south traffic flows. A
separation of three miles exists between the two approach paths at the Nolla intersection, which
is the final approach fix for BFI. However, as a BFI arrival passes Nolla, the radar separation
from a Sea -Tac approaching aircraft may be lost. Thus, 1,000 feet of vertical separation must
then be maintained.
A. PLAN ALPHA
During certain VFR conditions, vertical separation is provided by a Boeing Field controller.
During these conditions the 1,000 foot vertical separation between aircraft must be maintained
and the Boeing Field tower controllers must have both aircraft in sight to provide visual
separation. Generally, this is possible when ceilings are no lower than 2,500 feet. This
procedure is known as "Plan Alpha ".
B. NO PLAN ALPHA
When ceilings are below 2,500 feet and separation by the Boeing tower controller is not
possible, vertical separation becomes the responsibility of TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach
Control). The TRACON is an FAA air traffic control facility that uses radar capabilities to
provide various traffic control services (such as providing separation from other aircraft and
sequencing the flow of arrivals to an airport) to aircraft arriving or departing from major air
carrier airports such as SEA. The provision of vertical separation by TRACON in these certain
VFR periods, in essence is the same as during actual IFR conditions. The monitoring TRACON
controller can override other ATC instructions to maintain separation. During these VFR "No
Plan Alpha" periods, Boeing Field arrivals are subject to increased delays as SEA arrivals have
a higher priority for landing.
C. RECENT IMPROVEMENTS
Since late 1989 improved procedures have been developed which allow concurrent approaches
to occur during conditions when the ceiling is below 2,500 feet. The procedures are site specific
PAD Aviation A Division of PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COIWITTEE
FIGURE 1
EXISTING INSTRUMENT APPROACHES
SOUTH FLOWS
FAF PARKK
1800'
BOEING
`FIELD
Y.
SEA —TAC
1 0 1 2
SCALE IN NAUTICAL MILES
PAD Aviation
•
NOTE Altitudes are glide dope altitude
at final approach fix (FAF).
A Division oI P&O Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP1 -Page 3
and unique to the situation created by SEA and BFI. The vertical separation between aircraft
(1,000 feet) is ensured by a TRACON controller that monitors the approaches on a radar scope.
This controller position in the TRACON is unique to the Seattle approach as the sole purpose
of this position is to monitor the approaches. With these procedures, approaches can be
conducted simultaneously to both airports and the arrival capacity of Sea -Tac is not degraded
unless a missed approach is declared at Boeing Field or the controller believes that required
separation cannot be maintained. In these cases, any conflicting SEA traffic will be vectored
out of the Sea -Tac approach path and resequenced in the arrival stream. This procedure
eliminates traffic conflicts but results in a lost arrival slot to Sea -Tac. TRACON personnel
estimate there have been approximately five missed approaches at BFI that impacted .a Sea -Tac
arrival since this monitored procedure has been in place. The delay incurred by affected
Sea -Tac traffic will vary depending upon the volume of traffic in the terminal area but can be
estimated to average 15 to 20 minutes per aircraft. The added delay allows for the aircraft to
leave the approach path, return to the arrival flow and then land at SEA. Thus, based on the
number of occurrences estimated by TRACON personnel, this procedure has reduced the annual
delay resulting from this conflict to about 2 hours per year. The present procedure can
accommodate the current, relatively moderate, volume of approaches. However, increases in
approaches to both airports could result in potential loss of effectiveness due to demands on the
monitoring position.
FUTURE OPERATIONS
The issue resulting from potential commercial flights at Boeing Field is not that the Sea -Tac
arrival capacity is reduced since the low frequency of BFI missed approaches minimize these
impacts. However, there are several important issues that must be considered when evaluating
BFI as a commercial airport.
A. EFFECT OF INCREASED TRAFFIC
The first centers on the feasibility of continuing the procedure under increased traffic loads. As
stated above, it has been seen from past performance that the current procedures can
accommodate the present traffic volumes, however, the feasibility of accommodating higher
traffic levels is uncertain. Ultimately, traffic would reach a point which would exceed the
monitoring position capability.
B. FUTURE VIABILITY
The second aspect relates to the possibility of the present procedure being canceled. This could
result from a mishap (such as inability to maintain the 1,000 foot separation), or a change in the
FAA administration and philosophy. The present procedure was specifically developed for
Seattle and obtained approvals from the highest levels of FAA, but since it is a singular, site
P&D Aviation
A Division d IMO Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP1 -Page 4
specific approach, the possibility for elimination is greater than for traditional procedures
commonly applied at other airports. While the cancellation of the procedure is not expected,
the possibility will always exist. As such, developing a commercial airport system to serve the
region, based on this potentially vulnerable procedure would possess risk, and jeopardize the
continued viability of the BFI alternative.
If the procedure were eliminated, then operations would revert to former control methods.
Under former procedures, SEA arrivals were subject to greater delays since an arrival "slot" for
Sea -Tac was left open for every approach to BFI. This was done to maintain the required
separation and guard against a missed approach at BFI. Since approaches could not be
conducted concurrently, there was a greater impact on SEA traffic.
C. AIRSPACE CONGESTION
An additional factor that must be considered is that under the present procedures Boeing Field
arrivals would be subject to delay during certain VFR conditions as a result of potentially having
a lower priority than SEA arrivals. Under a scenario where a portion of Sea -Tac commercial
operations are shifted to Boeing Field, these flights would incur more delays than if they
remained at Sea -Tac.
More important is the fact that incremental increases in delay will occur due to additional
demand placed upon the limited airspace serving the two airports. Previous simulation results
indicated an incremental increase in delay of 0.05 minutes will occur for each additional flight
under IFR conditions at a demand level of 382,500 annual operations. If it is assumed that
Boeing Field adds 25 percent of the 1990 Sea -Tac commuter operations (approximately,
36,900)[1], the contribution of the approximately 50 additional arrivals per day to average
annual delay would be 0.125 minutes per operation. At Sea -Tac traffic levels of 382,500 annual
operations this would result in almost 800 hours of additional delay and added annual costs to
the airlines of approximately $1.3 million. [2]
D. MLS TECHNOLOGY
The focus of this analysis has been on procedural, or operational aspects, of the interaction.
There are also other aspects that might be considered and one example would be the installation
of a microwave landing system (MLS) at SEA. This is a new instrument landing aid which will
permit curved and dog -leg instrument approaches versus the straight approach limitations of
current instrument landing systems (ILS). FAA plans to ultimately transition and replace all ILS
[1]Based on 6 months (January-June 1990) data.
[2]Based on an average direct operating cost of $1,600 per hour.
—,114/111P-
RID Aviation A Division ofPSD Tachnofoglas
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP1 -Page 5
with MLS, but the implementation schedule has been frequently extended. Present schedules
suggest that transition to the MLS can be expected soon after the year 2000. With the
installation of an MLS at Sea -Tac it would be theoretically possible to conduct simultaneous
approaches to both airports by developing a curved approach procedure for SEA. Such a
procedure would parallel the present final approach to BFI, then turn to the south to align with
the SEA runway for final approach and landing. While this may seem like a likely solution to
the present situation, there are a number of factors to consider such as the status of the MLS
program, development of acceptable approach procedures and environmental concerns (it is
noted that an MLS approach could increase overflights and noise over densely populated areas).
To provide a broader perspective of the Boeing Field commercial use alternative, a comparison
is made to other U.S. multi - commercial airport examples. The examples selected for
comparison are characterized by metropolitan areas served by comparatively close commercial
airports. Table 1 presents the survey data indicating runway orientation and distance of
secondary airports from the primary airport.
As seen in Table 1, New York's LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports are only ten miles apart and
are the closest of the commercial airports surveyed. The average distance between airports is
about 23 miles. Aside from distance, it is important to note the runway orientations, for the
most part, permit non - converging traffic flows. This is the major difference between Seattle
and the airports surveyed. Regarding orientation, runways are designated (numbered) to indicate
magnetic heading, i.e. Runway 4 is 40 °, Runway 22 is 220°. This example would be a runway
aligned northeast - southwest. Therefore, runways shown in Table 1 with the same, or
numerically close, designation indicate similar alignments which facilitate parallel approaches.
Parallel approaches promote compatible traffic flows, compared to conflicts caused by
converging approaches.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF COMMERCIAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS IN THE U.S.
B -7
WP1 -Page 6
Airport Runway Orientation Dist. from Primary Apt.
New York
Kennedy 4/22 N/A
13/31
LaGuardia 4/22 10 miles
13/31
Newark 4/22 20 miles
11/29
Los Angeles
LAX 6(7)/24(25) N/A
Burbank 8/26 18 miles
15/33
Ontario 8/26 48 miles
Orange County 1/19 36 miles
Long Beach 12/30 (primary) 17 miles
San Francisco
SFO 10/28 N/A
1/19
Oakland 11/29 11 miles
9/27
San Jose 12/30 30 miles
Chicago
O'Hare 14/32 N/A
9/27
4/22
Midway 4/22 17 miles
13/31
Miami
Miami International 9/27 N/A
12/30
Fort Lauderdale 9/27. 21 miles
13/31
Washington, D.C.
National 18/36 N/A
15/33
Dulles 1/19 25 miles
12/30
Baltimore- Washington 15/33 32 miles
10/28
4/22
Dallas
DFW 18/36 N/A
13/31
Love Field 13/31 .12 miles
18/36
Source: P&D analysis.
THE FLIGHT PL
PR ECT IPHAS E :11E
VWP1 -Page 7
Results of this survey comparison suggest multi - commercial airport systems have typically
evolved to allow parallel or generally non - conflicting approaches. It can be concluded therefore,
the Boeing Field alternative would be a non - standard solution to adding commercial service
capacity compared to other U.S. examples.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The principal findings and conclusions of this review are as follows:
O In south flows during IFR and low VFR conditions (which prevail 37 percent of the
time), "site specific" procedures that are unique to Seattle have been implemented which
permit concurrent instrument approaches to the two airports. These have been in effect
since late 1989 and have reduced the arrival capacity delays on Sea -Tac caused by this
interaction. These Sea -Tac delays are infrequent and occur only during a Boeing Field
missed approach. During these conditions, Boeing Field arrivals may be subject to
longer, circuitous routings and thus extra delay. Sea -Tac approaches would most likely
be given the most direct arrival routings.
O The present procedure accommodates the present moderate traffic volumes. Future
increases in instrument approaches could overload the controller monitoring approaches
and thus the future effectiveness of the procedure is uncertain.
O If Boeing Field becomes a commercial service airport, while not FAA policy but in
practice BFI arrivals will still be subject to second priority status and the additional
delays described above and as such it will be difficult to maintain viable schedule service.
O Impacts from the use of BFI for commercial service would not be primarily a result of
the interaction of approaches with SEA, but rather from increased demand of additional
commercial flights placed upon the limited terminal airspace. Additional flights would
increase congestion and result in potentially significant increases in delay during
conditions when the ceiling is below 2,500 feet. Moreover, the uncertainty of the
existing procedures to effectively function under increased traffic volumes promotes a
risky plan for accommodating demand.
• The proximity of the airports (four miles) and the converging ILS approaches in the
primary traffic flow is unique to Seattle compared to multi - commercial airport systems
in the U.S. In these systems, airports are separated from 10 to 48 miles. More
importantly, similar runway orientations facilitate approaches which are generally
compatible with the overall traffic flows. In this respect, a system comprised of SEA
and BFI would result in a "non- standard" solution compared to other metropolitan areas.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP1 -Page 8
• An increase in commercial flights at BFI would translate into an increase of IFR
approaches and as previously stated the existing procedure may not be effective under
increased traffic loads. Thus, additional IFR capacity is not achieved by use of BFI for
commercial operations.
• In view of airspace interactions it is concluded that the existing procedures for concurrent
approaches are unique to the conditions at Seattle. The future of the procedure is
uncertain and the possibility exists that it could be canceled. Basing a commercial air
service system on this procedure would be a high risk planning approach. Use of BFI
as a commercial airport site is therefore not recommended.
PAD Aviation A DMINon of PAD Technologies
WORKING PAPER #4
DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PRESENTED
AUGUST 15, 1991
ADOPTED
SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 28, 1991
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
P &D Aviation
WORKING PAPER NO. 4 - DEMAND MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
B -11
The term Demand Management covers a range of strategies designed to reduce congestion
without building capacity improvements. This paper outlines a wide variety of possible airport
demand management measures, and describes selected examples where some form of these
measures have been tried.
In mid August, 1991 a panel of experts was convened to discuss the ideas set forth in this paper
and the particular opportunities for demand management procedures in the Seattle region. The
final conclusions and recommendations of the expert panel are summarized below.
o Develop a clear understanding of airport proprietor rights. Work within these rights and
expect complex legal challenges of implementing measures which extend beyond these
rights.
o Treat Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures as one element of a
comprehensive program. Acknowledge this is not a long term solution, but rather a
strategy to delay and possible help finance capacity improvements which will ultimately
be required.
o Evaluate TDM measures in terms of the effect on different users (e.g., airlines, airports,
community, passengers, cargo). Identify the current cross subsidies within overall
system and industry user groups.
Exhibit 1 presents a listing of a range of TDM measures and their estimated effects on
congestion. Also summarized for each measure are jurisdictional rights, those adversely
affected, and other key considerations. Lastly, the exhibit illustrates the set of measures which
are recommended for application in the Flight Plan options and particularly the Maximum
Demand Management option. These are indicated by a check mark and will evaluated in
Phase III of the Flight Plan analysis.
A review of demand management strategies reveals that seve ensures are already being
implemented at Sea -Tac. Specifically the Flight Plan forecastsF� the average aircraft size
will increase during the planning period. Also, airlines now p . a ce yield management which
tends to increase aircraft load factors. FAA central flow control metering systems create a
modified form of slots to help control congestion. General Aviation operations have already
been minimized at Sea -Tac and now contribute to only about five percent of the total aircraft
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP4 -Page 2
operations. Lastly, a noise budget has been implemented at Sea -Tac which encourages airlines
to use quieter and larger aircraft.
Additional demand management measures which are recommended by the consultant . to be
considered in the maximum demand management option are shown in the last column of
Exhibit 1. These include the assumptions that Sea -Tac will implement some form of variable
pricing of gates, terminal space, and /or landing fees to discourage use during peak hours. The
maximum demand option also assumes greater control will be exerted by the airport on gate use
and scheduling, and that technological advances to reduce aircraft separations and improve rail
opportunities will also be implemented.
The effect of the maximum demand management alternative is difficult to precisely determine.
It is generally acknowledged that none of the demand management measures can be used to
increase airport capacity. The experiences gained in Boston and Minneapolis St. Paul suggest
demand management measures will at best delay for a few years the need for capacity
improvements. For purposes of this analysis therefore, it is assumed the maximum demand
management set of measures will delay capacity improvements for five years. This means that
in the year 2020 Sea -Tac with no additional airside capacity improvements can be assumed to
accommodate 38 million annual passengers rather than the 32 million passengers as was assumed
in the do- nothing alternative.
INTRODUCTION
A non - capital expense option for accommodating an increase in demand at an airport involves
policy and administrative procedures whose objectives are to maximize the utilization of existing
facilities. Instead of the typical approach of expanding facilities to handle more traffic, demand
management's aim is to adjust the accommodation of traffic to fit existing airport airside and
landside facilities.
The purpose of this working paper is to identify and begin to apply a range of demand
management options to air transportation needs in the Puget Sound region. Specifically, this
material was used as a background paper for a panel of experts assembled to help fully develop
the demand management alternative carried forward from Phase II of Flight Plan. A summary
of the expert panel discussion is provided at the end of this paper.
WHAT IS IT?
Demand management is intended to ease congestion by diverting some traffic to times and places
where it can be handled more promptly and efficiently. Demand management can take one of
three principal forms:
PAD Aviation A Wilmot PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -13
WP4 -Page 3
• Do- Nothing Approach - under which it is hoped that the congestion and delay will
become so bad during peak periods that some users will decide instead for different flight
times or different airports;
• Pricing Schemes - are typically applied to peak periods, such as the busy hours of the
day or peak seasons of the year;
•. Administrative Management - consists of regulations or rationing systems that limit use
of the airport to designated airlines or types of aircraft.
The underlying objective of demand management is to close the gap of a capacity shortfall either
on an interim basis until capital improvements are in place or alternatively as a substitute for
further investments. Flight Plan will incorporate demand management techniques in all
alternative plans to be analyzed as well as a stand -alone approach in the "do- nothing" alternative.
There were 355,000 aircraft operations performed at Sea -Tac in 1990. The demand forecast
prepared for Flight Plan projected 524,000 operations in 2020. The current airside capacity of
Sea -Tac has been determined to be 380,000 operations which will result in an airside capacity
shortfall of 144,000 operations. It should also be noted that the Flight Plan forecasts indicated
an almost tripling of passengers with only a two-thirds increase in air carrier operations.
Demand management should also focus on peak period capacities and demand during IFR
conditions, since this is the current bottleneck during airside congestion.
ARE THERE SOME NON - AIRPORT EXAMPLES?
Demand management is a generic approach which has fundamentally changed traditional public
works thinking. Application to the airline industry, especially following deregulation and the
"open skies" approach offers a new opportunity to consider the possibility of moderating the
"demand" side of a needs equation, as well as increasing the "supply" side.
In the Pacific Northwest, several familiar examples of demand management can be cited:
• the four -state Northwest Power Planning Council with its emphasis on conservation
largely replacing nuclear energy (the Council was created after the WPPSS default).
• the use of conservation as a major component in the Seattle and King County solid waste
programs (which have the highest recycling results in the country).
• use of volume -based water metering, and a system of parking meter fees that increases
in the downtown areas.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP4 -Page 4
Success in each case depends upon specifics Leak plugging in energy use, and the relative costs
of insulation versus new energy sources, are major advantages supporting new energy
conservation. But in many cases, "demand management" is already underway under a different
name. There may be less slack than might be assumed.
Two important perspectives to keep in mind in Flight Plan are the major assumptions already
in the Phase I Demand Forecasts regarding increasing future average airplane size, and the past
diversion of general aviation away from Sea -Tac. These are some of the other important details
that are mentioned in the following discussion points.
HOW IS IT IMPLEMENTED?
Implementation measures depend upon the demand management measures selected. Flight Plan
will identify in its final recommendations the action plan needed to achieve the measures
selected. Implementation steps may include agencies other than the sponsoring PSCOG, Port
of Seattle, and the FAA.
Set out below are implementation discussions for each of the three major air traffic demand
management forms.
Do-Nothing Approach
This approach is often politically attractive because it does not involve a rationing process that
results in some participants being dissatisfied. This approach is relatively ineffective because
users tend to adjust somewhat to congestion and severely crowded conditions; therefore, they
usually continue with operations at a level well over the capacity of the airport. The users most
severely affected are those using smaller aircraft who are less willing to accept the costs of
congestion or delay.
Pricing Schemes
Pricing schemes have been effective for diverting aircraft movements away from peak periods.
The net effect of pricing schemes has been to drive away the small users (commuters and general
aviation) allowing commercial users with their larger passenger volumes to replace them. Since
general aviation represents a very small percent of total operations at Sea -Tac, commuter
operators would be the users most impacted by a pricing scheme. Under the single airport
concept, commuters would not divert to another airport because most of their passengers are
making connecting flights. The airport sponsor has the authority to set landing fees subject to
lease agreements in force with the airline users and also subject to grant agreements with the
FAA.
PSD Aviation
A DI►b/on d PSD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -15
WP4 -Page 5
Active Traffic Management
The principal objective of active traffic management is to accommodate a higher level of
passenger demand by managing aircraft operations in relation to available runway capacity.
There are two forms of traffic management- -slot rationing and exclusion of certain categories
of traffic from using the airport. These can be used singularly or in combination.
Slot rationing can be implemented either by a scheduling committee composed of airline
representatives or by slot auctions where the airlines bid for slots with the slot going to the
highest bidder. In either case, an hourly capacity must be established and agreed to before a slot
rationing program can be implemented. The FAA has the responsibility for establishing the
hourly capacity.
Currently the only U.S. Airports with slot rationing are those four designated by US DOT under
its high density rule promulgated in 1973. The quotas at these airports were established by FAA
based on estimated capacity of the air traffic control system and airport runways. FAA is
considering lifting the rule at one of the airports because of improvements made and also
because of slower growth in traffic.
Slot rationing at the high density airports initially was administered by a scheduling committee
composed of representatives of the airlines and commuters operating at the airport. These
committees received immunity from federal anti-trust laws and operated fairly well until
deregulation in 1978. In 1985, the slot allocation system was changed to a trading system.
Each carrier was allocated slots according to its usage the previous year. A pool representing
5 percent of the total number of slots was established and distributed by lottery among new
entrants and existing airport users with fewer than eight slots. Slots, except those for
international and essential air services, can be traded. Slots infrequently used are withdrawn.
When new slots become available, they are allocated by lottery, with preference given to new
entrants.
Active traffic management, based upon regulatory measures, is diametrically opposed to the
"open- skies" approach inherent in deregulation. Alternatively, the concept of "Central flow
control" is now the basis for managing airports (except the four high density airports) when
demand for runway use exceeds capacity. Carriers can establish their own schedules, but when
runway capacity at the destination airport is exceeded, the air traffic control system restrains
aircraft (holding them at the originating airport gates) and thc: allocates them according to
available runway capacity.
WHAT BENEFITS CAN BE EXPECTED?
Implementing a form of demand management will have identifiable benefits in terms of
accommodation of demand. It will not add airside capacity to the airport since this may only
be accomplished by expansion of airport facilities and /or the introduction of new technology.
THE IFILXG HIT PLAN
"fes!.
OJECT PHASE EKE
C011ill?IT ].ESE:
WP4 -Page 6
The perceived benefits are not without associated dis- benefits, but these will be discussed in the
next section.
Although no airside capacity increases will be effected through demand management, aircraft
delay hours and costs can be reduced through adjustments of schedules that fill in the "valleys"
of the daily distribution of traffic. The form of demand management that can be implemented
by airport sponsors is the price schemes during peak traffic periods.
Technological advances, although not discussed as a demand management technique, also will
help to transport more passengers at a given facility by the introduction of larger capacity
aircraft.
Price schemes and the use of larger aircraft appear to be the most feasible alternatives for
reducing delay. Slot rationing falls within the province of US DOT and it has not been extended
to any other airports but the original high - density airports identified in 1973. Airport sponsors
do not have the authority to institute a slot rationing system at their airports.
WHAT ADVERSE IMPACTS CAN ICE EXPECTED?
It was stated that dis- benefits would be associated with any benefits incurred by implementation
of a demand management regulation. Experience shows that demand management systems result
in some dissatisfied users of airports where demand management concepts have been instituted.
In the case of Sea -Tac, the commuter carriers would be impacted by a price scheme and the use
of larger aircraft may not be financially feasible. A price scheme would have to be non-
discriminatory to be a legally acceptable form of demand management. Therefore, all classes
of operators (airlines, commuters and general aviation) must be subjected to the same price
scheme mechanism. Since general aviation represents a very small percentage of total traffic,
this class of operator would be adversely impacted, but not to the same degree as the commuter
carriers.
WHERE HAS IT EEN USED?
Slot rationing has only been used at the original four high - density airports identified by US DOT
in 1973. These are: John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia in New York; O'Hare in Chicago; and,
Washington National Airport in D.C. Although the system has been used for almost 20 years,
it is difficult to quantify the improvement in delay as a result of the slot rationing. The current
level of aircraft delay under the system is known, but it would be only conjecture to quantify
what the delay would have been without the slot rationing.
Price schemes have been instituted at several airports and have been tried in at least one other
major airport without success. A major problem with the concept of peak -hour surcharges is
Pi3D Aviation
oar
A DJ n a9 P63D Taltrizteca
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP4 -Page 7
how to determine the level of surcharge. Implementing a policy of differential pricing - whether
based on marginal facility cost, marginal delay cost, or some purely arbitrary scheme is difficult.
It is likely that a significant increase in airport user fees will raise questions of equity. There
are a number of examples where airport sponsors have attempted to increase user fees and have
been challenged by air carriers and general aviation. In some cases, landing fees are established
in long -term lease agreements that cannot be easily changed.
Set out below are a few examples of pricing schemes that have been implemented at airports in
the U.S. and Europe.
London
Active traffic management has been utilized for many years to encourage greater use of Gatwick
Airport to relieve Heathrow Airport. Management techniques involve slot allocation by a
schedule committee and pricing to discourage usage of airport of certain categories of traffic
during peak periods.
The Gatwick experience under traffic management resulted in a 10 percent increase in runway
capacity between 1981 and 1989 due mainly because of demand pressures. Gatwick is a single
runway airport and has an extremely high peak hour landing fee of $10,000 which equates to
$25.00 per seat for a 400 passenger B747 -300.
Boston
In 1988 the Massachusetts Port Authority imposed the Program for Airport Capacity Efficiency
(PACE) which called for the imposition of peak -hour pricing for smaller aircraft during the
entire 24 hours. A second phase of PACE was to include peak -hour pricing for all operations.
US DOT found that PACE discriminated against a class of aviation and PACE was suspended.
New York
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates the three air carrier airports and a
general aviation airport serving the Metropolitan New York area. In the late 1960's, the Port
Authority began imposing peak -hour surcharges on general aviation to move traffic to off -peak
hours. The pricing scheme was effective in reducing a segment of traffic during the peak -hour;
however, this approach would not be effective at Sea -Tac, since general aviation represents a
very small percent of total traffic.
California
Although capacity was not the issue, John Wayne Airport, in Orange County has invoked, in
accordance with a District Court Order, airport access constraints for non -Stage III aircraft. The
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP4 -Page 8
Order also placed a cap of 8.4 MAP - both constraints designed to control the amount of noise
over adjacent communities of the airport.
P8DAviation ""141111"—
A Division of MD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP4 -Page 10
o The airport proprietor has greater legal right to control groundside capacity. For
example, control of gates can be a surrogate for controlling slots (landing rights).
Further, the airport proprietor cannot be forced to build more gates.
o Facilitating development of a supplemental airport can help to avoid construction of
additional facilities at primary airports.
o The pattern of airlines is to discourage building second airports. Development of
supplemental airports will add additional airline cost centers. Added costs need not be
a deterrent if added revenues can offset these costs. Historically, carriers don't sign up
until the last minute. The community must therefore display conviction to goals and
policies. Addition of supplemental airports is more acceptable to airlines when access
to primary airport becomes limited due to congestion.
o Supplemental airports are difficult to justify based on connecting passenger demand since
this traffic can be controlled by airlines. The airline debate over the need for the new
Deriver airport is a good example of this characteristic.
o The value of time (ground access plus delays) is more important to short haul passengers.
Some airlines have profitably used this principal to successfully offer service from
secondary airports.
o Aircraft technology changes in the foreseeable future will not change the need for
additional runways, even if TDM is used to delay needs for several years.
o For technology to be effective in relieving congestion, improvements must be accepted
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND'AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Pricing
B -21
WP4 -Page 11
The establishment of variable landing fees is not clearly an airport proprietor right. A good
likelihood exists this could be ultimately found to be a local right, but not without considerable
legal testing by the industry. Even if surcharges are implemented, the impact on airline behavior
is expected to be minimal.
o Goals of pricing schemes should be to accommodate passengers and cargo, encourage
shift to larger aircraft, and to move operations to less congested airports.
o The legal limitations of the airport proprietor are established in 1) airport/airline
contracts and, 2) residual cost requirements. Residual costs are costs which exceed
airport revenues and which may be used to justify landing fee increases. Discrimination
can be claimed if charges are not allocated based on full cost and equity.
o With the proper approach and justification, the chances of getting a variable pricing
policy accepted by DOT is judged to be 50 percent or greater.
o Variable pricing will be difficult to defend until actual "capacity" is reached. Pricing
cannot be implemented based on a projected congestion problem.
o In order for a pricing system to be non - discriminatory, the policy must price access, not
users.
o Airports tend to be monopolies and thus can not always serve all public interests equally.
As a result, discrimination can easily occur.
o • Pricing and quotas can be interpreted as being restrictive to interstate commerce.
o Residual cost accounting can prevent variable pricing from generating additional airport
net revenues.
o Airport pricing must be cost based to withstand legal challenges. Full cost allocation is
best.
o Using revenues generated as a result of peak hour surcharges to fund capacity
improvements is most defendable policy.
o Legal impediments exist to variable pricing.
o Price increases have greatest effect on behavior of General Aviation and Commuters
respectively. Air carriers behavior is largely inelastic to changes in landing fees since
these represent only 2-4 percent of operating costs and are averaged over entire system.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
A Division of PaD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -23
WP4 -Page 13
o PACE legal findings determined 1) landing fees do not have to be based entirely on
weight, 2) peak hour pricing may be found to be acceptable if it is not discriminatory and
"motives are pure ".
o A cost recovery system must be described to insure surcharges do not tax interstate
commerce.
o When airports are subject to revenue caps, peak hour charges are negated by offpeak
reductions and the airlines net financial impact is unchanged. Effect on airline behavior
is thus minimized.
o If fees are devoted to expanding capacity at Sea -Tac or expanding capacity elsewhere
(GA reliever or supplemental commercial airports), then the chances of making variable
pricing work are much better.
Administrative Regulations
Administrative regulations are the most difficult form of demand management options for an
airport proprietor to implement since they are generally beyond local jurisdictional rights and
offer the greatest risk of limiting interstate commerce. These types of measures require an
industry-wide agreement to change regulations.
o Legal rights are established by
1. 1978 Airline Deregulation Act. This act gives the U.S. domestic airline industry
authority to choose airline routes, rates, and services.
2. 1958 Federal Aviation Act. This act gives the federal government authority to
control airspace and air traffic.
3. Federal Aid Sponsor Assurances. These assurances require non - discrimination
between classes of carriers, non - discrimination within classes of aircraft, and
require fees to stay within airport.
o Federal rights are prescribed in Federal Aviation Act and cannot be usurped by local
jurisdictions without a change to federal laws.
o A unified approach involving several airport operators, as opposed to a single airport
operator, can be more effective in influencing federal policy.
o The most realistic option is not to regulate airlines at the local level, but to effect their
behavior.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP4 -Page 14
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
SMOGSS
B -25
WP4 -Page 15
operations. Lastly, a noise budget has been implemented at Sea -Tac which encourages airlines
to use quieter and larger aircraft.
Additional demand management measures which are recommended by the consultant to be
considered in the maximum demand management option are shown in the last column of
Exhibit 1. These include the assumptions that Sea -Tac will implement some form of variable
pricing of gates, terminal space, and /or landing fees to discourage use during peak hours. The
maximum demand management option also assumes greater control will be exerted by the airport
on gate use and scheduling, and that technological advances to reduce aircraft separations and
improve rail opportunities will also be implemented.
The effect of the maximum demand management alternative is difficult to precisely determine.
It is generally acknowledged that none of the demand management measures can be used to
increase airport capacity. The experiences gained in Boston and Minneapolis St. Paul suggest
demand management measures will at best delay for a few years the need for capacity
improvements. For purposes of this analysis therefore, it is assumed the maximum demand
management set of measures will delay capacity improvements for five years. This means that
in the year 2020 Sea -Tac with no additional airside capacity improvements can be assumed to
accommodate 38 million annual passengers rather than the 32 million passengers as was assumed
in the do- nothing alternative.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Exhibit 1
Demand Management Summary
TECHNIQIJE
EXHIBIT I
DEMAND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
MR'S- TIIOSE
DICTIONAL ADVERSELY
RIGIITS AFFECTED KEY CONSIDERATIONS
RQ.N-QIIIIN(_INQ $F.A_TA PANSIQNJ
NO BIIII.D PROPRIETOR ALL
USERS
SIIPPI.EMENTAI. AIRPORTS
I'ONTROI. GATES
YIELD MANAGEMENT
LARGER AIRCRAFT
El:(1INOI (K;ICAI. ADVANCES
%1.TERNATIVE MODES
!RH]NG_SCIIEMES
I.ANDIN(: FEES
GATE FEES
TERMINAI. FEES
PF( "S
B!)iIINISTlatI!E MANAGEMENT
SOOT RATIONING
QI IOTAS
CENTRAL FLOW CONTROL
PROPRIETOR POSSIBI.E
AIRLINES
PROPRIETOR AIRLINES
AIRI.INES PASSENGERS
AIRI.INES
FEDERAL/
INDUSTRY
REGIONAL
PROBABLE
PROPRIETOR
PROPRIETOR
PROPRIETOR
PROPRIETOR
FEDERAL
PROBABLE
PROPRIETOR
FEDERAL
SMALLER AIR-
CRAFT OWNERS
COST
RECIPIENTS
AIRI.INES
SMALLER
OPERATORS
OPERATORS
OPERATORS/
PASSENGERS
PASSENGERS
NEW ENTRANTS
NEW ENTRANTS
MOST SEVERE. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
EASIEST TO IMPLEMENT, INCREASES
CONGESTION
AVOIDS CONGESTION, IMPROVES
ASSF:SSIRILITY
GREATER PROPRIETOR RIGHTS. CAN
INI)IRI U1 LY CONTROL AIRSIDI: CAPACITY
CON S LOAD FACTORS
NATIIRAI. TREND. 111611 REPLACEMENT
COS IS
MINIMAI. IMPROVEMENTS FROM FORESEE-
ABLE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES.'MUST
RE. IMPLEMENTED INDUSTRYWIDE
RAII. MOST EFFECTIVE IN 111611 DENSITY MAR-
KETS WIT11 POOR ROAD SYSTEMS. LESS EFFEC-
TIVE FOR SIIOR.T IIAIIL TIME SENSITIVE TRIPS
COMPARATIVE
REDUCTION IN
CONGESTION
I.EGAI. IMPEDIMENTS. GA AND COMMUTERS
MOST AFFECT F.D. MINIMUM AFFECT ON CARRIERS
GREATER PROPRIETOR RIGIITS
SUBJECT TO LEASE AGREEMENTS
MUST BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY,
COULD GENERATE SUPPLEMENTAL
AIRPORT FUNDS
FEDERAL RELUCTANCE, CONTRARY
DEREGULATION TRENDS
MUST NOT UNDULY LIMIT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AIRI.INES SET SCIIEDIII.ES, CONVERTS
AIR DELAYS TO GROUND HOLDS
SEA -
TAC
WP -Page 14
AL IV MSUMr[IONS
MAXIMUM
MULTI- REPLACE- DEMAND
AIRPORTS MINT MGMT.
NONE
LARGE
MODERATE
SMAI.1.
SMAI I •MFD.
SMAI.1.
SMALL
SMALL
SMALL
SMALL-MED.
LARGE
MODERATE
MODERATE
1
1
1
1
1
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WORKING PAPER # 6
AIRPORT SITE CONCEPTS
PRESENTED
SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
ADOPTED
OCTOBER 16, 1991
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUNDAIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: August 28, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
FROM: P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 6 - AIRPORT SITE CONCEPTS
INTRODUCTION
B -29
In this working paper, conceptual layout plans are presented for each airport site concept which
will be subject to further analysis in the Flight Plan Project Phase III. These conceptual plans
will be the basis for the detailed evaluation of each airport system alternative. In particular, the
site concepts will be important for evaluating future aircraft noise levels, traffic impacts, site
acquisition and construction costs, airspace, and economic impacts.
The concepts presented in this working paper are based on the findings of Phase II and
subsequent decisions by the Flight Plan Committee. Site alternatives were identified and
narrowed down in the Phase II studies. After the conclusion of Phase II, a significant
modification was made to the airport system strategy developed in that phase. In Phase II,
supplemental airports were classified as either "regional" or "domestic /international." After
further demand allocation studies were completed in Phase III, it was concluded that all
supplemental airports should be classified as regional, which would provide short-haul and
medium -haul service. No long -haul or international service is envisioned for the supplemental
airports through the year 2020. However, a supplemental airport could be expanded to handle
long -haul and international service beyond 2020.
AIRPORT SITE ALTERNATIVES
A set of airport system alternatives has been developed in Phase III. These system alternatives
determine, in part, the types of site alternatives which will be evaluated.
System Alternatives
System alternative strategies to be evaluated in Phase III consist of:
• Sea -Tac Airport alone. Under this option, improvements to Sea -Tac could range from
no major improvements to the construction of a new runway and additional passenger -
serving facilities. Moderate transportation demand management procedures would be
included. No additional air carrier airports would be operated in the system. The Flight
Plan Committee has determined that this alternative will not satisfy the long -range
aviation demands of the region. However, it is included a "do nothing" alternative for
the environmental impact analysis to provide a comparison with alternatives which would
substantially increase the capacity of the airport system to accommodate future needs.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP6 -Page 2
• Sea -Tac Airport with maximum demand management. In this option, Sea -Tac would
again be the only air carrier airport. However, efforts would be undertaken to relieve
airport congestion and delays by maximum application of demand management
techniques.
• Sea -Tac Airport and one supplemental airport. Under this approach, Sea -Tac and one
additional airport would provide air carrier service. Moderate demand management
techniques would be applied. The supplemental airport could be an existing airport or
a new site.
• Sea -Tac Airport with two supplemental airports. This concept envisions Sea -Tac
operating in conjunction with two supplemental air carrier airports. The supplemental
airports would be phased, as required. Moderate demand management techniques would
be applied. The supplemental airports, either existing or new airports, would be located
at the north end and the south end of the region.
• Replacement airport. In this option, Sea -Tac would be replaced by a new airport capable
of providing full domestic and international service. The capacity of the new airport
would be sufficient to enable it to accommodate future passenger and air cargo traffic
well beyond the year 2020.
Site Alternatives
Within the context of the system alternatives described above, the following airport site
development alternatives have been identified by the Flight Plan Committee for further
evaluation. The Flight Plan evaluation process will focus on system -level considerations, rather
than the selection of specific sites. This working paper presents site layout concepts to aid in
the evaluation process.
• Sea -Tac Airport Alternatives:
- Sea -Tac Airport with or without a new commuter runway
- Sea -Tac Airport with a new dependent air carrier runway
• Supplemental Airport Alternatives
Existing Arlington Airport
Arlington Airport with a new runway
Existing Paine Field
Paine Field with a new runway
Joint use of existing McChord Air Force Base
Joint use of McChord Air Force Base with a new runway
Pao AVIaDbn A it d P &D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Additional airport at Central Pierce site with one runway
Additional airport at Central Pierce site with two runways
Additional airport at Olympia/Black Lake site with one runway
Additional airport at Olympia/Black Lake site with two runways
B -31
WP6 -Page 3
• Replacement Airport Alternatives
Additional airport at Central Pierce site with three runways
Additional airport at Olympia/Black Lake site with three runways
Additional airport at Fort Lewis site with three runways
Conceptual site layouts have been developed for each of these site alternatives, as described later
in this Working Paper.
AIRPORT SITE REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
Airport criteria for supplemental and replacement airports are summarized in Table 1. All new
airport sites must be capable of meeting these criteria. To the extent feasible, these criteria have
also been applied to existing airports fulfilling the supplemental airport role. In some cases, all
supplemental airport criteria cannot be fulfilled at existing airports due to physical constraints.
Airport Role and Classification
Supplemental airports will serve commuter aircraft and narrow -body and wide -body jet aircraft
in short haul and medium haul service. The largest aircraft expected to be served by the
supplemental airport is the B767.
Replacement airports must accommodate all categories of aircraft, including commuter aircraft
and wide -body aircraft as large as the B747. Replacement airports must serve long -haul and
international traffic as well as medium -haul and short-haul.
The maximum size of aircraft served by the airport determines the aircraft approach speed
category and airplane design group for the airport. These classifications effect the dimensional
criteria and separation standards for the classification of airport.
P&D Aviation A Division of RID Tachabglas
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Runway and Taxiway Dimensions
.100 1000000
SSOMOS
WP6 -Page 4
Separation Standards
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE 1
AIRPORT CRITERIA
B -33
WP6 -Page 5
Item
Supplemental
Airport
Replacement
Airport
AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION
Largest Aircraft Served •
B -767
B -747
Aircraft Approach Speed Category
C
D
Airplane Design Group
IV
V
RUNWAY/TAXIWAY DIMENSIONS (Feet)
Number of Runways
1 or 2
3
Runway Length
7,000
10,000
Runway Width
150
150
Taxiway Width
75
75
SEPARATION STANDARDS (Feet)
Runway to Parallel Runway
3,500
3,500 and 5,500
Runway to Parallel Taxiway
400 /600 [a]
400 /600 [a]
Taxiway to Parallel Taxiway
215
267
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DIMENSIONS (Feet) @I
Length
2,500
2,500
Inner Width
1,000
1,000
Outer Width
1,750
1,750
APPROXIMATE AREA REQUIREMENTS (Acres)
(Area per Million Annual Enplaned and Deplaned Passengers)
Passenger Terminal Area
10
10
Remote (Long Term) Parking Area
3
3
Air Cargo Maintenance and Support Services
5
12
Minimum Land Required for Airport Construction (Acres)
1,000 to 2,000 [c]
4,600
[a]
[]
[c]
Minimum requirement is 400 feet; 600 feet allows for high speed exit taxiways.
For precision instrument approach.
One runway: 1,000 acres; Two runways: 2,000 acres.
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150 /5300 -13, Abort Design and P &D Aviation.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP6 -Page 6
airspace structure that will support a high capacity commercial airport. This will require
the establishment of navaids to guide arriving and departing aircraft at the new airport.
• Terrain. A major cost of constructing a new major airport is the expense of preparing
the site for development of airside and landside facilities. The Phase II site search
P&D Aviation A Ohila► d PaD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE •
B -35
WP6 -Page 7
criteria included two limitations of elevation differentials. The site limitation was
200 feet while the airfield was restricted to a 100 foot differential.
Elevation differentials within a 5,000± acre site should be expected and a 200 foot
differential is not uncommon on large grading contracts. More important than grade
differential is the nature of the sub - strata. If the site contains rock under a shallow
overburden, then the elevation differential is significant; however, if the site contains
soils that can readily be graded using scrapers and bulldozers, then the elevation
differential should not be a limitation if other criteria are met.
As for the 100 foot elevation differential for the airfield criteria, it appears this is
redundant because site preparation would attain the allowable elevation differential of the
airfield portion of the site. Incidentally, the 100 foot elevation differential for a
10,000 foot runway would be one percent which is the allowable effective gradient of
runways.
DESCRIPTIONS OF AIRPORT SITE CONCEPTS
The locations of airport sites are shown in Figure 1. Alternative airport site concepts are
discussed below. Each layout plan is a conceptual drawing showing the airfield configuration,
locations of the passenger terminal area and other important airport functions, major existing
airport buildings if any, the proposed airport boundary, and the major highway access. Existing
airfield facilities (runways /taxiways) are in solid lines and airfield development proposed to meet
criteria for alternatives are shown in broken lines. The airport property boundary shown does
not include additional areas which might be subject to easements or buffer zones. Major ground
contours are shown for new airport sites to provide a rough indication of the amount of
earthwork required.
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport Without New Runway (Figure 2),
This concept is essentially the existing Sea -Tac Airport. Although no new runways are included
under this alternative, minor improvements such as new taxiways and terminal area expansions
would occur.
Seattle - Tacoma International Airport With New Commuter Runway (Figure 3)
Under this alternative, a new 5,000 -foot commuter runway would be constructed on the west
side of the airport. The new runway would be located entirely on the existing airfield. The
west side parallel taxiway would be removed and a new runway constructed with a centerline
separation of 700 feet from the existing westerly runway (Runway 16R -34L). This distance
would provide for adequate separation for aircraft under simultaneous visual operations.
B -36
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C LALLAM
- z -
JEFFERSON
MASON
OLYM IA/
BLACK LAKE
L _
AND
KIT
SEA. AC
SKAGIT
46,1
20
P
SNOHOMISH
PAINE El
KING
ARLINGTON
1 CENTRAL
McCH • RD PIERCE
THURSTON
LEWIS
PIERCE
706
Figure 1
Airport Locations
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
lang
Scale 1"=3000'
r
PEER
rEPANAL
AREA
i ♦J
P8D Aviation
Figure 2
Sea -Tac Without New Runway
A Division of PAD Technologies
B -37
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Scale 1"=3000'
0
',C_ _.
1
L
1
p85siN
TEMINAL
AttA
0
P80 Aviation
n
i u
Figure 3
.Sea-Thc With New Commuter Runway
• A °Milan d P8D TiJww Nt
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -39 •
WP6 -Page 8
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport With New Dependent Runway (Figure 4),
In this alternative, a new 7,000 -foot runway would be constructed 2,500 feet from
Runway 16L -34R. This separation distance would allow an approach on one runway and
departure on the other to occur at the same time. For this alternative, additional property must
be acquired between 9th and 12th Avenues South and between South 176th Street and State
Route 518, to provide for construction of the new runway.
Arlington Municipal Airport With New Runway Extension (Figure 5)
Under this alternative, the north -south runway at Arlington Municipal Airport would be
lengthened at the north end to a total of 7,000 feet. The general aviation area on the east side
of the airport would remain. A new passenger terminal would be constructed between the two
runways. Long -term parking could be provided at the west side of the airport and air cargo,
maintenance, and support activities can be accommodated south of. Runway 11 -29. New parallel
taxiways would be constructed for each runway to serve future aviation needs.
Arlington Municipal Airport With New Runway (Figure 6)
A new parallel north -south runway would be constructed west of the existing north -south
runway. The new runway would be 7,000 feet long. Additionally, the present north -south
runway would be extended to 7,000 feet. Additional property would be acquired on the north,
east, and south sides of the airport to accommodate the required expansion. The passenger
terminal would be located at midfield between the parallel runways on the east side of the
airport. Air cargo and maintenance activities could be located as shown on Figure 6. Airport
support functions could be accommodated at the south end of the airport.
Snohomish County Airport (Paine Feld) With Existing Airfield (Figure 7)
Paine Field could be converted to a supplemental airport with no significant airfield
improvements required. Activities on the east side of the airport would remain. A new
passenger terminal and related air cargo and maintenance and support activities would be located
on the west side of the airport. A new parallel taxiway on the west side of the primary runway
would be required to provide aircraft access to the west side. The existing primary runway at
Paine Field is 9,010 feet long, which is more than adequate for supplemental airport standards.
The airport management of Paine Field has pointed out that the established role of the airport
allows only commuter flights due to the proximity of residential development. A change in this
decision would be necessary to accommodate air carrier flights.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Scale 1" =3000'
. PAD Aviation
Figure 4
Sea-Thc With New Dependent Runway
A Division of AID Tiennokoptat
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
'LW
•
188T14 7
- -J
Q
- J
rr
is
I
0
v'
1 LONG TERM
PARIaNG
Scale 1"=2000'
PAD Aviation
EDGECO € RO.
Figure 5
Arlington Municipal Airport
With New Runway Extension
A Division of PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
-7,
Scale 1"=2000'
P& 0 Aviation
Figure 6
Arlington Municipal Airport
With New Runway
A Division of P6D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
r
SSE +,6.T
RANT
517 526
B -43
I I
D
- -3
it 7
1 It
ICUSNG
L
_ J
,
Scale r=2000'
P&D Aviation
Figure 7
Paine Field With Existing Airfield
A Division a P10 Tachnobvias
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP6 -Page 9
Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) With New Runway (Figure 8)
In this alternative, an additional north -south runway would be constructed for air carrier use east
of the existing primary runway. Without relocating State Route 526 and providing for adequate
runway protection zone clearance at the north end, a 5, 300 -foot runway can be constructed. A
displaced threshold of 700 feet on the north end can be accommodated, for a total takeoff length
of 6,000 feet. The new runway would be separated by 1,200 feet from the existing primary
runway. The passenger terminal area would be located on the west side of the airfield. A large
part of the existing general aviation area would be replaced by the new runway and air cargo
and maintenance activities would be provided on the east side of the airport. The Tramco lease
area on the south side of the airport would be largely undisturbed. Additional land would be
acquired under this alternative at the south end of the airport for the new runway, and at the
northwest corner for long -term vehicle parking.
Topography and wetlands are significant physical impediments to this alternative. The airport's
west side has over two dozen identified wetlands and substantial steep slopes with SR 525 (west
of the runway) 40 to 70 feet below runway elevation. The areas identified for air cargo under
each alternative are generally grade accessible and free of wetlands. The south two-thirds of the
new runway alternative would also involve huge amounts of fill and displacement of a large
wetland. Tramco's Hangar 3 currently under development (1992 construction) would be
eliminated by this alternative, and their existing Hangar 1 would exceed the 7:1 transitional
surface requirements of the new runway. The new runway would displace the U.S. Army
Reserve and the majority of light aircraft users at the airport as well as the support businesses.
The small east ramp identified for general aviation would accommodate only three FBO's and
about 150 light aircraft. The small east runway is too short for corporate aircraft use.
In the fall of 1991 a new doppler VOR will be commissioned atop the Boeing Company's paint
hangar on the Boeing flight line. The southwest corner of the airport currently within the
protection area for the existing VOR will then be available for development.
Joint Use of McChord Air Force Base With Existing Airfield (Figure 9)
In this concept, the passenger terminal area and air cargo, maintenance and support functions
would be located on the east side of the base on existing Air Force Base property. A new
parallel taxiway would be constructed on the east side of the runway to serve the civilian
functions. Air Force facilities currently located in these areas include hazardous materials
loading aprons. This option is based on relocating these loading areas to other locations on the
base. If alternate loading areas cannot be provided, the area encompassed by the civilian
activities would have to be reduced from that shown in Figure 9.
IMO Aviation A (Melon of AID Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
r
ASSEM3 -T
PLANT
5'
512 526
B -45
.1
1
i
1
1 II 1
1 1
.`v I /n 1 LEASE
\ V, 11 AMA
II
A
/ I A -
/ 11
I ^ / 1 1 1
1 1 I n. 11
1 11 A IV I \11
1
P i II
III 11
\,\ 111 I 11
\ \ 11 1 1 11
\\ 11 1 11
L a \- - 11J 1 11
\\ II 0 \ 11 I 11
\\ 11 1 11
\\ 11 1 11
\\\11 1 II
\ L -J LJJ
15I - - - -1
Os 1
1d
■
r- f 1 r-
MIN
Scale 1"=2000'
L-
PAD Aviation
Figure 8
Paine Field With New Runway
A Division d PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Scale 1" =2000'
PAD Aviation •
Figure 9
McChord AFB With Existing Airfield
A Division el PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Joint Use of McChord Air Force Base With New Runway (Hears 10)
B -47
WP6 -Page 10
In this concept, a new civilian runway would be constructed east of the existing runway, with
a centerline separation of 700 feet. The passenger terminal area, long -term parking, and air
cargo, maintenance, and support services would be located on the east side of the base on
existing base property. Although this concept provides a separate runway for civilian use, the .
remaining area on the east side of the base is reduced.
Central Pierce One - Runway Supplemental Airport (Figure 11)
The Phase II report identified a search area in Central Pierce County called the Fort Lewis/
Spanaway search area. The airport concept alternative depicted here is at the eastern edge of
the identified site area and is renamed the Central Pierce site. The Central Pierce site was
included in the topographic maps which identified the Fort Lewis/Spanaway search area in the
Phase II analysis. A second site in the Fort Lewis /Spanaway search area, located on Fort Lewis
property, is described later.
The supplemental airport configurations at this site were developed, such that they could
potentially become the beginning stages of an ultimate three- runway replacement airport
configuration. Therefore, the supplemental airport concepts were constrained within the bounds
of the replacement airport layout. Although the layouts for supplemental airports allow them
to be expanded to a replacement airport, if necessary, supplemental airports must not necessarily
be expanded to replacement airports.
Under the one - runway supplemental alternative, a new runway would be constructed west of
Highway 161. The runway would be 7,000 feet long with a parallel taxiway on the east side.
The passenger terminal area, vehicle parking and air cargo, maintenance, and support services
would be located between the runway and Highway 161. The runway could be extended to the
south to a total length of 10,000 feet. The critical factor effecting runway placement was the
presence of high terrain to the south. The runway location shown, when extended to
10,000 feet, will have the necessary FAR Part 77 approach surface clearance over this terrain.
All three Central Pierce Site options would require the closure of Thun Field, east of
Highway 161.
Central Pierce Two-Runway Supplemental Airport (Figure 12)
Under this alternative, a second 7,000 -foot runway would be constructed 3,500 feet to the west
of the single runway. The passenger terminal and parking area would extend along the east side
of the airport between Highway 161 and the airport. Air cargo and maintenance functions can
be provided between the runways on the north side. Support services can be accommodated on
the south side of the airport. Both runways would be able to be extended to 10,000 feet if the
airport were to be expanded to a replacement airport.
PAD Aviation
A DMsion of PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
/0@
M •
Scale 1"=2C00'
11
II
II
II
11
►1
II
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
I
PSD Aviation
J
1 1
1 1
1 �
1
► �
L J
Figure 10
McChord AFB With New Runway
A Division of PSD Taclnologias
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
KATO -ELL GQJ.D RD
LIOWE Go .
MIN
Scale 1w =3000
B -49
Figure 11
Central Pierce One-Runway
Supplemental Airport
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -50
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
TO-ELL GOU.D RD
LIM
SDK. r=3000'
Figure 12
Central Pierce Two-Runway
•
Supplemental Airport
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Central Pierce With Replacement Airport (Figure 13)
B -51
WP6 -Page 11
Under this alternative, a three- runway replacement airport would be constructed on the Central
Pierce site. The two easterly runways would be separated by 5,500 feet and straddle
Highway 161. The passenger terminal area and related vehicle parking and circulation would
be located within the area between these two runways. The easternmost runway would be .
capable of a 2,000 -foot extension to 12,000 feet, to the north. The westerly runway would .be
separated from the center runway by 3,500 feet, providing for three simultaneous instrument
arrival and departure streams. Additional airport activities, can be accommodated on the east
side of the easterly runway.
Olympia /Black Lake One - Runwav Supplemental Airport (Figure 14)
As with the Central Pierce site concepts, the Olympia/Black Lake supplemental airport concepts
are configured so they could potentially be beginning stages of an ultimate three- runway
replacement airport. Constraints at the Olympia/Black Lake site include high terrain to the
south, railroad tracks at the north and south ends of the site, and numerous creeks. The
Olympia/Black Lake site is located entirely on the west side of Interstate 5 to avoid overflights
over developed areas to the north.
The one - runway concept includes a 7,000 -foot runway with passenger terminal and associated
facilities to the east, access to the airport would be by Lathrop Road from Interstate 5.
Bloom's Ditch which runs through the site would probably be rechanneled into Salmon Creek
to the north. Hills directly south of the runway would have to be removed to provide adequate
approach surface clearance.
Olympia /Black Lake Two-Runwav Supplemental Airports (Figure 15)
The two - runway concept for Olympia/Black Lake would be similar to the two-runway concept
at the Central Pierce site. However, at the Olympia/Black Lake site the westerly runway must
be offset to the south to prevent relocation of BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and to avoid
wetlands areas to the north. Hills at the south end of the runway must be removed for runway
construction and approach surface clearance.
Both Olympia/Black Lake supplemental airport options could impact flight operations at Olympia
Airport, located three miles to the northeast. Airspace conflicts could be minimized by
constructing the supplemental airport runways parallel to the primary runway at Olympia
Airport. However, that runway orientation would result in increased flights over existing urban
areas.
ND Aviation
A Dvislon of ND Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
NATO-ELL GOILD RD
�o I
L
V84K E
J
Scale 1'1=3000'
L__
1 wove Ro.
Figure 13
Central Pierce With
Replacement Airport
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -53
MEI
Scale 1" =3000
Figure 14
Olympia/Black Lake One - Runway
Supplemental Airport
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
'A 11
RIM
Scale 1u =3000'
Figure 15
Olympia/Black Lake Two- Runway
Supplemental Airport
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -55
WP6 -Page 12
Olympia /Black Lake With Replacement Airport (Figure 16)
This alternative consists of three 10,000 -foot runways on the Olympia/Black Lake site with the
center runway capable of expanding to 12,000 feet. With the exception of the offset westerly
runway, the configuration of this concept is similar to the replacement airport at the Central
Pierce site. It is anticipated that the existing Olympia Airport would be closed under this option.
Fort Lewis Site With Replacement Airport (Figure 17)
A site in the Fort Lewis /Spanaway search area on Fort Lewis property is referred to as the Fort
Lewis Site. This site is at the eastern boundary of Fort Lewis, southwest of State Highway 7
near Elk Plain. The site is in Fort Lewis Training Areas 11 and 15 and northeast of a Drop
Zone in Training Area 14. Activities in these training areas would have to be relocated.
However, the use of this site for an airport appears to impact Fort Lewis activities less than
other suitable Fort Lewis sites. The site has no significant wetlands and would not require as
extensive earthwork as other Fort Lewis sites.
SUMMARY
In this Working Paper, conceptual site layouts have been shown for all Flight Plan site
alternatives. All options depicted here are feasible. New airport site layouts have been designed
to avoid wetlands, railroad relocations, severe topography changes and other constraints.
However, constructing new runways at existing airports are subject to constraints such as
wetlands, topography, and existing development.
ND Aviation A Division of AID Technologies
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
LATFQCP QO
AVIATION
RELATED
Scale 1 "=30001
A �'-
Figure 16
Olympia/Black Lake With
Replacement Airport
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
MTC48 ROA)
B -57
1
MIE
Scale 1" =3000'
Figure 17
Fort Lewis Site with
Replacement Airport
WORKING PAPER # 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE
PRESENTED
JULY 25, 1991
ADOPTED
AUGUST 15, 1991
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: July 13, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
FROM: P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE
INTRODUCTION
B -59
Commercial passenger forecasts for the Puget Sound region through the year 2020 were
developed during Phase I of Flight Plan. These forecasts are presented as an aggregate for the
entire multi- county study area and do not describe passenger origins or destinations (O &D)
within the region.
Phase II of Flight Plan did not require additional passenger O &D information since the objective
was to determine only which strategies should be carried forward for further analysis.
Phase III however, will conduct a comparative evaluation and ranking of airport strategies
requiring a knowledge of passenger origins and destinations within the region, as well as the
type of air service desired (e.g. trip length). Improved passenger O &D information will allow
alternatives to be analyzed for factors such as accessibility, convenience, level -of- service desired,
demand potential and demand satisfaction. It is the purpose of this document to derive this more
detailed passenger forecast information.
PHASE I FORECAST SUMMARY
The Flight Plan Phase I forecast analysis determined the number of commercial passengers in
the Puget Sound region would grow from 16.3 million annual passengers (MAP) in 1990 to
45 MAP in 2020. Further, it is estimated approximately one -third of these passengers are
"connecting" or "through "_passengers as opposed to travelers who originate or terminate their
air trip at Sea -Tac. The number of locally generated O &D passengers are therefore expected)
to reach 30 million; a level which exceeds the current locally generated passenger counts at
,,many multiple airport metro areas including, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
Translating passenger growth to increases in aircraft operations reveals Sea -Tac, as it is now
operated, will be unable to accommodate growth through the turn of the century without
incurring substantial delays. By the year 2000, it is estimated delays will average 30 to 45
minutes in clear weather conditions and 90 minutes or more in poor weather. One of the
important questions Phase III of Flight Plan must address is whether the demand for additional
commercial aircraft operations can best be served at Sea -Tac or by development of new
commercial airport facilities elsewhere, or both.
P&D Aviation A Division d MD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
PASSENGER GROWTH FACTORS
WP3 -Page 2
The economic modeling analysis conducted during the forecast studies determined passenger
growth in the Puget Sound region is most highly correlated to 1) population, 2) per capita
income, and 3) airline yields. Estimates of the first two variables are available by census tracts.
An aggregation of census tract passenger estimates to the county-wide level was compared to
the passengers estimated by the forecast model. The differences between the forecast model and
population demand estimates were found to be relatively small. This led to the conclusion that,
in the Puget Sound region, population is a very good indicator of commercial passenger demand
at the county -wide level. In other words, passengers per capita were found to be very similar
when aggregated from the census tract to the county level. Differences among census tracts due
to varying per capita incomes were averaged out when combining census tracts within counties.
It can be assumed therefore that existing and future county population estimates can serve as a
good indicator of passenger distributions within the region.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE REGION
Existing and future population estimates for the Puget Sound region and surrounding counties
are shown in Table 1. Estimates developed by PSCOG are shown for 1990 and the year 2020.
The population distribution is subdivided into three groupings defined as 1) Central - King
County, 2) Northern - counties whose residents might be more conveniently located to a
supplemental airport north of Sea -Tac, and 3) Southern - counties whose populations might be
more conveniently located to a supplemental airport south of Sea -Tac. Within the entire eleven
county region the total population is projected to increase from 3.4 million to 4.9 million in
2020. For purposes of this analysis this population and area is assumed to approximate the
"market -shed" served by Sea -Tac.
In 1990, King County's share of the total market -shed population is 45 percent. In 2020 this
share decreases by 2 percent to 43 percent due to more rapid population growth in the
surrounding counties. The distribution of population in 2020 north and south of King County
is relatively evenly distributed at 24 percent and 33 percent respectively. Snohomish and Pierce
Counties dominate the northern and southern areas with 14 percent and 18 percent of the
regional population.
PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE REGION
Based on the findings of the PSCOG passenger correlation studies, and the population figures
described above and shown in Table 1, estimates are prepared of passenger distributions within
the Sea -Tac market -shed area. These estimated, shown in Table 2, are simply the 1990 and year
2020 aggregate passenger forecasts distributed to the counties according to population
percentages derived in Table 1. Connecting passengers however have not been allocated to the
P &D Aviation A Melon d PSD Todralogkos
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -61
WP3 -Page 3
northern or southern counties based on the reasoning that very few if any connections would
occur at the supplemental airports.
TABLE 1
FLIGHT PLAN Phase III
REGIONAL POPULATION DISTRIBUTION (Thousands)
1990 QQ 1990 % 2020 %
CENTRAL COUNTY.
King 1,507 2,115 45.1% 43.1%
Subtotal 1,507 2,115 45.1% 43.1%
NORTHERN COUNTIES
Island 60 102 1.8% 2.1%
Skagit 80 101 2.4% 2.1%
Snonomish 466 788 14.0% 16.1%
Whatcom 128 167 3.8% 3.4%
Subtotal 734 1,158 22.0% 23.6%
SOUTHERN COUNTIES
Grays Harbor 64 66 1.9% 1.3%
Kitsap 190 295 5.7% 6.0%
Lewis 59 65 1.8% E3%
Mason 38 64 1.1% 1.3%
Pierce 586 869 17.6% 17.7%
Thurston 161 274 4.8% 5.6%
Subtotal 1,098 1,633 32.9% 33.3%
TOTAL 3,339 4,906 100.0% 100.0%
The type of service offered by supplemental airports will be an important consideration in
determining the tendency of passengers to choose closer airports. For example, passengers
planning a transcontinental trip will be more likely to accept a longer ground trip to get a better
selection of airline schedules. To allow ,the demand projections for alternative supplemental
airports to be responsive to these characteristics, the passenger distributions shown in Table 2
are further classified by short (less than 700 miles), medium (700 -1100 miles), and long haul
(greater than 1100 miles) air trip lengths. These estimates are derived using the aggregate city-
pair statistics presented in the Flight Plan Phase I forecasting analysis. According to these data,
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND A/R TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP3 -Page 4
the distribution of short, medium and long haul air trips is 22 percent, 32 percent, and
46 percent respectively. A few examples of these types of markets are listed below.
Short-haul - This includes service in markets of under 700 nonstop miles such as
Bellingham, Portland, Spokane, Vancouver, Yakima, San Francisco, Oakland,
and San Jose. These markets can generally be served by commuter airlines with
turboprop equipment or smaller air carrier jets such as the Boeing 737.
Medium -haul - Medium -haul includes services to cities such as Los Angeles,
Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Denver. Connections, of course, can be made at
hubs to reach more distant final destinations.
Long -haul - Long -haul services can bypass a hub since passenger traffic in these
markets can be large enough to obviate the need for passenger consolidation at
the hub. Examples include San Diego, Chicago, and New York, and of course
the majority of international locations.
Table 3 shows an historical distribution of the major Sea -Tac air passenger destinations using
data presented in Phase I of The Flight Plan Project. The city pair O &D data is based on 1988
statistics and it should be noted that the passengers indicated represent only originating, or
outbound, passengers and thus the total will be about half of the total annual passengers.
The California markets accounted for the largest share of Seattle O &D passengers with 3.1
million in CY 1987 or 31 percent of the total. Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego rank
among Seattle's Top 10 O &D markets.
Important regional markets, including Washington State, Oregon, Idaho and Vancouver and
Victoria, BC accounted for 11 percent of the total. Combined regional and California O &D
passengers amounted to 42 percent of all Seattle domestic O &D passengers (including Vancouver
and Victoria, BC).
P&D Aviation A Dhdslon of P &D Tac molt s
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE 2
FLIGHT PLAN Phase III
REGIONAL PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION
B -63
WP3 -Page 5
1990 Passengers (Millions) 2020 Passengers (Millions)
Short Medium Long Regional Short Medium Long Regional
Haul Haul Haut . Total FACC1111182 Haul Hau!! t.ig Iota! Percentage
CENTRAL COUNTY
King 2.28 3.31. 4.76 10.34 63.5% 6.15 8.94 12.86 27.95 62.1%
Subtotal 2.28 3.31 4.76 10.34 63.5% 6.15 8.94 12.86 27.95 62.1%
NORTHERN COUNTIES
Island 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.20 1.2% 0.14 0.20 0.29 0.62 1.4%
Skagit 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.26 1.6% 0.14 0.20 0.28 0.62 1.4%
Snohomish 0.33 0.48 0.70 1.52 9.3% 1.06 1.54 2.21 4.81 10.7%
Whatcom 0.09 0.13 0.19 0.42 2.6% 0.22 0.33 0.47 1.02 2.3%
Subtotal 0.53 0.76 1.10 2.39 14.6% 1.56 2.26 3.25 7.07 15.7%
SOUTHERN COUNTIES
Grays Harbor 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.21 1.3% 0.09 0.13 0.19 0.40 0.9%
Kitsap 0.14 0.20 0'.28 0.62 3.8% 0.40 0.58 0.83 1.80 4.0%
Lewis 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.19 1.2% 0.09 0.13 0.18 0.40 0.9%
Mason 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.12 0.8% 0.09 0.13 0.18 0.39 0.9%
Pierce 0.42 0.61 0.88 1.91 11.7% 1.17 1.70 2.44 5.31 11.8%
Thurston 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.52 3.2% 0.37 0.54 0.77 1.67 3.7%
Subtotal 0.79 1.14 1.64 3.57 21.9% 2.19 3.19 4.59 9.98 22.2%
TOTAL
3.59 5.22 7.50 16.30 100.0% 9.90 14.40 20.70 45.00 100.0%
P&D Aviation A Division of MD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
.....N.N
SOMME O
......
• n
1.1
ur .i
"�lii'ii
WP3 -Page 6
Results of the passenger distribution analysis indicate that of the 45 million annual passengers projected
for the year 2020, 7 million O &D passengers will be generated by the northern counties, and 10 million
will be generated by the southern counties. This assumes all connecting passengers remain in King
County. If it if further assumed that half of the medium haul and all of short haul passengers would select
the closest commercial airport then the demand potential for a supplemental airport in the northern county
sub - region is approximately 2.6 million O &D passengers and in the southern county area is 3.8 million
O &D passengers.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
To test the plausibility of the system alternatives being considered in Phase III, a comparison is made of
the Seattle O &D passenger forecasts with other large metropolitan areas. Table 4 shows the year 2020
Sea -Tac O &D passengers compared to 1988 O &D passengers for large U.S. metropolitan areas. By the
year 2020 Sea -Tac will be required to support O &D passenger volumes comparable to those now handled
in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Each of these metropolitan areas provides multiple airport
systems to meet these demands. A further examination of the metro areas served by more than one airport
reveals three of the six listed are two airport systems and three are three airport systems. It should be
noted Los Angeles is also a multiple airport system even though the statistics in Table 4 show passenger
data for only the primary airport.
The implications of this comparison suggest the Sea -Tac projected year 2020 demands could support a two,
or even three airport system. Moreover, the relatively equal distribution of demand between the north and
south areas of the region also suggests a three airport system alternative which includes two supplemental
airports, one north and one south of Sea -Tac, should at least be considered in the Phase III evaluations.
Passenger distributions derived earlier imply a demand of 2.6 and 3.8 million O &D passengers would exist
for supplemental airports located in the northern and southern areas. Due to the geographical distribution
of demand, the addition or deletion of one of these supplemental airports will affect primarily the demand
at Sea -Tac and not the demand at the other supplemental airport. Thus, it can be reasoned from purely
a demand standpoint, if a supplemental airport is justified north of Sea -Tac, then a supplemental airport
is also justified south of Sea -Tac.
Based on this analysis, it is suggested a three airport system be added to the set of alternatives to be
evaluated. The actual demand for these options will be refined further when airport concept layouts and
site locations are described in greater detail. Included in the next phase of demand analysis will be: 1) the
type and amount of service that would be located at each supplemental airport and 2) the service
advantages and disadvantages of the multiple airport system.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
B -65
WP3 -Page 7
The following summarizes the key findings and conclusions of this analysis.
• Flight Plan Phase I forecasts determined the number of O &D passengers in the Puget Sound region
would grow from 10.9 MAP in 1990 to 30 MAP in 2020.
• Comparison of Sea -Tac 2020 O &D passenger projections to other metropolitan areas reveals this level
of demand is now being served in other parts of the country by several two and three airport systems.
• An evaluation of factors influencing passenger demands determined that population is the best
indicator of passenger distributions in the Puget Sound region.
• Using projected distributions of population and airline haul lengths, it is estimated the O &D passenger
demand will be 2.6 MAP and 3.8 MAP for supplemental airports located in the northern and southern
PSCOG sub - regions respectively.
• In view of these findings, it is recommended a three airport strategy be included in the Phase III
alternative evaluation studies.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR .TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE 3
SEATTLE'S TOP O &D CITY PAIR MARKETS
Rank City EISSMyi grS
1 Los Angeles 455,435
2 San Francisco
3 New York
4 Honolulu
5 Chicago
6 Denver
7 Oakland
8 Washington, D.C.
9 San Jose
10 San Diego
11 Anchorage
12 Phoenix
13 Portland
14 Reno
15 Minneapolis /St. Paul
16 Dallas /Fort Worth
17 Orange County
18 Spokane
19 Boston
20 Ontario
21 Las Vegas
22 Atlanta
23 Detroit
24 Salt Lake City
25 Sacramento
26 Kansas City
27 Philadelphia
28 Orlando
29 Miami
30 St. Louis
31 Houston
32 Baltimore
33 Tampa
34 Juneau
35 Cleveland
36 Albuquerque
37 Tucson
38 New Orleans
39 Ketchikan
40 Hartford
41 Indianapolis
42 Pittsburgh
43 Boise
Total - listed cities
Other cities
GRAND TOTAL
Source: The Flight Plan Project - Phase I.
289,265
206,860
189,060
154,225
147,115
131,865
119,700
109,155
108,050
106,260
104,505
91,909
91,335
86,425
85,755
84,820
77,552
76,190
71,065
59,320
58,415
58,360
51,841
49,753
48,535
48,510
43,745
42,795
39,790
35,075
28,125
27,430
24,660
23,715
23,650
23,405
23,310
23,090
21,570
20,995
20,405
10,561
3,393,601
708,499
4,302,100
WP3 -Page 8
Percent
10.6%
6.7
4.8
4.4
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
83.5%
16.5
100.0%
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF Sea -Tac 2020 O &D PASSENGERS
TO OTHER MAJOR U.S. METROPOLITAN AREAS
Cal 1988 O &D Passengers (MAP)
New York (3) 45.9
Sea -Tac Year 2020 Forecast 14,,Q
Chicago (2) 27.3
Los Angeles 26.7
San Francisco (3) 26.5
Dallas /Fort Worth (2) 18.2
Washington, D.C. (2) 18.0
Boston 16.6
Atlanta 14.3
Houston (2) 13.5
Denver 11.9
B -67
WP3 -Page 9
Note: Number of multiple airports contributing to O &D passenger statistics indicated in parenthesis.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Origin - Destination Survey.
Flight Plan Phase 1 Forecast.
WORKING PAPER # 5
ALLOCATION OF PASSENGERS AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
PRESENTED
AUGUST 15, 1991
ADOPTED
SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
B -69
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 28, 1991
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
P &D Aviation
WORKING. PAPER NO. 5 - ALLOCATION OF PASSENGERS
AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
In this Working Paper, the number of air passengers and operations in the region are allocated
among airports under various alternative scenarios. Passengers and aircraft operations are first
allocated on an "unconstrained" basis, without regard to the capacity constraints at Sea -Tac or
other potential air carrier airport sites. For the unconstrained allocation, passengers were
assigned to airports on the basis of the ground travel time to the airport and the type of service
(haul length) which would be provided at the airport. In this allocation process, Sea -Tac is
allocated more passengers than its capacity in the year 2020 under all scenarios.
Next, passengers and operations were allocated to airports with the consideration of the airfield
capacity limit of each airport. Under this "constrained" approach, air passenger activity must
be shifted from Sea -Tac to other airport sites to accommodate all future passenger demand
within the region, due to the capacity constraints at Sea -Tac. The results of the constrained
allocation show that no supplemental airports reach capacity although Sea -Tac would be at or
near capacity in all scenarios.
UNCONSTRAINED ALLOCATION
For the unconstrained allocation, the data developed in the August 1, 1991 memorandum from
the Flight Plan Staff regarding Supplemental Airport Market Areas was expanded upon. The
referenced memorandum described the development of Supplemental Airport Market Areas and
the level of origin and destination passenger demand allocated to each of these market areas
under various two - and three - airport system scenarios. This working paper describes the
allocation of airport operations under the same alternative aircraft system scenarios.
The passenger allocations included in the referenced memorandum are repeated in Table 1. As
discussed in the memorandum, it is assumed that all connecting passengers (15,000,000 in the
year 2020) will be accommodated at Sea -Tac. Experience at other supplemental airports
indicates that there would be some connecting passengers at a new supplemental airport in the
Puget Sound region. However, the number of connecting passengers at the supplemental airport
would be relatively insignificant for purposes of this analysis, and is therefore not included.
The passenger estimates shown in Table 1 for each of the airport sites were used as the basis
for estimating aircraft operations at the sites. The Central Pierce option shown in Table 1
includes the alternatives of using McChord Air Force Base as a supplemental airport or
developing a new supplemental airport in the Central Pierce area. The methodology and results
of the aircraft operations allocation is described below.
P&D Aviation
A Division of PaD Technologies
TABLE 1
UNCONSTRAINED ALLOCATION OF PASSENGERS TO AIRPORT SITES
YEAR 2020
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -71
WP5 -Page 2
Four categories of aircraft operations are considered: passenger operations, other airline
operations, general aviation operations and military aircraft operations. Each of these is
described below:
A. PASSENGER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Passenger aircraft operations consist of air carrier and commuter /air taxi operations. The
number of passenger operations were allocated according to average numbers of
passengers per operation for primary and supplemental airports. The average number
of passengers per operation in the region is forecast to increase from approximately 50 in
1988 to 95.7 in the year 2020. This represents an average annual growth rate of
2.0 percent over the 32 -year period. This projected growth rate is consistent with the
long -term historical trend in the U.S. and is also consistent with projections of the
growth of average aircraft size by the FAA and aircraft manufacturers.
Typically, with primary and secondary airports serving a single market, the average
number of passengers per operation is smaller at the supplemental airports. It is
anticipated that this relationship would exist under a multiple- airport system in the Puget
sound area. P &D Aviation analyzed the number of passengers per operation at the
primary and supplemental airports in the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, and
Dallas /Fort Worth areas. The primary airports in these markets averaged 69 enplaned
and deplaned passengers per operation in 1988. In the same year, the supplemental
airports in these markets averaged 44 passengers per operation. Although the number
of passengers per operation at the supplemental airports averaged only 64 percent of the
primary airports, it is estimated that by the year 2020, the number of passengers per
operations at the supplemental airports will be 70 percent of the primary airports. At
that ratio, the number of passengers per operation at primary airports would be
approximately 30 more than at supplemental airports. j
The number of total passenger operations under a single- airport system was established
earlier in the Flight Plan Study. The revised forecast for a single - airport option is
470,000 operations in the year 2020. It was suggested in Appendix K of the Phase II
final report that the total number of operations would increase under a multiple- airport
system because of increased numbers of flights to cities served by both Sea -Tac and the
supplemental airport(s). P &D Aviation compared the average number of passengers per
operation at single - airport and multiple- airport systems serving other markets in the U.S.
and found that the number of passengers per operation for a region is essentially the
same for single - and multiple- airport systems. Therefore, the number of operations were
not increased for multiple- airport systems.
Passenger aircraft operations were allocated between Sea -Tac Airport and the
supplemental airport(s) by maintaining the relationship that the number of passengers per
operation at the supplemental airport(s) is 70 percent of the number of passengers per
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP5 -Page 3
operation at Sea -Tac. In all scenarios, 470,000 passenger operations are allocated
between the system airports (see Table 2).
B. OTHER AIRLINE OPERATIONS
Other airline operations consist primarily of cargo and charter flights. Other airline
operations were previously forecast to total 30,000 in the year 2020 for a single - airport
system (Table 2). This represents approximately 6.4 percent of the passenger aircraft
operations. For the two - and three - airport systems it is projected that other airline
operations will also be 6.4 percent of the passenger operations at each airport.
C. GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS
General aviation operations in the year 2020 for a single - airport system are projected to
be 23,000, or approximately 5 percent of the passenger operations. It is estimated that
this relationship will remain the same for Sea -Tac under the two- and three- airport
systems. The number of general aviation operations at the supplemental airports was
estimated to be equal to the average at Paine and Arlington (138,000 a year). As stated
in Appendix K, general aviation operations account for 50 percent or more of the
operations at most supplemental airports in the U.S. Today.
D. MILITARY OPERATIONS
Military operations under a single - airport system and at Sea -Tac under multiple- airport
systems are estimated at 1,000 operations in the year 2020. At all supplemental airports
500 military operations are estimated for 2020.
The results of the allocation of aircraft operations to airport sites, shown in Table 2, indicate the
reduction in operations expected at Sea -Tac under each of these scenarios. Under the range of
two- and three- airport system alternatives examined, Sea -Tac would have between 404,900
operations (23 percent less than under a single - airport system) and 499,500 operations (5 percent
less than under a single - airport system). For two-airport systems the number of operations at
Sea -Tac would be 5 percent (Sea -Tac and Olympia site) to 12 percent (Sea -Tac and Paine Field)
less than under a single - airport system. For three- airport systems, operations at Sea -Tac would
be 12 percent to 23 percent less than under a single - airport system.
CONSTRAINED ALLOCATION
Constrained allocations were made for each of the 33 airport system alternatives. In the
constrained allocation, no more passengers were allocated to an airport than its airfield could
accommodate. The results of the constrained allocation process are shown in Table 3
(passengers) and Table 4 (operations).
TABLE 2
UNCONSTRAINED ALLOCATION OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
TO AIRPORT SITES, YEAR 2020
Now Based on 100 pocou of than haul and SO percent of long haul demand.00eattd to affianced airports
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS (THOUSANDS)
MILLIONS OF
PASSENGERS
TOTAL
PASSENGER
OTHER
AIRLINE
GENERAL
AVIATION
MILITARY
Single - airport System
524.0
470.0
30.0
230
1.0
45.0
Two- airport Systems
Sea- Tac/Paine Field
Sea -Tac
461.6
413.9
26.4
203
1.0
41.1
Paine Field
198.2
56.1
3.6
138.0
03
3.9
Total
659.8
470.0
30.0
138.3
13
45.0
Sea -Tac /Arlington
Sea -Tae
4833
433.6
27.7
212
1.0
423
Arlington
177.3
36.4
23
138.0
03
23
Total
660.7
470.0
30.0
1.59.2
13
45.0
Sea -Tac /Olympia
Sea -Tac
4993
447.9
18.6
21.9
1.0
433
Olympia
162.0
22.1
1.4
138.0
03
13
Total
661.4
470.0
30.0
159.9
13
45.0
Sea -Tac /Central Piero
Sea -Tac
463.1
4153
263
20.3
1.0
41.2
Central Pierce
196.7
54.7
33
138.0
03
3.8
Total
659.8
470.0
30.0
158.3
13
45.0
Three- airport Systems
Sea -Tac /Central Pierce/Paine
Sea -Tac
404.9
363.0
232
17.8
1.0
37.3
Central Pierce
194.7
52.8
14
1310
03
3.8
Paine
196.2
54.2
3.5
1310
03
3.9
Total
795.8
470.0
30.0
2938
2.0
45.0
Sea -Tac /Central Pierce /Arlington
Sea -Tac
425.3
3813
243
117
1.0
317
Central Piero
195.4
533
14
138.0
03
3.8
Arlington
175.9
35.2
2.2
138.0
03
23
Total
796.7
470.0
30.0
294.7
2.0
45.0
Sea-The/Olympia/Paine
Sea -Tac
4317
393.4
25.1
19.3
1.0
39.6
Olympia
161.1
213
1.4
138.0
03
1.5
Paine
197.4
353
33
1310
03
19
Total
7973
470.0
30.0
2933
2.0
45.0
Sea -Tac /Olympia /Arlington
Sea -Tae
460.0
412.5
26.3
3.2
1.0
41.0
Olympia
161.4
21.6
1.4
1310
0.5
1.5
Arlington
176.7
35.9
23
1310
0.5
23
Total
7982
470.0
30.0
2962
2.0
43.0
Now Based on 100 pocou of than haul and SO percent of long haul demand.00eattd to affianced airports
TABLE 3
CONSTRAINED ALLOCATION OF PASSENGERS TO AIRPORTS
Alternate
Description
Enplaned and Deplased Passengers
Year 2000 (25AMAP)
Year 2010 (34.0 MAP)
Year 2020 (45.0 MAP)
Sea -Tart North I South I Ussat.
Sea -Tara North I South I Unsat.
Sea -Tart North I South I Unsat.
1
Sea-Tac without Commuter R/W
23.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
28.8
0.0
0.0
5.2
32.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
2
Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
25.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.4
0.0
0.0
2.6
34.9
0.0
0.0
10.1
3
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
23.6
1.8
0.0
0.0
28.8
5.2
0.0
0.0
32.0
10.9
0.0
2.1
4
Alternate 1 + Paine 1:R/W
233
1.9
0.0
0.0
28.8
5.2
. 0.0
0.0
32.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
5
Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
6
ternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
235
0.0
1.9
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
10.9
2.1
7
Alternate 1 + Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
23.6
0.0
1.8
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
10.9
2.1
8
ternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
23.6
1.8
0.0
0.0
28.8
5.2
0.0
0.0
32.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
9
ternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
235
1.9
0.0
0.0
28.8
5.2
0.0
0.0
32.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
10
Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
11
Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
12
Alternate 1 + Olympia /Black Lake 2 R/W
23.6
0.0
1.8
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
13
Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
24.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
32.4
1.6
0.0
0.0
41.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
14
Sea Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
233
1.9
0.0
0.0
313
23
0.0
0.0
41.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
15
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
235
0.0
1.9
0.0
313
0.0
23
0.0
41.8
0.0
3.2
0.0
16
Sea -Tae w /Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
313
0.0
23
0.0
41.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
17 .
Sea -Tae w /Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W
24.6
0.0
0.8
0.0
33.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
41.8
0.0
3.2
0.0
18
Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
24.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
32.4
1.6
0.0
0.0
41.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
19
Sea -Tae w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
233
1.9
0.0
0.0
313
23
0.0
0.0
41.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
20
Sea -Tae w/Dependent R/W + Mcasord 2 R/W
23.5
0.0
1.9
0.0
313
0.0
23
0.0
41.8
0.0
3.2
0.0
21
Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
23.5
0.0
1.9
0.0
313
0.0
23
0.0
41.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
22
Sea -Tae w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 2 R/W
24.6
0.0
0.8
0.0
33.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
41.8
0.0
3.2
0.0
23
mate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
22.3
1.2
1.9
0.0
28.8
3.1
2.1
0.0
32.0
5.9
7.1
0.0
24
to 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
21.6
1.9
1.9
0.0
28.8
2.6
2.6
0.0
32.0
63
63
0.0
25
ternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R
23.4
1.2
0.8
0.0
28.8
2.9
2.3
0.0
32.0
7.0
6.0
0.0
26
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./BIk. Lake 1 R/W
22.7
1.9
0.8
0.0
28.8
3.4
1.8
0.0
32.0
7.6
5.4
0.0
27
temate 13 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
22.3
1.2
1.9
•
0.0
29.9
1.6
23
0.0
395
2.2
3.3
0.0
28
mate 14 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
21.6
1.9
1.9
0.0
29.0
25
25
0.0
383
3.4
3.3
0.0
29
ternate 13 + Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
23.4
1.2
0.8
0.0
31.4
1.6
1.0
0.0
41.5
2.2
1.3
0.0
30
ternate 14 + Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
22.7
1.9
0.8
0.0
303
23
1.0
0.0
40.3
3.4
1.3
0.0
31
Central Pierce 3 R/W
0.0
0.0
25.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.0
0.0
32
Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
0.0
0.0
25.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.0
0.0
33
ternate 1 + Demand Management
25.4
0.0
0.0
0.0_
34.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
Nose: Supplemental airport demand is based on mid range of unconstrained demand (i.e,accommodatiag 75perceiu of shore haul and SO percent of long haul demand).
• • • - - - - - - - - • • - - - - - -
TABLE 4
CONSTRAINED ALLOCATION OF OPERATIONS TO AIRPORTS
YEAR 2020
Alternate
Description
Sea -Tac
Ac*.Opna
(WM)
Sepp. 1
Ae*.Opas.
(2020)
Sapp.2
Adt.Opns
(2020)
1
Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
390,000
0
0
2
Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
410,000
0
0
3
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
380,000
250,000
0
4
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
380,000
133,000
0
5
Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
380,000
133,000
0
6
Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
380,000
250,000
0
7
Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
380,000
250,000
0
8
Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
380,000
271,000
0
9
Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
380,000
133,000
0
10
Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
380,000
133,000
0
11
Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
380,000
271,000
0
12
Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W
380,000
271,000
0
13
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
480,000
170,700
0
14
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
477,700
34,800
0
13
Sea -Tat w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
480,000
32,700
0
16
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
478,900
171,800
0
17
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W
480,000
170,700
0
18
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
480,000
170,700
0
19
Sea -Tac w/Depeadent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
477,700
34,800
0
20
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
480,000
32,700
0
21
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
478,900
171,800
0
22
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Otym./Blk. Lake 2 R/W
480,000
170,700
0
23
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
300,000
198,400
210,600
24
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cat. Pierce 1 R/W
360,000
66,500
204300
25
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym/Blk. Lake 1 R
360,000
209,600
199,400
26
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Otym/Blk. Lake 1 R/W
300,000
77,000
193,200
27
Alternate 13 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
453,600
160,500
171,800
28
Alternate 14 + Central Pierre 1 R/W
439,800
34,800
171,800
29
,Alternate 13 + Olympia /Back Lake 1 R/W
476,600
160,500
151,300
30
Alternate 14 + Olympia /Black lake 1 R/W
462,900
34,800
151,300
31
Central Piero 3 R/W
0
524,000
0
32
Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
0
524,000
0
33
Alternate 1 + Demand Management
380,000
0
0
Note Operaoiom at Pause and McOiord wclaidr air currier and canuwuas oak
Sow= PAD aaalysis
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
-PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
A. PASSENGERS
WP5 -Page 4
Constrained passenger allocations were made by the Flight Plan Staff according to the
methodology discussed below.
It is assumed that all of the passenger demand generated by a market area (whether
Sea -Tac, supplemental or replacement) would be captured by that airport up to its
capacity limit. In cases where Sea -Tac's demand was greater than its capacity, the
residual passengers were assigned to the supplemental site (if one supplemental) or
divided between two supplemental sites (if two supplementals), up to the capacity of the
supplemental sites. Thus, under some scenarios, there would be passengers who would
prefer to use Sea -Tac, but would have to drive to a more distant airport because Sea -Tac
would be at capacity. Any residual passenger demand after this allocation was
considered unsatisfied demand.
Passengers were allocated to supplemental airports according to their demand. The
Flight Plan Staff developed a range of passenger demand for supplemental airports
depending on the amount of short haul traffic assumed to be captured by the
supplementals (50 percent or 100 percent). In this Working Paper, the midpoint of the
range was used. As under the unconstrained allocation, it was assumed that all
connecting passengers would be at Sea -Tac.
B. OPERATIONS
Aircraft operations were estimated for the year 2020 under constrained conditions for
each alternative scenario (Table 4). At Sea -Tac, the number of operations would equal
its annual service volume (ASV) because the airport would be at capacity. The
relationship between passengers and total operations at Sea -Tac was based on the
relationship indicated in Table 21 of the Phase I report.
At supplemental airports, it was estimated that commercial passenger operations would
be 50 percent air carrier and 50 percent commuter. The average number of
enplanements per departure were estimated to be 93 for air carrier operations and 17 for
commuter operations, from Table 21 of the Phase I report. General aviation operations
were estimated to be 138,000 per year (the average at Paine and Arlington). Military
operations at McChord were estimated to remain at approximately 62,000 a year. If the
supplemental airports are at capacity, their number of operations would equal their ASV.
The operations estimates appearing in Table 4 were used to compute airfield delays,
described in Working Paper 7.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
SUMMARY
WP5 -Page 5
If demand for air passengers in the region were allocated without regard to airport
capacity, Sea -Tac would be allocated passengers in excess of its capacity under all system
alternatives. Supplemental airports would be allocated at most a total of 7.7 million air
passengers a year (Paine Field and Central Pierce site)
The results of the constrained passenger allocation analysis (Table 3) show that Sea -Tac
alone will not be able to accommodate all passengers in the region in the year 2020.
Year 2020 demand can be met with an expanded Sea -Tac and one or two supplemental
airports or a replacement airport.
PAD Aviation A DhAsion of PAD Technologies
WORKING PAPER #7
AIRSPACE, CAPACITY AND DELAY
PRESENTED
SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
ADOPTED
OCTOBER 16, 1991
B -79
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
FROM: P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 7 - AIRSPACE, CAPACITY AND DELAY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1 on the following page summarizes the major conclusions of the airspace and capacity
analysis of the Flight Plan options. For each option information is presented to summarize 1)
the system capability in terms of aircraft operations and passengers, 2) the capability of the
option to satisfy the projected demands, and 3) the estimated year 2020 aircraft delays which
would occur. Lastly, Table 1 shows the consultant's suggested composite ranking of the options
based on these considerations.
The option which receives the highest ranking (Rank 1) is the 3 airport system which includes
a new air carrier runway at Sea -Tac and two air carrier runways at two supplemental airports.
This option provides the greatest system capacity and is the only option which fully meets the
vision demand (year 2050) requirements. It also is the most effective option in terms or relieving
traffic from Sea -Tac. The second and third ranked options are the 3 and 2 airport systems with
1 and 2 runway supplementals respectively. Again, these offer greater airport system capacity
and fewer aircraft delays than the other options with the exception of the replacement airport
option. The replacement airport option is shown to create the least amount of aircraft delays due
to the total elimination of Sea -Tac. The replacement option is not ranked first however, since
it does not provide as much overall system capacity as some of the two and three airport options.
With few exceptions, the annual delay costs are within a fairly narrow and consistent range.
This is largely due to the fact that Sea -Tac is assumed to operate almost always at or near
capacity. Thus, the delay costs for Sea -Tac tend to mask the differences between alternatives.
These differences however can become more significant when examining the cumulative effect
of the airport system operations over a period of several years. The total computed aircraft
annual delay costs for the year 2020 range from $24 million for the replacement airport concept
to $271 million for the existing Sea -Tac option and one supplemental airport with one air carrier
runway.
INTRODUCTION
The previous Working Paper No. 6 presented a total of 15 airport layout concepts for the
different sites in the Puget Sound region. Various combinations of layout concepts can be
formed to develop numerous alternative commercial airport systems. However, it was agreed
op
op
TABLE 1
FLIGIIT PLAN PHASE 111
EVALUATION OF.OPTIONS
AIRSPACE /CAPACITY OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
OPTIONS
SYSTEM CAPABILITY
DEMAND SATISFACTION
2020 AIRCRAFT
DELAY COSTS
(5 millions)
RANK'
OPERATIONS
( "1•10USANDS)
PASSI?NGIiRS
(MAT')
2020
VISION
(2050)
I AIRPORT SYSTEM
EXISTING SEA -TAC •
380
32
71%
33%
232
11
SIA -TAC WITII NEW AC RWY
480
42
93%
43%
240
9
REPLACEMENT
750
64
143%
66%
24
4
MAXIMUM DEMAND MANAGEMENT
380
38
84%
39%
232
10
2 AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC PLUS SUPPLEMENTAL (1 RWY)
630
43 -56
96% -124%
43 % -57%
234 -271
8
EXISTING SEA-TAC PLUS SUPPLEMENTAL (2 RWYS)
760 -880
63-69
140% -153%
64 %70%
233 -237
7
SEA-TAC WT17I NEW AC RWY PLUS SUPPLEMENTAL. (1 RWY)
730
53 -66
118% -147%
54 % -67%
232 -241
5
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY PLUS SUPPLEMENTAL (2 RWYS)
860 -980
73 -79
162% -176%
74%-81%
232 -241
3
3 AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC PLUS 2 SUPPLEMENTALS (1 RWY)
880
54 -67
120% -149%
55%-68%
235 -241
6
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY PLUS 2 SUPPLEMENTAIS (1 RWY)
980
64 -77
142 %171%
65 % -79%
141 -229
2
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY PLUS 2 SUPPLEMENTAIS (2 RWYS)
1060 -1480
112- 114
249% -253%
114% -116%
140 -165
1
' A "best to worst" subjective ranking of options based solely on airspace /capacity operational considerations.
0
2
0
0
O
Go
00
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -81
WP7 -Page 2
that the process of evaluating options could be simplified by considering a smaller number of
alternatives. The final field of alternatives to be tested in this working paper totals 33 and
involve airport locations at 6 sites. The objectives of analysis in this task are to:
Review airspace circumstances with the intent of identifying potential fatal flaws that
would preclude a plan from being implemented.
• Determine the airfield capacity provided by the various alternatives and estimate the delay
consequences associated with the options. A ranking of alternatives can then be developed
based on delay.
AIRPORT LOCATIONS
The 6 airport locations considered in this evaluation of alternatives include 4 existing airports -
Sea-Tac International Airport, Arlington Municipal Airport, Paine Field, and McChord AFB.
In the case of McChord AFB, it is assumed that the base would operate as a joint use facility.
Two other locations, Olympia/Black Lake and Central Pierce County have been identified as
potential sites for new commercial airports. In the various alternatives, Sea -Tac functions as the
primary airport for the region with the other locations filling supplemental regional airport roles.
This type airport would support scheduled air service to Pacific Northwest, California, and some
national hub airport (i.e., Salt Lake City, Denver) destinations with a mix of turboprop and jet
(B737/MD -80 class) aircraft. The only exception to these airport roles would be at the two sites
for a new commercial airport. At these locations the airports could function as supplemental
regional airports or the primary airport for the region. The latter would assume that a
replacement airport is developed.
AIRSPACE CONSIDERATIONS
An airspace assessment of the locations involved in this analysis was conducted in Phase II of
the Flight Plan Project. The purpose of the airspace review in the current task is to validate the
previous conclusions with respect to specific sites in Phase III and identify conflicts that will
preclude implementation of a plan. For the purposes of this working paper and the delay
analysis, which is the prime focus of this paper, it was assumed that unless a fatal flaw was
identified for a site, further airspace analysis would not be required. It should be noted that
detailed airspace studies of recommendations that ultimately evolve from the Flight Plan Project
will be conducted by FAA in the future. It should also be noted that as part of the noise
analysis in later phases of this study, actual arrival and departure procedures will be developed
in order to delineate flight paths. A summary of airspace findings as they relate to the Phase
III analysis is presented.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
A. ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
WP7 -Page 3
Phase II concluded that scheduled regional air service at the airport would not create significant
airspace impacts and would be able to function within the existing airspace structure. The
airport is a sufficient distance from Sea -Tac so that air traffic could be accommodated
independently. It was pointed out in Phase II however that a busy regional service facility at
Arlington might create potential conflicts with traffic at Paine Field and NAS Whidbey Island.
It was further pointed out that a significant level of commercial jet traffic at the airport could
possibly impact operations at Sea -Tac and thus the location was not recommended as a
supplemental domestic /international airport. The level of traffic implied by the
domestic /international role is much greater than that for the regional role that has been
designated in Phase III. Thus, it is expected that the level and nature of traffic anticipated at
the airport in this analysis would not create significant airspace impacts.
In terms of longer range expansion potential, the airport would .not be a suitable location for a
replacement airport due to conflicts with Canadian airspace and terrain to the east (Cascade
Mountains).
With respect to terrain east and north of the airport it has been noted that this would complicate
the installation of a precision approach procedure from the north. The present instrument
approaches for the airport consist of a localizer approach to Runway 34, and an NDB approach.
Both are considered as "non- precision ", since neither includes an electronic glide slope which
provides the pilot with altitude guidance on descent.. While obstruction protection criteria
specified in FAR Part 77 for a precision instrument runway is met, it appears that the terrain
east and north will impact vectoring aircraft to a final approach fix for a precision approach
from the north. Stated simply, aircraft would have to descend too rapidly to be in appropriate
position (at the final approach fix) to continue the approach. The descent would be too steep
and is not feasible for conventional commercial aircraft. The terrain impacts a precision
approach from the north (i.e., south traffic flows, which prevail approximately 70 percent of the
time). A precision approach from the south can be accommodated without difficulty as the
terrain is favorable in terms of obstruction standards and vectoring.
While a serious concern, this is not considered a fatal flaw for the following reasons:
• Circuitous vectoring (although undesirable) might be used as a means for implementing
an approach from the north.
PSD Aviation A DNtlon of P8D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -83
WP7 -Page 4
• The above described vectoring impacts would not be as severe for other sites in the
Arlington search area and thus an airport in the area is viable. Therefore, to measure the
system -wide impacts of a north remote site, the existing airport is judged to be suitable
for testing purposes.
B. PAINE FIELD
The Phase II analysis determined that use of the airport as a supplemental regional airport was
feasible but would require restructuring of the TRACON airspace. It was also concluded that
the airport could function well at activity levels less than 200,000 (presumably commercial
aircraft) operations per year. Considering that the airport has recently served 166,000 general
aviation operations but has a short parallel runway suggests that the main runway would be
capable of supporting commercial aircraft activity. Therefore, airspace issues do not appear to
present insurmountable roadblocks which would preclude the use of the airport in a supplemental
regional role.
C. McCHORD AFB
In Phase II, McChord AFB was judged to be a very feasible site for a supplemental regional
airport from an airspace perspective. The base is far enough from Sea -Tac so that compatible
traffic flows could be developed to both locations. There are other, non - airspace, issues
connected with the concept of joint -use of the facility that could reduce the attractiveness of this
option. Issues which could potentially have negative impacts would be stipulated by the military
in the formulation of the joint -use operating agreement.
D. CENTRAL PIERCE SITE
This site does not involve the use of existing airfield facilities but proposes the development of
new airport facilities. As such, it is one of two locations to be tested as a replacement airport.
The proposed airfield facilities would encompass the existing Pierce County - Thun Field and
are approximately 8 miles east of McChord AFB. The airspace aspects of this particular site
were not assessed in Phase II, however, it is immediately east of the Ft. Lewis site which was
evaluated in Phase II.
Terrain to the east and west of the Puget Sound region forces air traffic in the region into a
north-south corridor. Phase II analysis for the Ft. Lewis site indicated that jet traffic to and
from two commercial airports in this corridor would pose problems to TRACON controllers.
These same problems are applicable to the Central Pierce site, but are not considered to be
insurmountable.
P8D Aviation A Division d AID Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP7 -Page 5
Additionally, this site is the closest to Mt. Rainier which creates operational impacts and as such
aircraft would have to be routed to avoid it. In the replacement airport scenario for the site,
it appears that the terminal airspace could be structured to accommodate the "cornerpost"
configuration for arrivals. However, mountains could impact departures through the east
airspace "gate ". It is noted that Phase II analysis for the neighboring Ft. Lewis site,
approximately 7 miles to the west, concluded that the site was very feasible for a replacement
airport from an airspace standpoint.
The Phase II analysis also included an assessment of an airport at an Enumclaw /Buckley site.
It is noted that for this site there were serious airspace concerns that resulted in elimination of
the site from further consideration. These were proximity to the Cascade Mountains, the
preponderance of very strong easterly winds in the area, the limited low altitude airspace
available due to terrain, and obstructions to the south. At this time it appears that the concerns
for the Enumclaw site do not impact the Central Pierce site to the degree such that the site would
not be feasible. However, as previously mentioned, a detailed airspace study by FAA would
confirm the suitability of the site for commercial operations.
E. OLYMPIA /BLACK LAKE SITE
Phase II analysis determined that the site is adequately separated from Mt. Rainier and other
airports to accommodate a supplemental regional airport. However, under the replacement
airport scenario for the site, it is assumed that the existing Olympia Airport would be closed.
OBSTRUCTIONS
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, specifies
a set of imaginary surfaces surrounding an airport for the purposes of protecting the airspace.
If an object, natural or manmade, penetrates one of the surfaces it is an obstruction and the FAA
must study and determine the impacts on air traffic. The most critical areas are the approaches
to the runways, particularly in close proximity to the airport. As part of the siting analysis
conducted in the development of alternative concept layouts (Working Paper No. 6), Part 77
approach surfaces prescribed for precision instrument runways were applied to all runway ends.
It was found in all but one case that objects did not penetrate the approach surface within
approximately 50,000 feet from a runway end. The exception to this is the Central Pierce site
where it was found that about 3 acres of terrain would penetrate the approach surface from one
to ten feet approximately 14,000 feet from the runway. This is not a significant violation of the
obstruction standard and is not considered a fatal flaw.
AID Aviation A 1 b ton of AID Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
CAPACITY AND DELAY ANALYSIS
B -85
WP7 -Page 6
In airport planning the term capacity refers to the capability of an airport, or its components,
to process traffic over a period of time. In this analysis, the focus is airfield capacity which is
measured by the number of aircraft operations (i.e., either a takeoff or landing) that can be
accommodated within a specified period. Airfield capacity is typically estimated on an hourly
or annual basis, with the hourly data most applicable for detailed analysis of a particular site;
and the annual capacities being better suited for long range planning and systemwide analysis
such as the Flight Plan Project. Thus the capacity measures used herein are the annual number
of aircraft takeoffs and landings that can be accommodated by the airfield.
Aircraft delay is the time over and above unimpeded travel time that an aircraft must take to
move from its origin to destination as a result of interference from other aircraft in the system
that are competing for the use of the same facilities. Weather, airfield facilities, air traffic
control procedures, and other aircraft competing for use of the same facilities (demand) all
contribute to aircraft delay. In reading this working paper it is important to understand the
relationship between demand, capacity and delay. As demand approaches capacity, delays will
increase drastically. At low levels of demand, delays will increase in a linear fashion as demand
increases. However, as demand approaches and even exceeds capacity, delays will increase
exponentially. It is sometimes a difficult concept to grasp, but it is also important to note that
capacity can be exceeded, but at the cost of excessive delays.
In this analysis delay is first determined on an average basis per aircraft operation and then
annualized based on projected traffic. Once annual delays are determined they can be translated
into a monetary value to reflect the costs to the users. Average aircraft delay can be estimated
via a "desk -top approach" by comparing demand to capacity or by sophisticated computer
modelling techniques. The data in this analysis was based on both approaches. The desk -top
approach followed a common FAA methodology and the data generated by computer modelling
was extracted from the recently completed Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan for Sea -Tac.
A few comments on average delay at this juncture are appropriate. The term average delay
denotes a value for a number of aircraft within a period of time whereby one aircraft might
experience only a few seconds delay and another perhaps several minutes. Years ago, an
average delay of 4 minutes was determined to be an acceptable level for airport planning. At
this average, the distribution of delays during an hour are such that they range from a few
seconds up to but never exceeding 20 minutes. Today, the 4 minute average is still recognized
in the industry as a valid measure of tolerable delay. Numerous studies of airfield capacity and
delay indicate that delays will start escalating quickly at the 4 minute average. Comparing the
acceptable 4 minute average to other thresholds, average delays of from 5 to 7 minutes for air
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP7 -Page 7
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -87
WP7 -Page 8
15. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and McChord AFB with one air carrier
runway. The existing runway at McChord serves as the air carrier runway.
16. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and the Central Pierce site with one air
carrier runway.
17. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and the Olympia/Black Lake site with
one air carrier runway.
18. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and Arlington Municipal Airport with
two parallel air carrier runways.
19. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and Paine Field with two parallel air
carrier runways.
20. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and McChord AFB with two parallel
air carrier runways.
21. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and the Central Pierce site with two
parallel air carrier runways.
22. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and the Olympia/Black Lake site with
two parallel air carrier runways.
23. Sea -Tac without a new runway with Arlington Municipal and the Central Pierce site each
with one air carrier runway.
24. Sea -Tac without a new runway with Paine Field and the Central Pierce site each with one
air carrier runway.
25. Sea -Tac without a new runway with Arlington Municipal and the Olympia/Black Lake site
each with one air carrier runway.
26. Sea -Tac without a new runway with Paine Field and the Olympia/Black Lake site each
with one air carrier runway.
27. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway with Arlington Municipal Airport and
the Central Pierce site each with one air carrier runway.
28. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway with Paine Field and the Central Pierce
site each with one air carrier runway.
29. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway with Arlington Municipal Airport and
the Olympia/Black Lake site each with one air carrier runway.
30. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway with-Paine Field and the Olympia/Black
Lake site each with one air carrier runway.
31. A replacement airport at the Central Pierce site with three parallel air carrier runways
capable of supporting triple IFR approaches.
32. A replacement airport at the Olympia/Black Lake site with three parallel air carrier
runways capable of supporting triple IFR approaches.
33. Sea -Tac without a new runway and full demand management.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP7 -Page 9
The alternatives can be categorized into 8 basic groups of system concepts as follows:
• Sea -Tac as the only commercial airport serving the region. (Numbers 1, 2, 33)
• Sea -Tac without a new runway and a supplemental airport with one air carrier runway.
(Numbers 3 -7)
• Sea -Tac without a new runway and a supplemental airport with two air carrier runways.
(Numbers 8 -12)
• Sea -Tac with a new air carrier runway and a supplemental airport with one air carrier
runway. (Numbers 13 -17)
• Sea -Tac with a new air carrier runway and a supplemental airport with two air carrier
runways. (Numbers 18 -22)
• Sea -Tac without a new runway and two supplemental airports each with one air carrier
runway. (Numbers 23 -26)
• Sea -Tac with a new air carrier runway and two supplemental airports each with one air
carrier runway. (Numbers 27 -30)
• Replacement airport with three independent parallel air carrier runways. (Numbers 31,
32)
B. ANALYSIS
The purpose of this analysis was to determine delay consequences associated with each
alternative plan thus providing a means of comparing how effectively they accommodate the
regional demand for commercial air transportation. In order to develop these measures, certain
ingredients are necessary - namely the airfield capacity of each alternative, a projection of air
traffic activity (demand) for each option, and estimates of average aircraft delays that would be
experienced by users at certain traffic levels.
The approach used in estimating annual delays followed these basic steps:
• Identify the annual capacity of the airfield facilities included in each alternative.
• Determine the number of annual passengers served by the respective capacities.
• Estimate air traffic activity (aircraft operations) at each airport based on the passenger
volumes.
• Compare demand (annual operations) to capacity and identify average aircraft delay (in
minutes) for these relationships.
• Project annual aircraft delays (in hours) by applying the average delay to annual aircraft
operations.
• Translate the total annual delay into a monetary value by applying hourly direct operating
costs.
PAD Aviation A DMslon of PAD TaGnologlas
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -89
WP7 -Page 10
This process produced an annual cost of aircraft delay for each alternative. It should be noted
that the costs identified represent a "snapshot" at a point in time, in this case the year 2020, of
the annual delay conditions. Aircraft delays would be experienced prior to 2020 but at lower
levels since demand would be less. Likewise, delays after 2020 would be greater due to greater
traffic volumes. It is thus important to note that it is an annual delay cost that is presented
herein for the initial comparison of alternatives. The cumulative costs over the 30 year planning
period would be significantly greater.
The remainder of this subsection highlights the development of the above input to the analysis.
For more detail see the appendix.
1. Annual Capacity
Annual capacities were developed in Phase II for different Sea -Tac scenarios and for generic
supplemental airfield concepts. The annual capacities used in this analysis are presented in the
tabulation below.
Airport Layout
Sea -Tac (existing runways)
Sea -Tac with New Commuter R/W
Sea -Tac with New Air Carrier R/W
Supplemental Airport - One R/W
Supplemental Airport - Two R/W
Replacement Airport
Annual Capacity
380,000 operations
410,000 operations
480,000 operations
250,000 operations
500,000 operations
750,000 operations
Annual capacities for Sea -Tac are those contained in the Phase II report. The annual capacity
estimates for the supplemental airports were developed by P &D based upon Phase II data, FAA
guidelines, and recent capacity analyses. For the supplemental airport concepts with two air
carrier runways, the runways are parallel and separated sufficiently to permit simultaneous
instrument approaches and thus are capable of operating independently of one another. Thus the
annual capacity of a two runway airport is twice that of a single runway airport, and the annual
capacity of the replacement airport (with three independent runways) is three times that of a
single runway. It should be noted that in some cases in the site analysis (Paine Field and
McChord AFB), it was judged that the runway separations required for independent operations
were not feasible for parallel runways. In these cases, closely spaced parallel runways (similar
RID Aviation
A Division d PSD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP7 -Page 11
to the existing Sea -Tac layout) are envisioned, and therefore the annual capacity would be
equivalent to that indicated above for the existing Sea -Tac runways. As previously stated, the
capacity of an airport may be exceeded but at the expense of increased delays.
It should be noted that the annual capacity represents an average for the airport that accounts for
all operating configurations and weather occurrences. It therefore reflects periods of constrained
operations during poor weather conditions.
2. Annual Passenger Capability
Annual passenger volumes were developed from the annual capacities through interpretation of
forecast data from Phases I and II. This was undertaken to determine if regional demand is
satisfied and also to determine the amount of system capacity that is utilized. The passenger
levels used for projecting aircraft activity are shown below.
Airport Layout
Sea -Tac (existing runways)
Sea -Tac with New Commuter R/W
Sea -Tac with New Air Carrier R/W
Supplemental Airport - One R/W
Supplemental Airport - Two R/W
Replacement Airport
Annual Passenger
Capability
32 -38 MAP
34.9 MAP
41.8 MAP
10.9 -24.4 MAP
31.1 -37.1 MAP
64.4 MAP
It should be noted that the passenger traffic reflects levels based upon assumptions and analysis
from previous phases and should not be construed as a capacity, or limit, for an airport. The
above passenger capabilities are largely influenced by the number of enplanements per departure.
The passenger levels would increase if the average number of enplanements per departure
increases. An increase in aircraft size greater than was assumed in Phase I would promote an
increase in enplanements per departure, and increase the passenger capabilities shown above.
Also, as with airfield capacity, additional passengers could be accommodated but with increased
delay costs.
NDAvlaLion A Division dPIDTath,*b as
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -91
WP7 -Page 12
The range for the existing Sea -Tac airfield represents the passenger levels with and without full
demand management strategies. The ranges for the supplementals result from existing airfield
facilities. The lower end of the range represents passenger traffic with one air carrier runway
that accommodates a mix of commercial and general aviation traffic, while the upper end
represents passengers accommodated by a runway used exclusively by air carriers. The latter
applies to Paine Field where an existing short parallel runway is assumed to handle all GA
activity at the airport and thus permit the main runway to serve primarily air carriers. The
annual passengers for the supplemental regional airports are based on an assumed mix of
commercial operations of 75 percent major carrier (jet) and 25 percent commuter (turboprop).
Phase I assumptions for average aircraft size and enplanements per departure for the year 2020
were applied.
Regional passenger demand for the year 2020 was distributed to the various system alternatives
by Flight Plan staff as described in Working Paper No. 5. Once passenger demand was
assigned to each airport, the passenger demand was translated into aircraft operations for
purposes of identifying average delays.
3. Average Aircraft Delay
The recently completed study performed by the Sea -Tac Airport Capacity Design Team provided
an in -depth examination of delays at the airport. Through the application of the latest FAA
computer technologies, the Design Team projected aircraft delays for existing facilities and an
improved airfield operating at various traffic levels. Much of the data generated for Sea -Tac
in this study is applicable and useful to this phase of the Flight Plan project and was used as
input in this analysis.
Figure 1 highlights the study results that are most germane to this work task. The graphs shown
in the figure reflect the relationship between annual aircraft delays at Sea -Tac and the number
of aircraft operations for three airport scenarios - existing Sea -Tac, Sea -Tac with a new
commuter runway and Sea -Tac with a new air carrier runway. As seen, annual delays increase
as the number of operations increase. From these graphs it is possible to obtain an average
delay for any demand level by dividing the annual delays by the demand level (annual
operations) at which it is experienced. Using this approach the following average delays are
obtained for the three scenarios (operating at capacity) at Sea -Tac:
20
100
FIGURE 1
SEA -TAC ANNUAL AIRCRAFT DELAY
300,000
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
400,000
Source: P&D analysis of data contained in Seattle - Tacoma International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -93
WP7 -Page 13
Scenario Ann. Operations Avg. Delay
Sea -Tac (existing runways) 380,000 22.9 min.
Sea -Tac with New Commuter R/W 410,000 22.0 min.
Sea -Tac with New Air Carrier R/W 480,000 18.8 min.
For the scenario at Sea -Tac with a new air carrier runway, the average delay shown above was
extrapolated from the Task Force data presented in Figure 1. For supplemental airports, generic
aircraft delay curves developed in Phase II were used to estimate average delay. This data
suggested an average delay of approximately 12 minutes per operation for the supplemental
airports when operating at capacity. The differences between Sea -Tac, and supplemental airport
average delays are explained by the following two reasons. First, 'at Sea -Tac the major
difference between VFR and IFR capacity and relatively frequent periods of congestion during
IFR is reflected in the average delay, whereas with the supplemental airports, in most cases, the
difference between VFR and IFR capacities is not as great as Sea -Tac. Additionally, the
Sea -Tac data is based on the detailed methodology using simulation, whereas the supplemental
airport data in Phase II appears to have been developed using a generic, desk -top approach.
4. 'Impacts on General Aviation
The use of alternative sites considered in this analysis will impact general aviation activity
differently. Some will tend to cause a displacement of GA activity from the airport while others
(the new sites) will tend to attract general aviation activity. For existing airports, the assumed
impacts vary due to existing airside facilities. The benefits of the existing short parallel runway
at Paine Field will permit greater use of the primary runway by air carriers as the short runway
will be usable only by small GA aircraft. The airport will be able to accommodate .greater air
carrier traffic volumes before capacity impacts GA users and causes them to relocate to other
facilities. At Paine Field, the annual capacity suggests that 200 - 250,000 air carrier operations
can be accommodated on the existing main runway (with an equivalent capacity for general
aviation on the short parallel runway). Thus, it is expected that changes in the use of the airport
for GA would not occur until these levels are reached and additional air carrier capacity is
needed. However, at Arlington where it is assumed that both GA and commercial aircraft
operate on the same runway, the capacity available for commercial use is the total runway
capacity minus that portion used by general aviation (assumed in the analysis to be 138,000'
annual operations).
PaD Aviation A Division of PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP7 -Page 14
Thus for Arlington the annual capacity available for commercial use would be on the order of
62- 112,000 operations. At commercial activity levels greater than these, it is expected that GA
use would shift to other airports.
C. RESULTS
Annual delays, in hours, are determined by multiplying the average delay by the number of
operations incurring the delay. By applying an aircraft operating cost, the annual delays can be
translated into a monetary value. This was accomplished for all 33 alternatives and is contained
in the appendix. This subsection summarizes the findings of the delay analysis by reporting
results for the 8 major alternative groups previously described. It should be remembered that
the delay costs represent an annual cost for the year 2020.
Figure 2 graphically summarizes the results and presents the annual delay costs (in most cases
a range) for each major group, as well as a level of unsatisfied demand that is assumed to be
associated with a group (also a range in some cases). The unsatisfied demand represents
passenger demand in excess of the annual passenger levels described above for each airport.
It should be noted that this demand can be met if additional delay costs are accepted. It should
also be noted that the unsatisfied demand could vary due to the previously explained sensitivity
to the mix of commercial aircraft. The following paragraphs explain the results shown in Figure
2 and are presented in ascending order with respect to delay costs.
1. Replacement Airport With 3 Independent Air Carrier Runways
This group produced annual delay costs significantly lower than all other alternative groups since
the forecast demand is well below capacity and average delays are tolerable. Annual delay costs
are estimated at $24 million. Since the airport operates below capacity, all demand is satisfied.
2. Sea -Tac With a New Air Carrier Runway and 2 Supplemental Airports Each With
1 Air Carrier Runway
This scenario adds 3 air carrier runways to the system, but at 3 locations. Annual delay costs
range from $141 -$229 million and all demand is satisfied. It is with this group of alternatives
that the two supplemental airports start "bleeding" traffic from Sea -Tac such that significant
drops in the average delays at Sea -Tac result. Thus differences in delay costs between this
group and others are readily noticeable.
P40 Aviation A Division of Pd0 Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
(ddili)
awv1i3Q ants 1LVS 4f1
N
5)) rmumodyrkmwrTaw"10,4
,1 0
c
Z
0
\
•••
ret
N
es en
el el
N
N N
N I
N I N
81 p 1
1 °1
(suotpm S)
1,S00 AVT U 1VMIAiV
RID Aviation ® A Division of P&D Technologies
sivtuawaiddnS Z
yips Jvl -vas 'tsrr3
spptuawmddng
Z +MI?I ytp%Jvl -vaS
'ddng AVM Z +IAN
yt!M on-vas.
'ddnS M/b 1 +M/ '
yIM JDj -D3S
imuawaiddnS MI?l
Z + Jal -vaS 'tsrr3
'ddng'M/?r ! +
Jot -Das '1s1r3
uodird
tuawa3vida3
JDl -vas
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP7 -Page 15
3. Sea -Tac As The Only Commercial Airport Serving The Region
This group of alternatives results in annual delay costs lower than most other groups. Annual
delay costs range from $232 to $240 million. This group of alternatives represents a one airport
system, and thus total system capacity is much lower than other multiple airport systems. Since
fewer aircraft are accommodated the number of aircraft experiencing delays are much less than
in other systems. As a result, the total delay costs are lower. However, since capacity is
limited with the one airport, there is a major portion of regional demand that cannot be served
unless extreme delays are accepted. As seen in Figure 2, this group of options results in the
greatest amount of unsatisfied demand ranging from 7 to 13 MAP in 2020.
4. Sea -Tac With a New Air Carrier Runway and a Supplemental Airport With 2 Air
Carrier Runways
This group of alternatives propose a two airport system that adds a total of three air carrier
runways. Thus capacity is high and all demand is satisfied. The capacity (at both Sea -Tac and
the supplemental) is such that the assumed allocation of demand to the supplemental airport is
well below capacity, thus the average delays are correspondingly also very low. There are five
plans included in this group and the annual delay costs for the year 2020 fell within a range of
$232 -241 million. Since most demand was allocated to Sea -Tac it is assumed to operate at
capacity and thus almost all delay costs are attributable to Sea -Tac. Annual delay costs for the
group could be lowered by diverting operations from the congested Sea -Tac to the supplemental
airport operating at low levels of delay.
5. Sea -Tac With a New Air Carrier Runway and 1 Supplemental Airport With 1 Air
Carrier Runway
This group proposes a two airport system that adds 2 air carrier runways to the system. Five
alternatives comprise this group and annual delay costs range fron► $232 -$241 million. The
group of alternatives fully serves the year 2020 forecast passenger demand.
6. Existing Sea -Tac Airfield and 1 Supplemental Airport With 2 Air Carrier Runways
This group of alternatives proposes a two airport system that adds two new air carrier runways
to the system. While additional capacity is provided the Sea -Tac is assumed to operate at
capacity with resulting high average delays. Annual delays ranged from $233 to $237 million.
(Of this Sea -Tac delays account for $232 million). Year 2020 demand is satisfied by this group.
P&D Aviation A Division of P&D Tachiobpas
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
B -97
WP7 -Page 16
7. Existing Sea -Tac Airfield and 2 Supplemental Airports Each With 1 Air Carrier
Runway
This is a three airport system but adds two runways to the system. Annual delay costs range
from $235 to $241 million and all demand is satisfied. Since Sea -Tac's capacity remains low,
greater demands are placed on the supplemental airports which operate at higher traffic volumes.
As with other groups, Sea -Tac delay costs are the dominant component of the range of costs
totalling $232 million.
8. Existing Sea -Tac Airfield and 1 Supplemental Airport With 1 Air Carrier Runway
This group proposes a two airport system but adds a net of one air carrier runway to the system.
As such, capacity gains are less than many of the other groups, especially considering that
Sea -Tac maintains status quo. Annual delays for the group range from $234 -$271 million.
More important though is the fact that some demand is identified as unsatisfied - up to 2 MAP
in some cases.
With the exception of the first two groups, the annual delay costs are within a fairly narrow and
consistent range. This is largely due to the assumed traffic allocations and the fact that Sea -Tac
is assumed to operate almost always at or near capacity. Thus, the delay costs for Sea -Tac, as
noted above, tend to mask the differences between alternatives. It is important to note the great
affect this has on the analysis. For the second group listed above, (Sea -Tac with a new runway
and two supplemental airports), the impacts of traffic being relieved from Sea -Tac are evident.
Annual delay costs drop from the $230 -240 million range frequently appearing in the analysis
to $141 million in one case. In this case, the two supplemental airports allow for approximately
40,000 operations to be "bled" from Sea -Tac. The affect of this traffic relief on average delay
is significant (a reduction from 18.8 minutes to 11.9 minutes). The reduction in average delay
at Sea -Tac reduces annual delay costs from $240 million to $140 million.
Table 1 summarizes the major conclusions of the analysis in comparing all options strictly on
airspace, capacity and operational considerations. In the evaluation of the options it is also
critical to consider the ability to satisfy long range demand, and therefore this is included as part
of the overall ranking. For each option the following is indicated: system capacity (annual
operations): passenger capabilities (in MAP); the ability to meet year 2020 demand as well as
the Vision planning horizon of 2050; and, the annual aircraft delay costs. A subjective rathing
has been made by the consultant which considers all operational and capacity related
considerations.
PAD Aviatlon A DMsion d PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP7 -Page 17
It should be noted that included on the table is a group of alternatives that was not previously
address - this being Sea -Tac with a new runway and two supplemental airports with two air
carrier runways. This option would provide the greatest system capacity, relatively low delay
costs, but more importantly it is the only one that would accommodate the vision forecast
demand.
AID Aviation
A Division o1 PAD Technologies
WORKING PAPER # 9
ACCESSIBILITY /INTERACTION WITH OTHER MODES
PRESENTED
OCTOBER 23, 1991
ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 26, 1991
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 6, 1991
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
Staff: Puget Sound Regional Council
WORKING PAPER NO. 9 -- ACCESSIBILITY /INTERACTION
WITH OTHER MODES
INTRODUCTION
Accessibility to airport services varies with the travel time and distance from home
or work to the airport(s). This Working Paper includes travel times during average
daily traffic conditions (from Phase II), and adds new time data for the peak ground
travel period, together with new mileage information., Increasing future - congestion ]
can be moderated through land use policies and the construction of_new facilities,
{_including_High_Occupancy Vehicle lanes. -- --
Phase II of Flight Plan also briefly considered rail travel as (a)<;a'possible alternative
way to access the airport(s) within the region (light rail transit- ,hand as (b) a travel
mode alternative for part of the projected air carrier passenger�demand (high speed
rail). More broadly; the Flight Plan VISION STATEMENT supports a "totally
integrated" system of air and surface transportation, with implementation
coordinated among the operating agencies.
These and other points on accessibility and modal interaction are drawn together in
this Working Paper. This work is supplemental to the Phase II Report
( "Accessibility ", pp. 76 -86), and the Level of Service Report (Phase III, Working
Paper No. 5) and includes the following sections: (i) Executive Summary, (ii)
Previous Work, (iii), New Analysis, (iv) Sites Access Needs and Costs, (v) Related
Planning, (vi) Highlights.
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Ground access to the supplemental airport sites is not sufficiently attractive
in itself to offset unconstrained service at Sea -Tac. Travel distances to the
supplemental sites increase as more of the Sea -Tac market area is
accommodated by supplemental airports to the north and /or south.
(note: The line between the Sea -Tac market area and each supplemental
airport market area is not defined by points midway between Sea -Tac
and each selected supplemental site.)
2. Ground access may be maintained through land use and facility actions
within established corridors under the regional growth strategy as this
develops (VISION 2020 and continuing work under the new State Growth
Management Act), and the related local planning and concurrency
requirements of the GMA. However, it is also likely that especially during
peak hour traffic and poor weather conditions, travel times to the airport(s)
will continue to worsen. High capacity transit and high occupancy vehicle
lanes may provide more reliable access to users when these conditions occur
and as regional population growth continues.
3. The northern supplemental airport market area and the southern
supplemental airport area operate independently. This may be reflected in
future rankings of the supplemental airport options.
4. Using annual ground mileage as the measure of accessibility, the most
accessible alternative is a three - airport multiple airport system. The least
accessible is the replacement airport alternative. The two airport
systems involve somewhat more annual ground mileage than does the first
ranked alternative, but still about only half as much as the replacement
alternative. These general findings are true for both the total population in
2020, and the new population between 1990 and 2020.
5. Light rail transit (LRT) involves routing, timing and funding decisions
which might be coordinated with airport siting actions. That is, airport siting
might be part of a larger package involving LRT priorities and timing.
6. Phase II concluded that by itself, high speed rail facilities between Portland -
Seattle- Vancouver would be sufficient at best to divert only part of the,
increased air travel demand. (that is, up to 40,000 of the projected total)
c 52.4,000 operations -in year-2020)
II. PAST WORK
A. FLIGHT PLAN
The Phase II report estimated travel times from all parts of the region to the
potential airport sites. The study included estimates for two- airport systems, but not
the additional three - airport systems developed in Phase III. In previous work Flight
Plan also has considered both light rail transit (LRT) and general accessibility
(measured in travel times) in developing its alternatives, and in allocating trip
demand to airport sites within the Multiple Airport System alternatives.
Accessibility
Average and Peak Period Daily Travel Times
Phase H showed the percentage of Puget Sound Region's Population within 30, 60
and 90 minute driving times of Sea -Tac and possible supplemental airports for 2020
average daily traffic conditions. Parts of this table are shown below together with
new figures (in parentheses) for peak "period" (a period longer than the peak hour)
driving conditions.
One major finding in Phase II is that the most noticeable differences are for an
access time of less than 30 minutes. There is very little difference between sites if
the 90 minute commute distance to the airport is used as the standard.
The new figures for peak periods reported here (in parentheses) are similar, but do
: reflect the difficulty of arriving at the airport during the peak hour or during
periods of "non-recurring" events, such as accidents or snow events. Please note that
Sea -Tac
(single airport)
Table 1 -A
Percent of Puget Sound Region's Population
Within 30, 60, and 90 Minute Driving Times of
Sea -Tac and Possible Supplemental Airports
for 2020 Average Daily Traffic Conditions
and (2020 a.m. Peak Period Traffic Conditions)
30 min.
or less
60 min.
or less
90 min.
or less
30% (32 %) 79% (78 %) 97% (96 %)
Sea -Tac and Other
Arlington 34 38 92 88 100 37) Mord 45 48 82 80 98
Paine Field 47 56 92 90 100 99
Central Pierce Co. 45 49S 83 79 -81) 98 97 -99)
Olympia/
Black Lake 33 -79 97 (96)
Source: Phase II, Table 6 -7, PSRC Regional Transportation Model
Table I -B indicates travel times to each of the replacement sites. Again, these data
are for average daily travel conditions, and for peak conditions.
TABLE 1 -B
Percentage of the Puget Sound Region's Population
Within 30, 60 and 90 Minutes Driving Time of Sea -Tac and
Two Potential Replacement Airport Sites
for Average 2020 Daily Driving Conditions
ane (2020 a.m. Peak Period Driving Conditions)
30 min.
or less
60 min.
or less
90 min.
or less
Sea -Tac 30% (30 %) 79% (79 %) 97% (97 %)
Central Pierce Co. 14 (19 -21) 34 (50 -53) 64 (84 -85)
Olympia/ e 2 (0) 22 (0) 39 (14)
Source: Phase H, table 6 -3, and PSRC Regional Transportation Model
foul weather affects operations at Sea -Tac 45 percent of the time, and these same
events affect airport access on the ground. The ground transportation models used
to generate the data summarized in Tables 1 -A and 1 -B do no consider weather
impacts on speed or travel times.
The VISION 2020 land use assumptions (reflected in the table) include the policy
that growth in population and employment will be concentrated in denser centers
where acessibility to a high capacity transit system, including HOV (High
Occupancy Vehicle) lanes, is greater than in 1990. A greater share of the region's
population would be able to enjoy system benefits (travel time savings) when
commuting, if HOV and transit are used. Greater use of airport vans (possibly in
conjunction with remote airport check -in terminals) would support this possibility.
In both tables, the slightly improved condition during peak periods is due largely to
one new modeling consideration. The peak period figures were done after Phase II
and reflect a greater recognition (in the revised travel model) to the fact that access
to outlying locations would be in the reverse flow direction, that is, in the non -
congested direction of traffic.
General Trends
While these figures do not detect increasing congestion, a general statement about
regional congestion was provided in the environmental impact statement for the
VISION 2020 growth management strategy. Even under the preferred and adopted
regional growth alternative (greater concentration and mass transit service as
modelled for Flight Plan), congestion was forecasted to worsen:
Freeway mileage with "severe congestion" (a vehicle to capacity ratio
of 0.9, that is, level of service "D" or worse) was forecasted to increase
from 32.4 percent to 45.2 percent of total mileage.
For arterials, the trend was upward from 5.2 percent of mileage to
16.5 percent.
The combined effect was a deterioration from 7.5 percent to 20.3
percent of the total mileage.
If this is true, then accessibility_ to_cenfral_sites.(such as_the- Sea -Tac International
Airport) may generally worsen, particularly-during bad weather- conditions - which
again; -are not considered in the model results_
From Table 1 -B we see that regional accessibility to replacement sites south of Sea -
Tac is considerably less than for the existing Sea -Tac site. Accessibility to
Olympia /Black Lake diminishes as a percent of the total population for the four -
county area. (These figures for the four-county area (tables 1 -A and 1 -B) are not
adjusted to include accessibility to the relatively small Thurston County population.)
III. NEW ANALYSIS
Airport Market Areas
Based on relative accessibility during average driving conditions, Phase III now has
examined the likely marketability of supplemental airport sites (Working Paper
No. 5: Allocation of Passengers and Aircraft Operations).
Analysis in support of the Working Paper (including Flight Plan Staff Memo, August
7, 1991) assumed that half of the short haul air travel trips and half of the medium
haul trips would be handled at the supplemental sites. Working Paper No. 5 also
established an upper end of the range - -and then used the midpoints - -on the assumption
that all surrounding short haul travel would be handled at the supplemental sites.
Travel to airport sites was split on the basis of relative average daily ground travel
times to Sea -Tac International and to the supplemental sites. The supplemental
sites were studied separately and in pairs (using two and three airport scenarios).
New Annual Ground Mileage
Table 2 indicates the number of miles of annual commute to and from the airports
that would be involved under each of the four major alternatives.
Table 3 isolates the airport sites and calculates the mileage travel associated with
each of these separately, under the number alternatives (left hand column). This
enables compansons of supplemental sites with each other, apart from the
(variable) Sea -Tac mileage figures for the same alternatives.
It is important to note that the passenger -mile figures in Table 3 indicate two
important characteristics: 1) accessibility to passengers and 2) number of
passengers served. These characteristics are positively correlated and can
sometimes lead to data that is difficult to interpret. For example, sites that are close
to the region's centers of population require less vehicle miles per passenger to
reach them than for distant sites. However, since they are closer and thus more
accessible, they also generate more total passengers. The result is more passengers
using a facility, but each passenger has to travel fewer miles than if they were
required to go to a distant facility. Thus, for the data in Table 3, lower numbers
tend to indicate greater accessibiliy, but a high number of passenger -miles may be
the result of a larger number of passengers served.
Findings
1. Table 2: From a mileage perspective for new passengers (post 1990),
the accessibilities of the alternatives are as shown in the right hand column
(best: Sea -Tac with maximum demand management, worst: replacement
airports (by a factor of 2 or 3), and moderate: the multiple airport
alternatives).
2. Table 3:
Part A: Passenger -mile figures are higher for Sea -Tac with Demand
Management and Sea -Tac with a Commuter Runway since
these alternatives can accommodate more passengers.
B -104
Table 2
ANNUAL PASSENGER MILEAGE TO SELECTED AIRPORT'SITES - 2020
ALTERNATIVE
ONE AIRPORT SYSTEM
Sea -Tac, alone
Sea -Tac with Commuter Runway
Sea -Tac with Maximum Oemand Management
Replacement
TW0 AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac plus Supplemental-Airport•(1 Runway)
Existing Sea -Tac plus Supplemental Airport (2 Runways)
Sea -Tac plus New Air Carrier Runway plus
Supplemental Airport (1 Runway)
Sea-Tac plus,New Air Carrier Runway plus
Supplemental Airport (2 Runways)
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac plus Supplemental Airports (1 Runway)
Sea -Tac plus New Air Carrier Runway plus
Supplemental Airports (1 Runway)
Passenger Mileage (Annual, in millions)
ALTERNATIVE SITE SEA-TAC
1,847 -2,096
212-489
212-579 '
37 -112
708
775
993.
323-454
323 -439
567 -620
37 -112 567 -620
182 -394 300 -317
81 -88 473 -582
NOTE: Figures have been updated subsequent to PSATC adoption
using new and more - refined data.
ALT. NO. SITE
A. Sea -Tac Constrained
Table 3
DAILY PASSENGER MILEAGE TO SELECTED AIRPORT SITES - 2020
PASSENGER MILES (in thousands)
ALT. AIRPORT SEA-TAC TOTAL
1 Sea -Tac, alone 1,941 1,941
2 Sea -Tac, commuter runway 2,122 2,122
33 Sea -Tac, demand management 2,721 2,721
B. Sea-Tac Constrained (2 Airport Systems)
3 Arlington 1,000 1,014 2,014
4 Paine Field 580 884 1,464
5 McChord 809 1,204 2,013
6 Central Pierce 740 1,245 1,985
7 Olympia /Black Lake 1,339 1,245 2,584
C. Sea -Tac Constrained with 2 RWY Supplemental Airport
(2 Airport Systems)
8 Arlington 1,209 884 2,093
9 Paine Field 580 884 1,464
10 McChord 809 1,204 2,013
11 Central Pierce 908 1,204 2,112
12 Olympia /Black Lake 1,587 1,204 2,791
D. Sea -Tac with New Dependent Runway (2 Airport Systems)
13/18 Arlington 177 1,570 1,747
14/19 Paine Field 102 1,553 1,655
15/20 McChord 110 1,699 1,809
16/21 Central Pierce 137 1,686 1,823
17/22 Olympia /Black Lake 307 1,699 2,006
E. Sea-Tac Constrained (3 Airport Systems)
23 Arlington
Central Pierce
24 Paine Field
Central Pierce
25 Arlington
Olympia /Black Lake
26 Paine Field
Olympia /Black Lake
F. Sea -Tac with New Dependent Runway (3 Airport Systems)
27 Arlington
Central Pierce
28 Paine Field
Central Pierce
29 Arlington
Olympia /Black Lake
30 Paine Field
Olympia /Black Lake
G. Replacement Airports
31 Central Pierce
32 . Olympia /Black Lake
403 869 1,596
324
213 856 1,354
285
510 822 1,902
570
260 845 1,610
505
85 1,412 1,634
137
102 1,297 1,536
137
85 1,594 1,818
139
102 1,448 1,689
139
5,060
5,743
NOTE: Figures have been updated subsequent to PSATC adoption
noinn .,n,, n.,ii »,n rn_rnrnod n'ntn
5,060
5,743
art B:. Paine Field is the most accessible site, followed by Central
Pierce and McChord. Arlington and Olympia /Black Lake are
both much -less accessible.
Part C: The same pattern of accessibility is observed for supplemental
airports with two runways as for supplemental airports with
one runway (Part B) except that the passenger -miles for
McChord are lower than for Central Pierce.
Part D: Passenger -miles to the supplemental airport sites drops in
comparison to previous groups of alternatives above. There is
a corresponding rise in passenger -miles to Sea -Tac since with a
dependent runway, it can accommodate more passengers.
Part E: Combined passenger -miles are lowest for the system including
Paine Field and Central Pierce and highest for the system
including the Olympia /Black Lake and Arlington sites.
Part F: Under this set of options, Sea -Tac has a dependent runway and
can thus accommodate more passengers. This leads to an
increase in passsenger -miles to Sea -Tac and a decrease to the
supplemental sites in comparison to alternatives in Part E.
Part G: The Replacement Airport sites have vastly greater passenger -
mile figures and lower overall accessibility than any other site
due to their more remote locations.
Working Paper No. 5 offered these earlier and less detailed findings:
3. Overall Distribution: Unless Sea -Tac service is "constrained" (capped),
passengers will continue to seek airline service at this central location.
Working Paper No. 5 developed refined distributions reflecting, in part, a cap on
service available at Sea -Tac International Airport. Only when the service level at
Sea -Tac is constrained in this way - -and generally when the supplementals are
allowed two runways- -does the service level rise significantly at the potential
supplemental airport sites. The range of constraint assumptions at Sea -Tac
accounts for the high end of the range of service (measured in millions of annual
passengers—MAP) at the outlying locations.
The range of supplemental airport use under Sea -Tac constrained conditions is
illustrated by Paine Field, Arlington and McChord. The range for Paine Field is 3.9
MAP to 13 MAP, for Arlington it is 2.5 MAP to 13.0 MAP, and for Central Pierce it
is 10.9 MAP with one runway, and 13.0 MAP with two runways.
4. Geographic Distribution: The northern and southern regions (relative to the
central Sea -Tac International Airport site) operate independently.
The demand in either region is not affected by actions in the alternate region. The
two regions are independent market areas. This factor enables .the creation of
Table 3.
IV. SITE ACCESS NEEDS and COSTS
Actions related to HCT and to highway improvements are summarized below.
Detailed data on highway costs (summarized here) are provided in the Capital Costs
analysis (Working Paper No. 11).
A. SEA -TAC "DO NOTHING ", WITH MAXIMUM DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Sea -Tac International Airport is the nearest of all the sites to the Seattle Central
Business District, and the one most likely to be served first by light rail transit.
Remote terminal service might also improve accessibility to air travel by ensuring
passenger access to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes during peak periods of
ground congestion.
Freeway improvements to Sea -Tac and along International Boulevard (Pacific
Highway South) would also be required, together with improvements to SR 518 and
SR 509. Also of immediate interest will be whether the HCT system stations are
near the airport (e.g., Highway 99 rather than I -5).
B. REPLACEMENT AIRPORT
This Alternative does not incorporate demand management or alternative modes of
transportation. Details on rail access might be appropriately addressed in later
stages of HCT planning and funding. The replacement airport sites are not
presently planned to receive HCT service.
In the nearer term, ground accessibility would include some widening of Interstate -5
and construction of a possible cross -base freeway aligned generally along the
southwestern edge of McChord Air Force Base and connecting with 176th South.
This would provide access from Interstate -5 to either of the Central Pierce County
sites. An incremental portion of a total project cost could be attributed to the
airport siting. An alternative route north and south to Puyallup (SR 161) is already
at capacity, but would also have to be enlarged, perhaps beyond what is assumed in
Table 2. It is assumed that SR 512 would be improved independently.
Access to the Olympia /Black Lake site would probably require widening of
Interstate -5 together with a revised freeway interchange and an improved Lathrop
Road (93rd) approach.
C. TWO- AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Sea -Tac International Airport is the most likely site to be served by light rail transit
in the foreseeable future. The nearest supplemental sites north and south are Paine
Field, and McChord and Central Pierce County, respectively. Extension of HCT
into these areas would not be part of this early phase of HCT planning and
implementation.
The VISION 2020 land use strategy (under refinement by local governments
pursuant to the GMA) does not show HCT leading to the Central Pierce County
site. As a general point, HCT might be of minimal benefit if the typical trip to the
airport is from the home rather than the office or the central business district. This
is clearly the case in Los Angeles, for example.
Highway improvements required for the respective sites might be as follows:
TABLE 4
Possible Flight Plan Offsite Improvements
Arlington Site:
Paine Field:
McChord:
Depending upon the service level, either enlarged
capacity on 67th or on SR 530, both with an improved
Freeway connection. These options assume
independent improvements to 172nd (Edgecomb
Road).
For this option, SR 526 (the Evergreen Speedway)
would be widened, and there would be a new
interchange with SR 525. Independent widening of SR
525 is assumed.
Varied improvements under these options would
include widening of Interstate -5, new access from SR
512 and a revised interchange linking SR 512 and Steele
Road. Independent widening of SR 512 is assumed.
Central Pierce: Improvements would include widening of SR 161 into
Puyallup, and a share in the costs of the cross -base
freeway eastbound from Interstate -5, together with
improvements to 176th South.
Olympia /Black Lake:
Improved interchange with Interstate -5 and
access from Lathrop Road.
D. THREE- AIRPORT SYSTEMS
These are the same as for two- airport systems, except that the combinations each
include one site north and one south of Sea -Tac.
III. AIRPORT IMPACTS
Highway needs generated by the airport development(s) can be divided into two
categones: direct impacts due to actual airport traffic, and those larger impacts that
will be generated by development within a 1.5 to 3.0 mile radius of the new facilities.
Direct Impacts
Working Paper No. 11 (Capital Costs) identifies specific highway and interchange
improvements likely to be needed at each potential airport site, and applies local
umt costs to these needs. The improvements include widening of existing freeways,
construction of new freeways or interchanges, and the widening or construction of
major arterials. The incremental highway improvement cost to serve morning and
evening peak hour passenger demand is calculated.
The resulting approximate costs are:
TABLE 5
Offsite Access Improvement Costs for Airport Systems
Alternative Cost ($ millions, 1990 dollars)
Sea -Tac and Maximum Demand Management 49.0
Replacement Airport 86.0 to 186.0
Supplemental (2 and 3 airport systems)
(New site(s)) (6.0 to 41.0)
With Sea -Tac actions 55.0 to 126.0
Secondary Impacts
Economic impacts are projected on a countywide basis in Working Paper No. 8.
Associated with these job and housing activities will be transportation effects which
will increase mobility to and from the airport site(s). Will residents and employees
in the affected areas be able to get to work and home, and to and from the
supplemental (or replacement) airport?
The Puget Sound Regional Council is working with local jurisdictions at the
technical level to model these kinds of future events. Location of potential airport
sites can be included in the scenarios tested prior to the adoption of local
comprehensive plans in July 1993. For the present, and for use in the Flight Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Flight Plan is relying upon existing sets of
growth forecasts extending to the year 2010 (also in use by Metro for HCT planning)
and those for VISION 2020 that generally encourage a regional pattern of 10-15
activity centers (in the King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish County areas) served by
HCT combined with highway investments.
New long term multicounty population and economic forecasts (developed in the
spring of 1991) are being interpreted to the local level through scenarios being
developed by the PSRC and the local governments. The resulting scenarios will
eventually support,local comprehensive planning decisions (under the GMA) and
then a final set of officially adopted forecasts. Local comprehensive plans looking
twenty years into the future are to be completed by July 1993; pursuant to the GMA.
The results of the regional travel forecasting scenarios might be available in time for
use in the Final Environmental Impact Statement of Flight Plan (March 1992).
In summary, the Flight Plan accessibility analysis dovetails with analysis for HCT
and local comprehensive plans, and the related VISION 2020 Regional Growth
Strategy. and Regional Transportation Plan.
V. RELATED PLANNING
Growth Management Act
The Institutional Analysis (Working Paper No. 10) relates Flight Plan to
comprehensive land use planning required under the Growth Management Act
(GMA) of 1990 (and amended in 1991).
The Act requires coordination between land use planning and transportation
planning. The GMA goal is to "encourage efficient multimodal transportation
systems that are based on regional prionties and coordinated with county and city
comprehensive plans." Countywide and multicounty (for the King, Pierce and
Snohomish County area) "growth policy plans" are required to address regional and
state transportation, siting and other needs, and are required by July of 1992.
Comprehensive plans are required by July 1993. These are to be coordinated at the
countywide level. Comprehensive plans are to include long range (at least six years)
capital facilities elements, and the provision of services "concurrent with
development ".
Concurrency is defined as follows (GMA, Section 7(6)e):
"Concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements
or strategies are in place at the time of development, or, that a
financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements
or strategies within six years.
The Act also requires that "all transportation projects within the region that have an
impact upon regional facilities or services must be consistent with the plan" (GMA,
Section 55(2)). In addition the Regional Transportation Planning Organization
(specificed in the GMA, as the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning
Organi7ation(s), or the PSRC for this four- county region) must "Develop and adopt
a Regional Transportation Plan that is consistent with county, city and town
comprehensive plans and state transportation plans" (Section 55(1)b).
Light Rail Transit
Phase II estimated that light rail transit (LRT) would not greatly improve access
(measured in time) to three selected search areas (Central Pierce County,
Olympia /Black Lake, Arlington) during average travel conditions. Time traveling
to stations from points of ongin (usually home or hotel) and time spent at stations
are two important factors reducing overall average speeds (Phase II, Table 6 -6).
It has been assumed by Flight Plan that the any high speed rail system will link the
airports as well as the business centers.
High capacity transit (HC1') is built into the time calculations in Table lA and 1B.
While the average time of HCT is comparable to that of auto, the reliability during
inclimate weather is an important benefit that is no accounted for the the
transportation models supporting the Tables.
High Capacity Transit
Institutions
High Capacity Transit (HCT) planning was mandated in 1990 (HCT Act of 1990
and 1991, SHB 1825 and ESHB 2151, respectively). The 1990 Act created a Joint
Regional Policy Committee and empowered it to prepare and adopt a regional high
capacity transportation (HCT) implementation program, including financing. These
are to be consistent with the regional transportation plan (RCW 81.104.040
Regional plans and local comprehensive plans are to address the relationship
between urban growth and an effective HCT system plan and provide cooperation
with transit agencies.
Regional Policy
Future airport needs and related development should be considered in the
alignments of HCT corridors, the locations of transit stations, local feeder service,
and the provision of remote baggage handling facilities (e.g., at the King Street
Station site in Seattle for air travelers residing north of Sea -Tac).
The 1990 Regional Transportation Plan (linked to the regionally adopted VISION
2020 growth strategy) will be amended to respond to the Flight Plan results.
'The Regional Air Carrier System Plan is being developed separately
and will be amended into the Growth Strategy and Transportation Plan
upon completion. Any new airport and its attendant impacts will be
evaluated as part of that amendment process. The air carrier plan
will reflect the results of this regional plan update in any recommen-
dations that are made." (VISION 2020, Assumptions, Sec. 2 -1, September
1990).
Decision Calendar
Estimated capital and operating costs for HCT through 2020 range from $8.5 billion
to $12 billion. The Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC) is required to prepare
for the ballot a plan and financing strategy. The target deadline is late 1992, and the
effective statutory deadline is 1995 (four years after completion of an interagency
planning agreement between the operating agencies). The ballot issue likely will
include an HCT financing program as part of a broader package also including,
funding for other modes, such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
If the most likely rail alignment options turn out to be equally preferable, packaging
of final HCT alignment commitments with future airport locations is one possibility
that could improve any needed long term airport siting decision process. The
preliminary rail and HOV alignments in VISION 2020 are depicted on Figures 1
and 2.
High Speed Rail
Phase II also estimated that a high speed rail system (to be distinguished from
metropolitan light rail commuter facilities) could divert as many as 40,000 annual
airline operations by 2020 (in the Vancouver - Seattle- Portland corridor), compared
to a shortfall in total capacity of 144,000 (forecast of 524,000 operations less 380,000
existing capacity at Sea -Tac). Three fourths or more of airline passengers between
Seattle, Portland and Vancouver are connecting rather than local passengers.
These claimed benefits should not be overstated or double- counted. In the future
the affected smaller planes with be replaced by larger ones. Also expected is the
elimination of those connecting flights whose purpose is to increase load factors for
planes destined for other locations (e.g., Portland to Chicago). Many of these can
expect to become overflights. For these reasons, the total operational forecast for
2020 was reduced in Phase II, from 575,000 annually to 524,000.
Following public hearings, Flight Plan decided in May 1991 to include in Phase III a
full scale alternative that combined rail, new technologies, and demand
management as a broad alternative to the other facility expansion alternatives.
Flight Plan has since examined demand management (Working Paper No. 4:
Demand Management; and expert panel) and combined the demand management
package (including rail) with the Sea -Tac "no action" alternative.
Airline Routing Decisions
Of greater importance to the siting of new facilities (greater than average or peak
ground travel time) is the willingness of the airlines to direct planes and new
investments to sites competing with the existing airport location (Sea -Tac).
Reduced landing costs, perhaps funded in part by congestion fees at the stressed
existing facility, are one possible tool discussed by the Demand Management expert
panel. Experiences at other locations in the nation also give some insight into this
important airline decision. For example, airlines can refuse to relocate, and in this
way can establish service competing with the new location, (Southwest Airlines at
Love Field now competes in this way with the Dallas /Fort Worth replacement
airport). In other cases, once one airline does relocate, perhaps enticed by lower
landing fees, others often follow to provide competition: ,
Multiple Centers
Rail
FIGURE 1
Z1
0
t•J
t a.. • 4 • • .4 • •
Phase H concluded that due to accessiblity to passenger markets and redundancy of
some flights, overall regional operations would increase by 16 percent over the
original forecast figures (which assume one airport). This conclusion is not
supported by further research in Phase III (Working Paper No. 5).
W. HIGHLIGHTS
A summary of findings on the relationship between airport planning and other
modes of transportation, and accessibility.
1. Average Daily Travel Time
The north and south regions operate as independent market areas, but
depend upon a constrained service at Sea -Tac in order to achieve high user
levels.
2. Annual or Daily Travel Distance
Commuter mileage to and from the Replacement sites is up to five times as
great as to the three- airport muliple airport system alternative. Grouped
together nearly midway between these two extremes are the two airport
systems.
Construction of a dependent runway at Sea -Tac diminishes miles traveled to
supplemental sites, by reducing patronage of these sites.
Given a wide range of uncertainties, it may be impossible to detect
meaningful differences between the mileage requirements for the overall
multiple airport systems (with Sea -Tac travel included with data on Tables 2
and 3). Specifically, a very large role is played by market cross -over
passengers (from the Sea -Tac market area to supplemental airport market
areas), and by that fact that these passengers are responding to airline service
opportunities as well as to accessibility. These behavioral factors cannot be
accounted for in origin- destination transportation models such as those
housed at the Puget Sound Regional Council. Removal of Sea -Tac
constraints reduces travel to supplemental airports. It may be a matter of
judgement whether this reduces overall ground travel, Sea -Tac access
included.
3. Peak Daily Travel Time
The percent of regional population residing within various &round travel time
contours is generally the same for average daily travel conditions and for
peak congestion periods (both tested for year 2020). This modeling result is
limited by model assumptions, but also reflects the regional policy that High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and other improvements will be in place as
scheduled in VISION 2020.
4. Data Interpretation
The Multiple Airport System provides improved ground access for airport
users, particularly during non - recurring events (not visible to the modeling
process). The same weather events that influence service 45 percent of the
time at Sea -Tac, also influence ground access within the 30 minute travel
time perimeter. This will suggest a higher ranking for those alternatives that
best address seasonal troughs in ground and air accessibility (rather than
mileage or daily peaks in travel demand).
In addition, the transportation models do not include travel within each of
the several hundred zones into which the region is divided or analysis
purposes. The model is confined the the interzonal trips, and in this way is
likely to understate actual congestion conditions as these might exist in future
years.
5. Multimodal Coordination
HCT could help offset declining ground access to Sea -Tac during periods of
peak ground congestions. Air traveler use of HCT might be encouraged
through the use of remote baggage handling facilities.
6. Direct Highway Costs
The cost of new highway access construction varies with each airport
alternative, depending upon the level of service at the new sites, and the level
and proximity of existing facilities (See Working Paper No. 11). Costs are
significantly higher for the Replacement sites in Central Pierce County.
7. Preliminary Ranking (1: best, 4: worst, on a relative scale)
Sea -Tac with Demand Management 3
Replacement 4+
Multiple Airport System (2) *
Existing Sea -Tac plus Supplemental (1 RW) 2
Existing Sea -Tac plus Supplemental (2 RW) 2
Sea -Tac plus AC RW plus Supplemental 1 RW) 2
Sea -Tac plus AC RW plus Supplemental (2 RW) 2
Multiple Airport System (3)
Existing Sea -Tac plus 2 Supplemental (1 RW) 1
Sea -Tac plus AC RW plus 2 Supplemental 2 RW) 1
Sea -Tac plus AC RW plus 2 Supplemental (2 RW) 1
(Note *:
Preference for a north or south site may depend upon long term growth
patterns. At the time of this writing, the northern site is preferred due
to present and forecasted population distribution, and access problems to
Sea -Tac through Seattle from the north.)
APPENDIX C
ECONOMIC \FINANCIAL ELEMENTS
WORKING PAPERS # 8, 11
WORKING PAPER # 8
ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND STRATEGIC ECONOMIC ISSUES
PRESENTED
OCTOBER 16, 1991
ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 26, 1991
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: November 4, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
FROM: P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 8 - ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND STRATEGIC
ECONOMIC ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING
ALTERNATIVE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
An efficient air transportation system can provide significant, positive economic benefits
to a region and the local economy in terms of the jobs, wages, business revenues and
taxes it can create. It can also attract certain types of real estate development around an
airport, which would also yield economic benefits to the local economy. The
corresponding costs of growth, including those associated with the Flight Plan
alternatives, are being addressed through the Growth Management Act rather than
through this airport system impact analysis.
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Sea -Tac) acts as a major international and domestic
gateway for the Puget Sound region and the greater Pacific Northwest. Businesses vital
to the regional economy, as well as businesses considering either relocating their
operations or opening a regional service center, place great importance on commercial
air service availability and convenience as part of their decision making process. In
addition, the traveling public expects and demands easy access to air travel. It is
reasonable to expect a negative response from both segments of the air transport market
if access to and the capacity of the commercial air transportation system is not
maintained and enhanced.
The airport system- alternatives - currently being evaluated the by _ Puget Sound Air
Transportation Committee;all_ generate to varying degrees, . positive economic benefits
to the Puget Sound Region and the various counties within it. Moreover, the alternative
systems being considered will help achieve the economic goals for the region.
The purpose of this economic impact analysis is to estimate the economic benefits that
would be generated by each of the airport system alternatives by the year 2020. Since
the primary purpose of estimating these impacts is to allow a comparative evaluation
between alternatives, only the major benefits accruing to the region were estimated. A
more detailed analysis would be necessary to fully quantify the full array of economic
benefits.
One part of the evaluation includes traditional regional economic analysis to measure the
economic impacts to the region and each county within it generated by the air passenger
service forecast for each alternative by the year 2020. These impacts are related
PPD Aviation A Ovation of IMO Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
specifically to the increase in jobs, wage earnings; taxes and he like_Created by the
aviation activity at each proposed airport that would not occur if the airports were not
there. The second part of the analysis addresses the future impact on strategic economic
issues currently facing the region and its emerging role in a globally interdependent
economy.
The airport system alternatives have been grouped into four categories:
• A single airport system with Sea -Tac with demand management
• A single airport system with a replacement airport
• A two airport system (Sea -Tac plus one supplemental airport)
• A three airport system (Sea -Tac plus two supplemental airports)
It should be noted that, when appropriate, the two single airport system alternatives are
grouped together in the tables and figures in this report. The two and three airport
system options include both Sea -Tac with and without a dependent runway.
B. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Economic Benefits
The major economic benefits that the various alternatives could generate by the year 2020
for the region and the local economy over and above the benefits currently provided by
Sea -Tac (see Table I -1 and Figures I -1 to I-4) are as follows [1]:
[1] Dollar figures are presented in constant 1990 dollars throughout this report.
PaD Aviation A ° N ko of PPD Technologists
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -3
WP8 -Page 3
In addition, the various alternatives could generate the following benefits to the areas
immediately surrounding each airport site:
Airport Influence Area Impacts — Year 2020 [2]
• Office Space 1.4 million to 2.3 million square feet
• Hotel Rooms 7,117 to 10,947 rooms
• Hotel Room and Sales Tax $2.4 million to 57.5 million annually
The impacts the various alternatives would have on each of the counties in the region are
shown in Tables I -2 through I-6. It may be observed that the impacts are naturally
higher in the counties in which the supplemental airports are located.
It is important to note that the county impacts include those from airport- related activities
only. Impacts from businesses and tourist air traveler visitors are nia included in the
county totals as there were insufficient data available to distribute the impacts to each
county. The benefits from these visitors are, however, included in the aforementioned
regional totals.
[1] Estimated based on a 1990 total of 16.3 million annual passengers.
[2] Within 1.5 to 3 miles around the airport.
PAD Aviation
A DAWon of PAD Technologies
1990 [1]
2020
Difference
Jobs
Airport- Related
16,300
15.800
28,600 - 36,400
27.800 - 44.200
12,300 - 20,000
12.000 - 28.500
Direct/Indirect
Induced
Subtotal
Visitor- Related
32,100
49,300
34.200
56,400 - 80,600
104,200 - 134,300
74.500 - 96.100
24,300 - 48,500
54,900 - 85,000
39.300 - 60.900
Direct/Indirect
Induced
Subtotal
Total Jobs
84 500
178.700 - 230.400
94.200 - 145,900
116,600
235,100 - 311,100
118,500 - 194,500
Earnings (billions)
52.1
54.2 - 55.6
S2.1 - 53.5
Business Revenues (billions)
$5.5
510.8 - 514.2
55.3 - 58.7
Sales Taxes (millions)
511.3
522.7 - 529.4.
511.4 - 518.1
In addition, the various alternatives could generate the following benefits to the areas
immediately surrounding each airport site:
Airport Influence Area Impacts — Year 2020 [2]
• Office Space 1.4 million to 2.3 million square feet
• Hotel Rooms 7,117 to 10,947 rooms
• Hotel Room and Sales Tax $2.4 million to 57.5 million annually
The impacts the various alternatives would have on each of the counties in the region are
shown in Tables I -2 through I-6. It may be observed that the impacts are naturally
higher in the counties in which the supplemental airports are located.
It is important to note that the county impacts include those from airport- related activities
only. Impacts from businesses and tourist air traveler visitors are nia included in the
county totals as there were insufficient data available to distribute the impacts to each
county. The benefits from these visitors are, however, included in the aforementioned
regional totals.
[1] Estimated based on a 1990 total of 16.3 million annual passengers.
[2] Within 1.5 to 3 miles around the airport.
PAD Aviation
A DAWon of PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COA11111TTEE
WP8 -Page 4
Thus, the various alternatives could provide 118,500 to • 194,500 additional jobs, $2.1
billion to $3.5 billion more in earnings, $5.3 billion to $8.7 billion more in business
revenues, and $11.4 million to $18.1 million more in sales tax revenues by the year
2020.
It is important to observe that the airport- related impacts are those direct and indirect
impacts generated as a result of economic activities on and off the airport that would not
have occurred if the airport was not there (i.e., airport employment, purchase of local
goods and services, capital improvement expenditures, etc.). Airport- related impacts also
include the multiplier, or induced, effects of the direct and indirect impacts.
The visitor - related impacts are those direct and indirect impacts generated by
expenditures made by business and tourist visitors that arrive via air travel. Visitor -
related impacts also include the multiplier, or induced, effects of the direct and indirect
impacts. While the visitor expenditures are not a direct result of the aviation system, to
the extent that the visitors would not have entered the region in the absence of the
airport, the impacts are directly tied to the level of aviation activity. However, when the
air transportation system becomes congested, some visitors may use other modes of
transportation to enter the region. Thus, while the impact of visitors (business travelers
and tourists) coming to the region that do not use Sea -Tac are not included in the above
figures, they are not lost to the region. However, the impact of this mode transfer
cannot be quantified.
Visitor - related impacts account for approximately two-thirds of the total jobs generated
by the aviation system; airport- related job account for the balance. These benefits, such
as the number of jobs created, have been largely accounted for in the number of jobs
projected by the year 2020 for the region (2,326,100).[1] Thus, there may be little
additional negative impact (for example, on public services) beyond that already
anticipated and now subject to planning and service provisions under the State Growth
Management Act and "concurrency" requirements. Further, the absence of efficient air
service would impede expected economic growth and negatively impact a wide range of
other public and private sector infrastructure investments-in the region.
-
Airport- related jobs are projected to account for 2.4 to 3.5 percent of all jobs in the
region by the year 2020 and 3.1 to 6.2 percent of new jobs created between 1990 and
2020. Reflecting the increasing importance of the visitor industry to the Puget Sound
region, jobs due to expenditures from visitors arriving via air travel are expected to
account for 8 to 10 percent of all jobs in the region by the year 2020, and 12 to 19
percent of all new jobs created between 1990 and 2020.
RID Aviation
A Chaska d AID Tednologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COAMIITTEE
Net Benefits
WP8 -Page 5
During review of a preliminary draft of this economic benefit study, the Flight Plan
Committee raised a related question on public financing needed to serve the new
employees (and their families) working at the new jobs forecast for 2020. The question
was, "What are the net benefits of airport growth (all job and income benefits minus
public costs for roads, utilities, schools, etc.) under the unconstrained air passenger
forecasts, and under the Flight Plan alternatives serving these forecasts ?"
The perspective accepted here is that overall long term job growth (2020) already
forecast by state and local governments for the region rests on an implicit assumption that
expanded infrastructure (including airport service) will be supplied for these 2020
population and employment levels. It also appears that while some indirect and induced
job creation can also be claimed by the expansion of air transportation, this expansion
is already largely accounted for in these regional forecasts. [1]
The needed cost -of- growth analysis is a topic broader than Flight Plan. Flight Plan serves
forecast passenger demand and the income figures are largely embedded within the
broader regional forecasts. This is particularly true given the kinds of jobs in this region
that would be negatively impacted if efficient air transportation service were not provided
in the future.
The appropriate mechanism to address the overall cost -of- growth issue was set in place
by the State Legislature in 1990 and 1991; this is the 1990 State Growth Management
Act and its 1991 amendments. The new state Act requires that adopted growth forecasts
be accommodated in coordinated local plans and actions. For example, these plans must
eventually include 20 -year capital planning elements to meet the forecast growth needs.
State plans (e.g., for public education) are required to be consistent with the combined
local plans. Flight Plan is designed to meet the air travel needs of the forecast
population and employment levels.
In addition, regional and state siting needs must also be addressed under the Act. On
this point, the focus of Flight Plan is regional airport siting (an evaluation of system level
alternatives).
The Flight Plan expert panel agreed that the growth issues are a major public policy
question, but also suggested that the way to address this is through a broad and deliberate
[1] The equations and multipliers composing the regional economic model at the Puget Sound
Regional Council reflect in part the past provision of air service meeting the needs of the
past levels of population and employment.
P60 Aviation
A DMdon a/ AID Tedroky es
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP8 -Page 6
public discussion, and not through the limiting of any single component of public
infrastructure, such as air transportation service. As part of the broader and difficult
growth management discussion, Flight Plan does offer the following:
• Estimates and forecasts of the economic benefits of expanded air transportation
service to meet the needs of the more inclusive regional population and
employment forecasts for the year 2020 (this Working Paper No. 8).
• Steps to coordinate airport decisions with growth decisions under the Growth
Management Act, specifically the growth policy plans required by July of 1992
(See Working Paper No. 10, Institutional Analysis).
• Off -site access improvements and costs which are included in the financial
analysis (Working Paper No. 11, Capital Costs). These facilities and costs are
in addition to transport improvements assumed to be in place under the regional
VISION 2020 regional growth strategy and transportation plan, e.g., high
capacity transit and many freeway and arterial improvements.
• A programmatic Environment Impact Statement for the different airport system
alternatives, balancing this economic perspective (Working Paper No. 8).
C. DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS AND METHODOLOGY
The economic impacts of the alternative airport systems were evaluated based on
projected passenger demand in the year 2020 as follows:
• Economic impacts to the region and individual counties generated by airport
activity.
• Economic impacts to the region generated by business and tourist traveler visitors
to the region which arrive via air travel. [1]
• Office and hotel development generated by airport activity in the immediate area
surrounding the alternative airport sites.
The economic impacts are measured in terms of increased jobs, wage earnings, revenues
to local businesses and local sales tax revenues. The impacts are quantified using
regional input/output analyses which studies the interrelationships of industries in an
[1] Insufficient information is available to estimate the distribution of visitor expenditures by
county.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
••■.•......
MMMMM MOOS.
WP8 -Page 7
economy. The advantage of this method, which is recommended by the Federal Aviation
Administration for evaluating the impact of airports on a region, is that it accounts for
the dependency of each economic sector on every other sector within the region. Thus,
it can measure the effect of a change in one economic sector (e.g., air transportation) on
all economic sectors in a region.
Economic impacts are measured in terms of direct, indirect and induced effects, as
follows:
• Direct impacts result from economic activities on the airport that would not occur
if the airport was not there (i.e., airport employment, purchase of local goods and
services, capital improvement expenditures, etc.). They also include expenditures
made by business and tourist air traveler visitors that use the airport.
• Indirect impacts result from off - airport economic activities attributable to the
airport (e.g., services by travel agencies, hotels, restaurants, etc). These impacts
would also not occur if the airport was not there.
• Induced impacts are the multiplier effects of the direct and indirect impacts.
These include the increases in employment, wages, and revenues -- in addition
to the direct and indirect impacts -- created by successive rounds of spending and
respending. Although some of these induced impacts occur locally, some goods
and services are purchased from outside the region. It is important, therefore,
that the specific multiplier factors selected for the analysis are keyed to the
regional economy. The multipliers used in this study were developed specifically
for the Puget Sound Region and each county within it. These locally adjusted
multipliers were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis' Regional
Input- Output Modeling System (RIMS II).
It is important to note that the use of "multipliers" is a traditional analytical technique
that has been used in regional impact analysis for at least 30 years. This approach is
commonly used in estimating the economic impact of harbors, airports, mass transit
systems, and virtually any type of project that generates employment and revenue. This
general technique was used in a recent study of the economic impact of the Seattle
Harbor and Sea -Tac Airport [1], as well as in Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC)
[1] Martin O'Connell Associates, The Economic Impact of the Seattle Harbor and the
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, prepared for the Port of Seattle, February 1989.
PaD AvvaUon
A DMrbn d P110 Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
mNallommon
mmommomosem
mO\ e. ,
oK - Iii
WP8 -Page 8
recently released economic and demographic forecasts for the Puget Sound Region [1],
and, at the project level, in the analysis of the economic impact of the proposed Boeing
expansion in Pierce County [2].
Office development impacts are expressed in terms of additional square feet of office
space to be expected within 1.5 to 3 miles around the airport at various levels of airport
activity. Hotel development impacts, also within 1.5 to 3 miles around the airport, are
shown in terms of additional hotel rooms and hotel sales and room tax revenues.
D. ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
In terms of regional economic impacts, the major difference among the airport systems
results from those alternatives that cannot provide adequate capacity to meet the projected
passenger demands (and underlying economic growth) by the year 2020 and those that
meet the 2020 forecast. While there are some differences in the total impact among the
alternatives which meet the projected air passenger demand, there are significantly fewer
jobs, wage earnings, and business and tax revenues generated by those alternatives which
do not provide sufficient capacity.
In terms of the distribution of economic impacts within the region, the major differences
among the alternatives are due to the number of airports in the system. The three airport
system maximizes the distribution of the impacts, while the single airport system tends
to centralize the impacts in the county in which it is located.
Some specific implications that should be considered in the evaluation of the alternatives
are as follows.
Single Airport System at Sea -Tac
• This system, which includes the "do nothing" alternative (i.e., Alternative 1 -
Sea -Tac As Is with Demand Management) has the smallest economic impact
because this alternative cannot accommodate all of the passenger demand
projected by the year 2020. This alternative provides 66,000 to 76,000 fewer
[1] Puget Sound Council of Governments, STEP91: Central Puget Sound Regional
..•1.II !•
u•_•• . 1•
•i•„ .i• •_ u•ar•I
• •: r:
If
®raft), no date.
[2] Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services, Supplemental Final
l•I II 1 • ue-
�� , •
i -i•.: • i% i -• • !1
Plan. Chapter 5, October 15, 1991.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
somomommamo
000O.ONN
.omomNsomM
e-
eec.. ome.
.nn-
.N.17
urn ' .
"`� i...so
.
C -9
WP8 -Page 9
jobs, $1.2 to $1.4 billion less in household earnings, $2.9 billion to $3.4 billion
less in business revenues, and $5.7 to $6.7 million less in sale tax revenues than
the maximum impact of alternatives which provide sufficient capacity to meet
projected passenger demand.
• When the air transportation system becomes congested, some visitors may use
other modes of transportation to. enter the region. Thus, while these expenditures
would not be included in air passenger- related jobs, wages, etc., they are not lost
to the region. However, the impact of this mode transfer cannot be quantified.
• Many business sectors also require an efficient air transportation system to
support business operations. Thus, flight delays, lack of convenient flights and
other consequences of an inefficient air transportation system which does not meet
projected passenger demands will likely create negative economic impacts that
could to some degree off -set the jobs, earnings and revenues generated by airport
activity and visitor expenditures. It was found in the Flight Plan Study aviation
demand forecasts that income (along with population and airline yield) was highly
correlated with growth in air passenger demand. Thus, major industry sectors
with above average paying jobs [1] are likely to generate higher levels of air
passenger demand. The major industry sectors in the Puget Sound Region with
the highest paying jobs, include: aerospace (115,200 jobs, including Boeing with
91,000 jobs and Eldec Corporation with 1,500 jobs); high tech [2] (32,400
jobs, including Westmark International with 2,400 jobs, Microsoft Corporation
with 1,800 jobs, Sundstrand Data Control with 1,500 jobs and Physio - Control
Corporation with 850 jobs); and forest and paper products (21,500 jobs, including
Weyerhaeuser with 3,200 jobs and Scott Paper with 1,300 jobs). Here it may be
noted that the major Boeing facilities are located in conjunction with airports,
i.e., Boeing Field south of Seattle and Paine Field south of Everett. Also, two
Flight Plan candidate sites for the future are in proximity to Boeing's new
Frederickson site in Central Pierce County.
Single Airport System at Replacement Airport
• A replacement airport located in Central Pierce or Olympia/Black Lake could
generate the most jobs, earnings and revenues by the year 2020, but only
marginally more than the multiple airport systems which serve the same passenger
[1] Above $26,100 (in 1990 dollars).
[2] Includes communications and utilities, nonelectrical machinery, such as instruments,
electronics, office and computing equipment, software manufacturers, etc.
PAD Avlsuon
A Mike d PAD Tedinabpias
• PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMAIITTEE
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
WP8 -Page 10
demands. This is due to the "multiplier" effect previously noted, which, due to
their respective industrial structures and interrelationships , are higher in Pierce
and Thurston counties than Snohomish and Kitsap counties, and approximately
the same as in King County.
• Significant amounts of land may be required to accommodate the emerging
aviation /industrial linkages (i.e., projected increases in air cargo, the role of air
freight in "just in time" production methods, air cargo /industrial complexes, etc.);
however, there may be insufficient vacant, available land around Sea -Tac to allow
development of large -scale aviation/industrial facilities. From this perspective,
a replacement airport located in Central Pierce or Olympia/Black Lake would
better enable the Puget Sound Region' to capitalize on these emerging trends.
• The single airport system tends to concentrate the economic benefits in the county
in which it is located. As a result, replacement of Sea -Tac could have a severe
negative impact on King County. With the replacement airport alternates, these
jobs would transfer to Pierce County (Alternative 31) or to Thurston County
(Alternative 32) where the increase in employment in either county would be
dramatic.
• If Sea -Tac is abandoned for a replacement airport; the redeveloped Sea -Tac site
would restore property tax revenues in King County (i.e.,_to__the- new -city of
Sea -Tac). However, loss of, airport tenant leasehold possessory_interest taxes at
Sea -Tac would partially balance this gain. Conversely, if a replacement airport
is developed at the privately held Central Pierce site (versus the Fort Lewis site)
or Olympia/Black Lake, land would be removed from the tax roles, negatively
impacting property tax revenues in these areas. However, depending on the type
and extent of new private development around the airport, as well as the gains
from airport tenant leasehold taxes, these negative impacts would be reduced or
eliminated. '
• While the employees at Sea -Tac and those at businesses effected by visitor
expenditures who are living in King County may choose to commute rather than
transfer to other counties, it is likely they will change their expenditure patterns.
For example, more of their purchases would be made in the county in which they
work as opposed to the county in which they live. Alternatively, these employees
could choose to move to these other counties or seek other employment. In
addition, some of the buildings and facilities occupied by these employees and
firms would be vacated and it would take a period of time before the void left by
the closing of Sea -Tac was filled. Although these impacts cannot be quantified,
they could be severe. This impact could also occur in Snohomish County due to
the increased distance to the replacement airport sites.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Two Airport System
C -11
WP8 -Page 11
• This system helps distribute the benefits geographically and increases the benefits
to the counties in which the supplemental airports are located.
• Significant amounts of land may be required to accommodate the emerging
aviation /industrial linkages (i.e., projected increases in air cargo, the role of air
freight in "just in time production methods, air cargo /industrial complexes, etc.);
however, there may be insufficient vacant, available land around Sea -Tac to allow
development of large -scale aviation/industrial facilities. Therefore, a two airport
system with locations where additional land could be set aside for the facilities are
better positioned to capitalize on these trends as well as exploit the sea/air /rail/
highway relationships, and integrate the intermodal system.
Three Airport System
• This system helps distribute the benefits throughout the region even more than the
two airport option.
• As with the two airport system, a three airport system with locations where
additional land could be set aside for the facilities are better positioned to
capitalize on emerging aviation/industrial linkages, as well as exploit the sea/air/
rail/highway relationships, and integrate the intermodal system.
• The three airport system provides a better distribution of air service in the region.
E. IMPACT ON STRATEGIC ECONOMIC ISSUES
The alternatives help meet the economic goals for the region in that they:
• Create jobs in non - resource -based industries that could be used to help reduce
unemployment in certain areas dependent upon resource industries (e.g., timber,
mining, etc.).
• Expand the economic base by creating additional and more diverse jobs.
• Increase wage earnings in jobs created by airport activity. The average wage per
job generated by airport activity is $29,200, which is 28 percent higher than the
existing average wage in the region in 1989.
• Distribute economic growth geographically throughout the region.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP8 -Page 12
• The total number of airport- related and visitor expenditure - related jobs supported
by each alternative. Here, total jobs is used as a proxy to indicate the relative
magnitude of the economic benefits (jobs, earnings and revenues).
• The geographic distribution of these jobs.
PAD Aviation A &Asko of PAD Technologies '
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
' PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMUl1ITTEE
C -13
WP8 -Page 13
• The mass relocation of jobs due to the replacement of Sea -Tac. It is felt that the
replacement of Sea -Tac would have a substantial negative impact on the economy
of King County which would take many years to overcome.
Table II -7 ranks each system option against these three variables and presents an overall
average rank for each option. It should be noted that each variable is assigned an equal
weight since each is assumed to be equally important in the evaluation process.
Each option is ranked on a relative scale of 1 to 9, with one being best. The options
which produce the greatest number of jobs are ranked better than those which produce
fewer jobs. Likewise, options which maximize the distribution of jobs throughout the
region are ranked higher than those which tend to concentrate jobs in one area. Finally,
options which replace Sea -Tac are ranked lowest.
It may be observed that even though options that include supplemental airports with one
runway are ranked the same as those with two runways, the air passenger demand
accommodated (45 MAP) and the total number of jobs created are the same; thus, the
ranking with respect to total jobs is the same.
' Based on this analysis, the three airport system clearly emerges as the preferred option.
This option produces the greatest number of jobs, maximizes the distribution of these
jobs within the region, and leaves Sea -Tac as an operating airport.
Alternative Sites
As with the alternative system options, primary economic factors which differentiate the
site options include:
• Access to the Ports, freeways and railroads from site (i.e., the ability to
efficiently interface with a multi-modal transportation system);
• The availability of vacant land to support development of aviation/industrial
complexes; and,
• The mass relocation of jobs due to the replacement of Sea -Tac. It is felt that the
replacement of Sea -Tac would have a substantial negative impact on the economy
in King County which would take many years to overcome.
Table II-8 ranks each site against these three variables and presents an overall average
rank for the option. Again, it should be noted that each variable is assigned an equal
weight since each is assumed to be equally important in the evaluation process. It should
also be noted that the costs of serving new growth are not included in this analysis. The
PAD Aviation
A p►hilon d PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP8 -Page 14
regional costs of growth and the methods of financing public and private shares of these
costs are issues beyond the scope of Flight Plan. The contribution of Flight Plan with
respect to the State Growth Management Act is to document the large share of forecasted
growth and revenue production that is served by adequate air carrier capacity.
Each site is ranked on a relative scale of 1 to 5, with one being best. The sites with the
best access are ranked best. Sites with sufficient available land to support future
development of aviation /industrial complexes are ranked better than those with land
constraints. Finally, sites which incorporate Sea -Tac are ranked higher than those which
replace Sea -Tac.
According to these criteria, the Central Pierce supplemental site with one or two runways
ranks best, followed by the Olympia/Black Lake supplemental site with one or two
runways. This degree of regional dispersal, however, must be judged together with
emerging growth management policies under the GMA.
Also to be considered are the differential site impacts associated with the different
alternatives. Flight Plan does not, however, address the growth management issue of
whether growth in Central Puget Sound should be dispersed in a linear pattern north and
south. In general, the need for new infrastructure is most closely associated with. the
Central Pierce and Olympia/Black Lake sites.
RID Aviation A Division d Pal) Tichnokigias
TABLE 1.1
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
2020
One Airport System Two Airport System Three Airport System
Jobs
Airport- Related
Visitor - Related
Total
Wage Earnings (millions)
Airport- Related
Visitor- Related
Total
Low High Low High Low High
56,300 - 80,600 69,000 - 76,600 73,000 - 76,700
178,800 - 230,400 219,700 - 230,400 230,400 - 230,400
235,100 - 311,000 288,700 - 307,000 303,400 - 307,100
S1,647 - S2,302 52,033 - S2,230 52,133 - 52,240
52,528 - S3,260 S3,108 - S3,260 S3,260 - S3,260
S4,175 - $5,562 S5,141 - S5,490 S5,393 - S5,500
Business Revenues'Willona)
Airport- Related
Visitor- Related
Total
$4,086 - S5,503
$6,758 - S8,714
S4,984 - S5,464 S5,245 - S5,416
S8,307 - S8,714 $8,714 - $8,714
S10,844 - S14,217 S13,291 - $14,178 $13,959 - S14,130
Local Share of Sales Tax Revenues (m
Airport- Related S9.4 - S10.8 $113 - S12.4
Visitor - Related S133 - S17.1 S163 - S17.1
Total 5227 - S27.9
S27.6 - S29.5
512.0 - S12.2
$17.1 - $17.1
Office Sq Ft (000's) 1,400 - 1,800 1,928 - 2,190
Hotel Rooms (no.) 7,117 8,542 9,382. - 10,190
Hotel Room &
Sales Tax (millions) $2.4 $5.7 S6.2 - S7.5 S6.6 - $7.4
S29.1 S293
1,940 - 2,320
9,709 - 10,947
SOURCE: P &D Technologies.
Figure 1-1
Regional Job Impacts: 2020
Jobs (000s)
350
300
250
200
150
100
•
50
1 Airport System
2 Airport System 3 Airport System
Low High
SOURCE: P&D Technologies.
Low High
Low High
$5000
$4000
$3000
$2000
$1000
II II
"4
Low High Low High
Low High
$16000
Figure 1 -3
Regional Revenue Impacts: 2020
1 Airport System 2 Airport System
$14000
$12000
$10000
$8000
$6000
$4000
$2000
$0
3 Airport System
1
Low High
SOURCE: P &D Technologies.
Low High Low High
Figure 1 -4
Regional Sales Tax Revenues: 2020
Sales Taxes (millions)
$35i
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
1 Airport System
2 Airport System
3 Airport System
Low High
SOURCE: P&D Technologies.
Low High
Low High
TABLE 1 -2
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS (1)
KING COUNTY: 2020
One Airport System
Two Airport System Three Airport System
Low High Low High Low High
Airport- Related 4,300 - 44,900
Wage Earnings (mlltioas)
Airport- Related 5126 - 51,310
Bva1uees Revenues (millions)
Airport - Related 5319 - 53,318
Local Share of Sales TS" Revenues (w4Uons)
Airport- Related 50.7 - 57.8
Airport influence Ana
40,700 - 51,300
40,800 50,900
51,189 - 51,496 51,196
53,011 - 53,789 53,026 - 53,766
51,486
57.1 - 58.9 57.1 - 58.8
Office Sq Ft (000's) 0 - 1,460 1,280 - 1,672
Hotel Rooms (no.) 0 7,350 6,688 - 8,102
Hotel Room &
Sales Tax (millions) 50.0 - 55.8 553 - 56.4 553 - 56.4
1,280 - 1,660
6,688 - 8,060
[1) Excludes visitor - related impacts.
SOURCE: P &D Technologies.
TABLE I.3
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS [1]
KITSAP COUNTY: 2020
One Airport System Two Airport System Three Airport System
Low High
Low High
Low High
Jobs
Airport- Related 3 - 3,700 3,700 - 3,900
Wage Earnings (millions)
Airport- Related S89 - S113 S112 - $117
Business Rrvaatcs (o )
Airport- Related S212 - S269 S266
Local Shan et Sates Tax Revenues {uniilioas)
Airport- Related $0.4 - S0.5
Airport Influence
Office Space (sq ft) 0
Hotel Rooms (no.) 0
Hotel Room &
0
0
5279
50.5 - $0.5
0
0
0
0
Sales Tax SO - SO SO - SO
3,800 - 3,900
5116 - 5119
S275 - 5283
50.5
0
0
S0.5
0
0
SO
[1] Excludes visitor - related impacts.
SOURCE: P &D Technologies.
TABLE I-4
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS [11
PIERCE COUNTY: 2020
One Airport System
Low High
Two Airport System Three Airport System
Low High
Low High
Airport- Related 3,900 - 64,400
Wad Earnings (millions)
Airport- Related 5112 - 51,822
Business Revenues (millions)
Airport- Related S268 - 54,378
Local Shane atSale* Tax Revenues (millions)
Airport- Related SOS - 57.7
Airport lefiaenoe Area
Office Sq Ft (000's) 0 - 1,800
Hotel Rooms (no.) 0 - 8,542
Hotel Room &
4,900 - 23,400
5140 - S667
5337 - S1,598
50.6 - 52.8
0 - 910
0 - 3,503
5,000 15,600
5145 - 5445
5348 - 51,067
50.6 - 51.9
0 - 568
0 - 2,269
Sales Tax (millions)) 50.0 - 55.4 50.0 - $22 50.0 - 51.4
[11 Excludes visitor - related impacts.
SOURCE: P &D Technologies.
C -23
TABLE I -5
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS [1]
SNOHOMISH COUNTY: 2020
One Airport System Two Airport System Three Airport System
Low High
Low . High
Airport- Related
Low High
3,500 - 4,500 4,400 - 20,900 7,700 - 14,500
5101 - 5129 5128 - 5605 5222 - 5422
Wage Earnings (millions)
Airport- Related
Business Roues (mesons)
Airport- Related
5213
S270
Load Share et Saks Tax R,e enuts (millions}
50.6 - S0.8
Airport- Related
Airport iniimmen.
Office Sq Ft (000's) 0 0
Hotel Rooms (no.) 0 0
Hotel Room &
S267 - S1,268
S0.8 - S3.6
256
1,280
- 910
- 3,503
S466 S839
$1.3 . S2.5
176
978
608
Sales Tax (millions) 50.0 - 50.0 50.4 51.2 S03 - 50.8
[1] Excludes visitor - related impacts.
SOURCE: P &D Technologies.
TABLE I-6
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS [1]
THURSTON COUNTY: 2020
One Airport System
Two Airport System Three Airport System
Low High Low High Low High
Jobs
Airport - Related 2,900 - 61,900 3,700 - 17,500
Wage Earnings (minions)
Airport - Related S89 - S1,765 S112
Business Revenues (minions)
3,800 - 10,600
S117
S321
Airport - Related S212 - S4,235 S266 - $1,264 S277 S762
Local Stars etSaiea Tas Revenues (millions)
Airport - Related S0.4 - S8.0
Airport Influence Area
S0.5
- S2.4
Office Sq Ft (000's) 0 - 1,800 0 - 910
Hotel Rooms (no.) 0 - 8,542 0 - 3,503
Hotel Room &
Sales Tax (millions) S0.0 - S2.4 S0.0 - S1.0
S0.5 - S1.5
0 - 480
0 - 2,011
S0.0 - S0.6
(1] Excludes visitor - related impacts.
SOURCE: P &D Technologies.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION CO61411TTEE
TABLE 11-7
EVALUATION OF OPTIONS IN 2020
(RANKING 1 -9, 1 BEST)
Total Dist. of Neg. Impact
Jobs Jobs on Exist. Average
ONE AIRPORT SYSTEM
Existing with Demand Management [1]
Replacement
9
1
9
9
1
9
6.3
6.3
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEM
Existing SEA -TAC Plus Supp (1 rwy) [2] 2 5 1 2.7
Existing SEA -TAC Plus Supp (2 rwys) 1 5 1 2.3
SEA -TAC with New AC Rwy Plus Supp (1 rwy) 1 5 1 2.3
SEA -TAC with New AC Rwy Plus Supp (2 rwys) 1 5 1 2.3
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEM
Existing SEA -TAC Plus 2 Supp (1 rwy) 1 1 1 1.0
SEA -TAC with New AC Rwy Plus 2 Supp (1 rwy) 1 1 1 1.0
SEA -TAC with New AC Rwy Plus 2 Supp (2 rwys) 1 1 1 1.0
[1] Does not satisfy 2020 demand forecasts.
[2] three of five alternatives do not satisfy 2020 demand forecasts.
SOURCE: P&D Technologies.
C -26
THE FLIGHT .PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COIUAIITTEE
TABLE 11-8
EVALUATION OF SITES IN 2020
(RANKING 1 -S, 1 BEST)
Neg. Impact
Access Land on Exist. Average
SEA -TAC
Existing with Demand Management [1]
New Air Carrier Runway
ARLINGTON
One Runway
Two Runways
McCHORD AFB
One Runway
Two Runways
5
5
5 3
5 3
1
1
2.3
2.3
3.0
3.0
1 5 1 2.3
1 5 1 2.3
PAINE FIELD
One Runway 3 5 1 3.0
Two Runways 3 5 1 3.0
CENTRAL PIERCE
One Runway
Two Runways
Three Runways
OLYMPIA/BLACK LAKE
One Runway
Two Runways
Three Runways
1 1 1 1.0
1 1 1 1.0
2.3
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
1.7
1.7
3.0
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
C -27
•....N..N
WP8 -Page 15
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee is currently evaluating the economic
consequences of 32 alternative airport system plans designed to satisfy air passenger
demand (45 MAP) ,expected in the Puget Sound region [1] by the year -2020-. It should
be noted that five of the alternatives considered do not meet 2020 capacity requirements.
One part of the evaluation includes traditional regional economic analysis to measure the
economic impacts to the region and each county within it generated by the air passenger
service forecast for each alternative by the year 2020. These impacts are related
specifically to the increase in jobs, wage earnings, taxes and the like created by the
aviation activity at each proposed airport that would not occur if the airports were not
there. The second part of the analysis addresses the future impact on strategic economic
issues currently facing the region and its emerging role in a globally interdependent
economy.
Due to the difficulty in quantifying these future impacts, a panel of experts was convened
to discuss the strategic economic issues that should be considered and the weight each
should have in assessing the alternative system plans. The panel's recommendations have
been incorporated into this final evaluation of alternatives.
B. PURPOSE OF THE PAPER
The primary purpose of this paper is to set the stage for the second part of the economic
evaluation, namely the expert panel analyses and recommendations. Specifically, the
purpose is directed to five tasks:
1. Identify the broad, strategic economic issues currently facing the region.
2. Examine current and future trends shaping a global economy and the role aviation
will play.
3. Estimate the economic impacts of the various airport system alternatives.
[1] Strictly speaking, the Puget Sound Region includes the following counties: King; Kitsap;
Pierce; and Snohomish. For purposes of this study, Thurston County is included as part
of the region.
P&D Avialori A DMNon d P&D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COA7ItIITTEE
WP8 -Page 16
4. Evaluate the significance of the economic impacts of the various alternatives to
the strategic economic issues facing the region including the region's potential
role in a globally interdependent economy.
5. Pose various questions to help stimulate ideas that the expert panel may wish to
include in its discussions.
C. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
The 32 alternative airport systems and passenger forecasts through the year 2020 for each
alternative are shown in Table II -1. The alternatives include various combinations of,
and levels of service at, five airport sites in the five -county region (see Figure II-1 for
airport locations).
The alternative airport systems have been generally grouped into three categories:
Single Airport System
A system with a single commercial airport with Sea -Tac As Is" with demand
management or an new commuter runway (Alternatives 1 and 2)
Single Airport System
A system with a single commercial airport with a new airport replacing Sea -Tac
(Alternatives 31 and 32)
Two Airport System
A system with Sea -Tac and one supplemental airport, including:
Sea -Tac without a new runway and a supplemental airport
runway. (Alternatives 3 through 7)
• Sea -Tac without a new runway and a supplemental airport
runways. (Alternatives 8 through 12)
• Sea -Tac with a new air carrier runway and a supplemental
carrier runway. (Alternatives 13 through 17)
• Sea -Tac with a new air carrier runway and a supplemental
carrier runways. (Alternatives 18 through 22)
with one air carrier
with two air carrier
airport with one air
airport with two air
_TABLE 11 -1
CO NSTRAINEDALLOCATION OF PASSENGERS TO AIRPORTS
Alternate
Description
Enplaned and Deplaned Passengers
Year 2000 (25AMAP)
Year 2010 (34.0 MAP)
Year 2020 (45.0 MAP)
Sea -Tart North I South I Uasat.
Sea -Tact North I South 1 Uasat.
Sea -Teel North I South I Unsat.
1
Sea Tac As Is' + Demand Mangemeat
23.6
1.8
28.8
5.2
363
83
2
Sea -Tae w /News R/W
25.4
31.4
2.6
34.9
10.1
3
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
23.6
1.8
28.8
5.2
32.0
10.9
2.1
4
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
233
1.9
28.8
5.2
32.0
13.0 •
5
Alternate 1 + McCord 1 R/W
233
1.9
28.8
5.2
32.0
13.0
6
Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
233
1.9
28.8
5.2
32.0
10.9
2.1
7
Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
23.6
1.8
28.8
5.2
32.0
10.9
2.1
8
Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
23.6
1.8
28.8
5.2
32.0
13.0
9
Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
235
1.9
28.8
5.2
32.0
13.0
10
Alternate 1 + McCord 2 R/W
233
1.9
28.8
5.2
32.0
13.0
11
Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
233
1.9
28.8
5.2
32.0
13.0
12
Alternate 1 + Olyinpia/B1ack Lake 2 R/W
23.6
1.8
28.8
5.2
32.0
13.0
13
Sea -Tae w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
24.2
1.2
32.4
1.6
41.8
3.2
14
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W •
233
1.9
315
23
41.6
3.4
15
Sea -Tae w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
235
1.9
315
23
41.8
3.2
16
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
235
1.9
315
25
41.7
3.3
17
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bk. Lake 1 R/W
24.6
0.8
33.0
1.0
41.8
3.2
18
Sea Tat w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
24.2
1.2
32.4
1.6
41.8
3.2
19
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
233
1.9
31.5
23
41.6
3.4
20
Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + McCord 2 R/W
235
1.9
313
25
41.8
3.2
21
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
235
1.9
313
23
41.7
3.3
22
Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 2 R/W
24.6
0.8
33.0
1.0
41.8
3.2
23
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
22.3
1.2
1.9
28.8
3.1
2.1
32.0
5.9
7.1
24
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
21.6
1.9
1.9
28.8
2.6
2.6
32.0
63
65
25
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym. /Blk. Lake 1 R
23.4
1.2
0.8
28.8
2.9
2.3
32.0
7.0
6.0
26
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W
22.7
1.9
0.8
28.8
3.4
1.8
32.0
7.6
5.4
27
Alternate 13 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
22.3
1.2
1.9
29.9
1.6
23
395
2.2
3.3
28
Alternate 14 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
21.6
1.9
1.9
29.0
25
23
38.3
3.4
3.3
29
Alternate 13 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
23.4
1.2
0.8
31.4
1.6
1.0
413
2.2
1.3
30
Alternate 14 + Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
22.7
1.9
0.8
303
23
1.0
40.3
3.4
1.3
31
Central Pierce 3 R/W
25.4
34.0
45.0
32
Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
25.4
34.0
45.0
Note: SuppJementad airport demand is based on mid range of wwon s rained demand (i. e., accommodating 75 percent of short haul and 50 percent of long haul demand).
SOURCE.: P&D Technologies.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATlON COMMIT TEE
Figure II-1
Airport Locations
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Three Airport System
C -31
WP8 -Page 17
A system with Sea -Tac and two supplemental airports, including:
• Sea -Tac without a new runway and two supplemental airports each with one air
carrier runway. (Alternatives 23 through 26)
• Sea -Tac with a new air carrier runway and two supplemental airports each with
one air carrier runway. (Alternatives 27 through 30)
Before describing the economic impact of these alternatives, it is important to identify
some of the strategic economic issues facing the Puget Sound Region.
STRATEGIC ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING THE REGION
In 1985, as an outgrowth of the effects of the 1981 /1982 recession, the Washington State
legislature concluded the state did not have a long -term economic development plan to resolve
the economic problems of the region. To address this need, the Washington State Economic
Development Board was created to identify and analyze the issues, define a vision for the state's
economy and recommend an economic development action plan to achieve the vision.
Since then, much has been written by various groups and authors as to the economic issues
facing the State and region, and importance of the region's emerging role in the new global
economy. The major issues that have emerged are discussed below.
A. MAJOR ECONOMIC ISSUES
The main strategic economic issues facing the state in general and the Puget Sound
Region in particular include:
• Expansion of the economic base (i.e., attracting new firms, assisting existing
firms to expand, identifying new outlets for exports, etc.)
• Increasing international and domestic tourism.
• Diversification of the economy and minimizing the dependence on one major
employer (e.g., the Boeing Company, which is the largest single employer and
accounts for 21 percent of the employment in the Puget Sound Region).
• Creating more jobs with at least living -wage salaries.
• Distribution of economic growth geographically throughout the state and region.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
••••.•..•..
WP8 -Page 18
• Creation of jobs in manufacturing and other industries to replace declining
employment opportunities in the resource -based industries, such as mining and
timber.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -33
WP8 -Page 19
• Sea -Tac Airport is the 5th- largest gateway to Asia, the 8th - largest to both Europe
and Asia, and the largest for sea -air cargo between Europe and the Far East.
• The state's international trade grew from $17.2 billion in 1978 to more than $71
billion in 1990, an average of 12.6 percent per year.
• Boeing is the nation's largest exporter and accounted for 40% of the state's
exports in 1989.
• Exports per capita in the state are twice the national average and higher than any
other state in the U.S.
Several events should help boost the region's position in the global marketplace. These
include:
• Formation of the proposed North American free -trade zone that would link the
U.S. with Canada and Mexico in the world's largest trading block. Currently,
Mexico's two way trade with the U.S. is $53 billion per year. Canada's trade
with the U.S. and Mexico is $160 billion and $2.3 billion per year, respectively.
• The U.S. - Canada free -trade agreement that went into effect in 1989. This
agreement phases out most tariffs in 10 years.
• Recent formation of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), an
alliance of the States of Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Oregon, with
the Canadian Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Its purpose is to foster
regional cooperation in promoting export trade and tourism, creating jobs,
development of regional recycling enterprises, and protecting the environment.
The combined population of the region totals more that 15 million people, a
sufficient market size to attract trade interests in the Pacific Rim and European
Economic Community.
Moreover, the region has a formidable economic presence with an annual gross
product in excess of $280 billion. In fact, if it were a nation, the region would
rank 10th among the world's industrial nations.
THE ROLE OF AVIATION IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION
Commercial aviation has played a key role in the economic development of the U.S. and
is one of the major factors that enabled globalization of the world economy. The various
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
mommoromme
SOOSOOMOSOS
mom
no".
uu►
ur In
•�
V25:1.
s.
WP8 -Page 20
eras of economic development and the role of various transportation systems are
discussed below.
Throughout the history of the United States, changes in transportation and its related
technology have been linked to eras of regional and local economic development. The
first era saw the nation's first major commercial centers develop around seaports. In the
second era, rivers and canal- linked cities helped create the country's first major inland
urban areas that later formed the backbone of the Industrial Revolution.
Railroads fostered the third period of economic development by opening up the nation's
land - locked interior to manufacturing and trade. The fourth era was spawned by
highways and the use of cars and trucks to move people and goods, as well as the
introduction of commercial aviation. With the construction of freeways and interstate
highways, large -scale deconcentration of economic activity began. Major suburban
commercial centers developed and many rural communities situated along major
roadways that were previously inaccessible became urbanized; those that were isolated
became economically stagnate.
Aviation, however, provided the means that finally allowed the transportation system to
function efficiently and link major urban centers across the nation by removing the
barrier of distance. The U.S. is now entering a new era in which economic development
is being driven by three major forces, each of which is essential for State and local
government, as well as private business, to recognize and adapt to in order to survive in
today's marketplace and prepare for the future.
The first force is the globalization of economic transactions, a phenomenon in which
national borders are superseded by international commercial boundaries. The second
force is the shift toward "just -in -time" (JIT) manufacturing and inventory control methods
that shorten production and delivery cycles. The JIT phenomenon contributes to the third
major force, the requirement that many goods be shipped by air to satisfy delivery time
requirements of manufacturers and customers. From the combination of these forces will
emerge the economy of the future, were aviation and airports will supplant seaports, rail
and highway systems as the world's primary generators of economic development.
B. GLOBALIZATION
International trade has been increasing dramatically. U.S. exports and imports more than
doubled during the 1980s, and in 1990 reached $1.3 trillion. In 1990, the total value of
merchandise exports was $3.5 trillion, versus $1.6 trillion in 1985. Investment abroad
by multinational corporations has likewise increased, reaching $1.3 trillion in 1990.
Pao Aviation
A Division of PAD Tidnokglaa
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -35
mamma
.fan s..
lissomeness.,
assn.
eases.
VAS ii
WP8 -Page 21
The growing interdependence of world markets is also reflected in international
information flows and financial transactions. Between 1977 and 1987, telephone calls
to and from the United States, the vast majority for business purposes, increased from
300 million minutes to nearly 5 billion minutes, a rise of over 1,000 percent.
Since the early 1980s, the international financial markets have changed. Japan has
replaced the United States as the largest supplier of international capital. Japanese,
German, and Dutch banks have now become the chief underwriters of U.S. Treasury
bonds and financiers of large commercial real estate projects in the U.S. and around the
world. In 1990, the daily volume of foreign exchange trading exceeded $600 billion.
One of the most important factors in the globalization process has been the dramatic rise
of global component sourcing. Nearly a decade ago, Ford introduced the 'world' car,
assembled in Detroit from parts produced on each of the inhabited continents. Today,
global sourcing is commonplace.
A personal computer assembled in California is likely to contain integrated circuits
imported from Japan, a power supply from Singapore, microprocessors from Korea, disk
drives from Malaysia, and a glass screen from Taiwan.
The outlook for growth in international trade is positive. Some of the factors that will
operate to continue this growth include:
• Formation of new open, market -driven economies, with emphasis on democratic
societies, in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
• Advances in communications technologies which allow a global exchange of
information with, and linkage to, other countries.
• Increasing trade opportunities with the 12 -nation European Economic Community,
the Asia - Pacific trading area, Canada and Mexico.
• Accelerating influence of multinational corporations.
• Growing international cooperation and awareness of the need for greater
coordination with respect to economic activities.
International travel has also been increasing. The number of passengers carried globally
grew nearly 50 percent in the last decade. Growth through the 1990s is expected to
double. Increases in the Asia - Pacific region will be especially pronounced, with an
annual average growth of 10.5 percent, compared with a worldwide average of 7 percent.
IMO Aviation A Division d IMO Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C. JUST -IN-TIME METHODS
WP8 -Page 22
The increasing multitude of foreign competitors puts pressure on U.S. manufacturing
firms to reduce costs and increase productive efficiency. One widespread cost- reduction
mechanism is "just -in -time" (JIT) production, distribution, and inventory control
methods. Under a JIT system, all elements in the production /distribution chain, from
acquisition of raw materials to the delivery of finished products, are synchronized to
produce and deliver finished products precisely as needed, virtually eliminating the need
for inventories.
to sell at least 125 of its 747 -400 freighters (the largest U.S.-produced airplane with a
cargo capacity of over 100 tons) during the 1990s.
PIID Aviation A Division at PdD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -37
•N.s•NM-
WP8 -Page 23
In prior economic eras, when speed of delivery and production flexibility were less
crucial to competitive success, air freight was considered a luxury and limited primarily
to lightweight, high value or emergency products.
Today, essentially anything that can be loaded onto a large aircraft is routinely shipped
internationally by air, from automobiles and heavy machinery to live cattle. Moreover.,
air freight is creating new industries by being able to deliver highly perishable goods to
distant markets within hours.
The next generation of freighters will be similar to the Soviet Antonov 225, the world's
largest aircraft. This cargo plane can carry a payload of 250 tons for thousands of miles.
Hypersonic planes now being designed will be able to carry products from the U.S. East
Coast to Europe in less than two hours and to the Pacific Rim in less than three hours.
E. FUTURE TRENDS
It is not unrealistic to expect that within 20 years, advances in aviation will place U.S.
businesses within three hours' delivery time of virtually any part of the world, and will
provide same -day service to nearly 8 billion potential customers.
Most of the global market potential will be in the Pacific Rim, a $4 trillion market
expanding at $5 billion a week. Nearly two-thirds of the world's population lives in
Asia, which contains the world's fastest - growing economies. Most Asian economies are
expanding at real rates two to six times the growth rates in Europe and the United States.
All forecasts project U.S. trade with Asia growing much faster than with any other
region of the world. Since most of the exports and imports of East Coast businesses to
and from Asia are currently shipped by truck or train across the United States, West
Coast businesses have a four - to-seven -day advantage in trade with Pacific Rim countries.
Likewise, East Coast companies have a time advantage over West Coast firms wanting
to do business in Europe. Air cargo, however, will help eliminate the time factor and
all firms will have to use it to remain competitive. Further, if Japan moves into Europe
in the 1990s, as it did into the United States in the 1980s, mid -point air cargo terminals,
such as Sea -Tac, will play an increasingly important role in this trade.
Thus, with global sourcing and sales of products/components, TIT production and
inventory systems, and speed of delivery, aviation will play a key role in the world
economy. However, the ability to successfully compete in the growing world market will
require an efficient aviation system with sufficient capacity and adequate facilities. State
and local leaders must plan now for these and other technological advances expected in
this new transportation era. One way this is currently envisioned is through the concept
of a global air cargo /industrial complex.
PAD Aviation
A Dhvldon o+PID Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
F. GLOBAL AIR CARGO INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES
WP8 -Page 24
Various public and private entities are exploring varying concepts for air cargo industrial
complexes. Among those already in operation are Alliance Airport in Fort Worth,
Texas, and the Intermodal complex at Huntsville, Alabama. Efforts are underway to
revitalize the Kansas City International Airport, with a focus on air cargo development.
Feasibility studies are underway for air cargo industrial complexes in northern Arkansas
and New Hampshire, among others. In response to recent Department of Defense
announcements of USAF base closings in the continental U.S., it is likely that other
states and communities may also consider such complexes.
One concept of particular interest presently being studied by the State of North Carolina
Air Cargo Airport Authority is that of an International transport and industrial complex.
This concept, which is referred to as a Global Air Cargo Industrial Complex (GACIC)
is not just an air cargo airport. Rather, it is a computer -age industrial complex in which
aviation will play a pivotal distribution role. The proposed complex, which substantially
extends both in scale and integrated systems technologies the successful Alliance Airport
in Texas, would integrate (both spatially and operationally) JIT manufacturing systems
with air freight and other transportation modes to create a functionally new type of
facility.
The JTT plants will be located along the taxiways, allowing freighters to interface with
them, just as railway side -spurs allow freight trains to move alongside factories for raw
material delivery and loading finished product. Freight transfer would be developed so
that while one feeder line is unloading components and materials from one end of the
plane, another line could be loading finished product at the opposite end. Direct highway
and port connections will complete the total transportation network available to the
complex.
Central distribution facilities will be another key component of the complex. There will
be economies of scale for efficient U.S. Customs processing and smaller load pick -up
and delivery systems. Distribution centers will be connected via high -speed electronic
transfer vehicles (ETVs) that will interface with airplane side and nose docks for
maximum efficiency. The ETVs will operate throughout the entire industrial complex,
transporting cargo pallets in a manner similar to the computerized baggage handling
systems now at the largest airports. Supporting this complex will be around- the -clock
communications and automated tracing and tracking systems that will allow almost
instantaneous location and shipment of goods. In situations involving critical replacement
parts, inventories required by international dealers or customers could be warehoused at
the complex with the assurance the items would be dispatched quickly to any place in the
world.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -39
immommmerma
.• "N SUSS""
.....NNN
.....
la
WP8 -Page 25
The complex would occupy about 15,000 acres and contain two 13,000 -foot runways (to
handle giant air cargo aircraft and hypersonic freighters) and four taxiways. Industrial
plants would be located along the taxiways, which would be anchored at their ends by
global air cargo companies.
Preliminary analysis by the University of North Carolina Business School shows that
were such a complex developed in North Carolina, the manufacturing facilities alone
would generate a minimum of 30,000 jobs directly, with substantially greater indirect job
generation through employment multipliers. At full capacity, it was estimated the
complex would contribute as much as $5 billion annually to the state's economy. This
does not include the economic impact on manufacturing and distribution facilities located
within 3 hours driving distance of the complex which would use the air cargo facilities.
G. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION
The Puget Sound Region is well - positioned to capitalize on the emerging aviation/
industrial linkages (i.e., the projected increases in air cargo, the role of air freight in
"just in time" methods and air cargo /industrial complexes, etc.). The region has an
integrated sea/rail/highway system; however, there may be insufficient vacant, available
land around Sea -Tac to allow development of large -scale aviation/industrial facilities.
Therefore, the ability of replacement or supplemental airports to provide these facilities
should be considered in evaluating the alternative sites.
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVES
As a result of growing environmental concern, most public discussion relative to airports, either
existing or proposed, relates to noise and air pollution. In the public debate over the proper
balance between air transportation technological progress and the preservation of the
environment, relatively little attention is given to the powerful impact a major airport system can
have on the regional and local economy. Such consideration is critical in any public investment
decision.
A. DESCRIPTION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The economic impacts of the alternative airport systems were evaluated based on
projected passenger demand in the year 2020 as follows:
• Economic impacts to the region and individual counties generated by airport
activity.
AID Avisuon A Milan of PSD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
.s- .-----
sflN.N...
WP8 -Page 26
• Economic impacts to the region generated by business and tourist traveler visitors
to the region which arrive via air travel [1].
• Office and hotel development generated by airport activity in the immediate area
surrounding the alternative airport sites.
The economic impacts are measured in terms of increased jobs, wage earnings, revenues
to local businesses and local sales tax revenues. The impacts are quantified using input/
output analyses which studies the interrelationships of industries in an economy. [2]
The advantage of this method, which is recommended by the Federal Aviation
Administration for evaluating the impact of airports on a region[3], is that it accounts
for the interdependency of economic sectors within the region. Thus, it can measure the
effect of a change in one economic sector (e.g., air transportation) on all economic
sectors in a region.
Economic impacts are measured in terms of direct, indirect and induced effects, as
follows:
• Direct impacts result from economic activities on the airport that would not occur
if the airport was not there (i.e., airport employment, purchase of local goods and
services, capital improvement expenditures, etc.). They also include expenditures
made by business and tourist air traveler visitors that use the airport.
• Indirect impacts result from off - airport economic activities attributable to the
airport (e.g., services by travel agencies, hotels, restaurants, etc). These impacts
would not occur if the airport was not there.
• Induced impacts are the multiplier effects of the direct and indirect impacts.
These include the increases in employment, wages, and revenues -- in addition
to the direct and indirect impacts -- created by successive rounds of spending and
respending. Although some of these induced impacts occur locally, some goods
[1] Insufficient information is available to estimate the distribution of visitor expenditures by
county.
[2] Input/output analysis is a commonly used technique to evaluate the impact of a change
in one sector of the economy on all sectors of the economy in a region.
[3] Butler, Stewart E. and Laurence J. Kiernan, Measuring the Regional Economic
Significance of Airports, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, October, 1986.
PAD Avlatbn
A DIt r+bn of PAD Tot:Mav
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -41
WP8 -Page 27
and services are purchased from outside the region. It is important, therefore,
that the specific multiplier factors selected for the analysis are keyed to the
regional economy. The multipliers used in this study were developed specifically
for the Puget Sound Region and each county within it. These locally adjusted
multipliers were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis' Regional
Input - Output Modeling System (RIMS II).
It is important to note that the use of "multipliers" is a traditional analytical technique
that has been used in regional impact analysis for at least 30 years. This approach is
commonly used in estimating the economic impact of harbors, airports, mass transit
systems, and virtually any type of project that generates employment and revenue. This
technique was used in a recent study of the economic impact of the Seattle Harbor and
Sea -Tac Airport [1], as well as in PSRC's recently released economic and
demographic forecasts for the Puget Sound Region [2].
Office development impacts are expressed in terms of additional square feet of office
space to be expected within 1.5 to 3 miles around the airport at various levels of airport
activity. Hotel development impacts, also within 1.5 to 3 miles around the airport, are
shown in terms of additional hotel rooms and hotel sales and room tax revenues. The
methodologies used in each of these analyses are contained in Appendix B of this report.
The various impacts are summarized below.
Airport- Related Activities
Economic impacts (jobs, wage earnings, business revenues and local sales tax revenues)
generated by airport- related activities for each alternative are presented for individual
counties and the region as a whole in Tables V -1 to V-4. By the year 2020, as may be
noted, the various alternatives could generate between 56,300 and 80,600 jobs,
$1.6 billion to $2.3 billion in wage earnings, $4.1 billion to $5.5 billion in revenues to
businesses, and $9.4 million to $12.4 million in local sales tax revenues in the region.
In terms of total economic impacts (See Figures V -1 to V-4), the major difference among
the airport systems results from those alternatives that cannot provide adequate capacity
to meet the projected passenger demands and those that meet the 2020 forecast. While
Martin O'Connell Associates, The Economic Impact of the
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, prepared for the Port of
Puget Sound Council of Governments, 5TEP91: Central
!1.11 1
u 11,4
(Draft), no date.
•
• • . !:•1•u
• 1• 11.7C.•
Seattle Harbor and the
Seattle, February 1989.
Puget Sound Regional
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE V -1
DIRECT, INDIRECT AND INDUCED JOBS
GENERATED BY AIRPORT ACTIVITY: 2020
....Ne.N.
......sees
same
. ■mm.
Sue
1.i
Total Jobs
Alternative King
Kitsap
Pierce Snohomish Thurston Region
1 Airport System
1 44,928 3,072
2 43,069 2,945
31 4,320 3,741
32 4,320 3,741
2 Airport System
4,092
3,923
64,366
4,983
3,654
3,503
4,450
4,450
3,072
2,945
3,741
61,882
3 40,685 3,697 4,928 18,192 3,697
4 40,897 3,874 5,164 20,859 3,874
5 40,897 3,874 23,373 4,609 3,874
6 40,685 3,697 20,384 4,398 3,697
7 40,685 3,697 4,928 4,398 15,293
8 40,897 3,874 5,164 20,859 3,874
9 40,897 3,874 5,164 20,859 3,874
10 40,897 3,874 23,373 4,609 3,874
11 40,897 3,874 23,373 4,609 3,874
12 40,897 3,874 5,164 4,609 17,536
13 51,284 3,800 5,064 8,958 3,800
14 51,072 3,803 5,067 9,218 3,803
15 51,284 3,800 10,035 4,520 3,800
16 51,178 3,802 10,181 4,522 3,802
17 51,284 3,800 5,064 4,520 7,532
18 51,284 3,800 5,064 8,958 3,800
19 51,072 3,803 5,067 . 9,218 3,803
20 51,284 3,800 10,035 4,520 3,800
21 51,178 3,802 10,181 4,522 3,802
22 51,284 3,800 5,064 4,520 7,532
3 Airport
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
.6.0....:v ... r.. � .. rev. rii) . ....:'.:........ '.
58,818
56,385
80,618
79,376
71,199
74,668
76,627
72,861
69,001
74,668
74,668
76,627
76,627
72,080
72,906
72,963
73,439
73,485
72,200
72,906
72,963
73,439
73,485
72,200
ANV
40,849 3,922 15,584 12,445 3,922 76,722
40,848 3,923 14,769 13,177 3,923 76,640
40,848 3,922 5,230 13,784 10,565 74,349
40,850 3,921 5,228 14,507 9,964 74,470
48,809 3,847 10,229 7,700 3,847 74,432
47,533 3,862 10,246 9,272 3,862 74,775
50,942 3,818 5,087 7,672 5,432 72,951
49,665 3,834 5,109 9,247 5,447 73,302
SOURCE: P &D Technologies
P10 Aviation
A Division d P&0 Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DIRECT, INDIRECT AND INDUCED WAGE EARNINGS
GENERATED BY AIRPORT ACTIVITY: 2020
SIMOMMOOli
••••.0•N.
••.•S •■
ISSOISO
•.1•'�i
u•-
`1_O
C -43
Total Wage Earnings (Millions)
Alternative King
Kitsap
Pierce
Snohomish Thurston Region
I Airport System
1
2
31
32
2 Airport System
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
51,309.7
51,255.9
$125.8
5125.8
$1,189.4
51,195.5
$1,195.5
51,189.4
11,189.4
11,195.5
11,195.5
11,195.5
$1,195.5
11,195.5
11,495.7
$1,489.6
11,495.7
$1,492.7
11,495.7
11,495.7
11,489.6
$1,495.7
$1,492.7
$1,495.7
3. .
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$1,195.8
11,195.8
11,195.8
11,195.7
11,425.5
S1,389.0
11,486.5
11,449.8
192.9
189.1
1112.9
$112.9
$112.1
1117.4
1117.4
1112.1
1112.1
1117.4
$117.4
1117.4
$117.4
$117.4
$114.9
$115.0
1114.9
1115.0
$114.9
1114.9
1115.0
1114.9
1115.0
1114.9
$119.1
1119.1
1119.1
1119.1
1116.6
1117.0
1115.6
1116.0
1116.4
1111.6
11,822.1
1141.6
1140.5
$147.3
$666.5
1581.3
$140.5
$147.3
$147.3
$666.5
$666.5
$147.3
1144.1
1144.2
1285.6
1289.7
1144.1
1144.1
1144.2
$285.6
1289.7
1144.1
$445.0
1421.7
$149.3
$149.3
1291.5
1292.1
$144.8
1145.5
$105.7
$101.4
$ 128.6
1128.6
$527.9
$605.3
1133.7
$127.6
$127.6
1605.3
$605.3
$133.7
1133.7
$133.7
1259.3
1266.9
$130.8
1130.9
$130.8
1259.3
1266.9
$130.8
$130.9
$130.8
192.9
189.1
1112.9
$1,764.7
$112.1
1117.4
$117.4
$112.1
$463.8
1117.4
$117.4
1117.4
1117.4
1531.8
1114.9
1115.0
1114.9
1115.0
1227.8
$114.9
1115.0
1114.9
1115.0
1227.8
3:rwax,,,fcocv.... ., �..
1361.6
1383.0
$400.7
1421.6
1223.2
$269.0
$222.2
$267.9
1119.1
1119.1
1320.9
1302.0
1116.6
1117.0
$164.4
$165.0
$1,717.6
S1,647.1
12,302.3
12,273.6
12,082.0
$2,182.9
12,230.5
12,122.5
12,033.4
12,182.9
$2,182.9
12,230.5
12,230.5
12,125.7
$2,128.9
12,130.7
12,141.9
52,143.3
12,113.3
52,128.9
12,130.7
12,141.9
12,143.3
$2,113.3
$2,240.6
52,238.7
12,185.8
12,187.7
$2,173.4
12,184.1
12,133.5
$2,144.2
SOURCE: P &D Technologies
PSD Aviation
A Chalon of P&L) Ticlnobpias
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COIUIl11TTEE
•
DIRECT, INDIRECT AND INDUCED BUSINESS REVENUE
GENERATED BY AIRPORT ACTIVITY: 2020
Alternative
Total Business Revenues (Millions)
King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Thurston Re iog� n
'Airport System
1
2
31
32
2 Airport System
53,318.8
53,182.1
5318.9
5318.9
5220.9
5211.8
5268.7
5268.7
3 53,011.1 5266.5
4 53,026.5 5279.2
5 53,026.5 5279.2
6 53,011.1 5266.5
7 53,011.1 5266.5
8 53,026.5 5279.2
9 53,026.5 5279.2
10 53,026.5 5279.2
11 53,026.5 5279.2
12 53,026.5 5279.2
13 53,789.4 5273.4
14 53,773.9 5273.6
15 53,789.4 5273.4
16 53,781.1 5273.5
17 53,789.4 5273.4
18 53,789.4 5273.4
19 53,773.9 5273.6
20 53,789.4 5273.4
21 53,781.7 5273.5
22 53,789.4 5273.4
u r >i
23 53,026.0
24 53,026.0
25 53,026.0
26 53,025.9
27 53,610.1
28 53,516.8
29 53,765.5
30 53,672.3
5279.4
5267.9
54,377.6
5340.0
5337.1
5353.2
51,598.5
$1,394.2
5337.1
5353.2
5353.2
51,598.5
51,598.5
5353.2
5345.9
5346.1
5685.4
5695.3
5345.9
5345.9
5346.1
5685.4
5695.3
5345.9
5221.7
5212.6
5269.8
5269.8
$1,106.1
51,268.3
5280.2
5267.4
5267.4
51,268.3
51,268.3
5280.2
5280.2
5280.2
5543.9
5559.7
5274.5
5274.5
5274.5
5543.9
5559.7
5274.5
5274.5
5274.5
5220.9
5211.8
5268.7
54,235.0
54,261.7
54,086.2
55,503.7
55,432.4
•
5273.6 55,226.9
5273.4 55,296.1
5273.5 55,297.9
5541.8 55,225.0
5273.4 55,226.0
5273.6 55,226.9
5273.4 55,296.1
5273.5 55,298.5
5541.8 55,225.0
>,{s{xem a>sr•r n,{m {rnosfiryIM �, x
5283.1 51,066.8 5757.4 5283.1 55,416.4
5283.1 51,011.0 5802.0 5283.1 55,405.2
5283.1 5358.0 5839.0 5762.5 55,268.6
5283.1 5357.9 5882.9 5717.7 55,267.5
5277.0 5699.2 5468.0 5277.0 55,331.3
5278.3 5700.6 5563.6 5278.3 55,337.6
5274.8 5347.6 5465.9 5390.9 55,244.7
5276.0 5349.1 5561.7 5392.2 55,251.3
SOURCE: P &D Technologies
PAD Aviation
A &Asi n at PAD T $noi010 s
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUCET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATIONCOAllU1TTEE
TABLE V-4
SALE TAX REVENUES GENERATED BY
AIRPORT ACTIVITY RELATED EARNINGS: 2020
C -45
Sales Tax Revenues (000s)
Alternative King
Kitsap
Pierce Snohomish Thurston Region
1 Airport System
1 $7,792.7 5422.7 $488.9
2 $7,472.6 $405.4 $468.7
31 S748.5 $513.7 57,652.8
32 $748.5 $513.7 $594.7
Z Airport System
$628.9 $422.7 59,755.9
$603.3 $405.4 $9,355.5
$765.2 $513.7 $10,193.9
$765.2 $8,029.4 510,651.5
3 $7,076.9 5510.1 $590.1 $3,141.0 5510.1 511,828.1
4 $7,113.2 5534.2 $618.7 53,601.5 5534.2 512,401.8
5 57,113.2 5534.2 52,799.3 5795.5 5534.2 511,776.4
6 57,076.9 5510.1 52,441.5 5759.2 5510.1 511,297.7
7 57,076.9 5510.1 5590.1 5759.2 52,110.3 511,046.6
8 57,113.2 5534.2 $618.7 53,601.5 5534.2 512,401.8
9 57,113.2 5534.2 5618.7 53,601.5 5534.2 512,401.8
10 57,113.2 5534.2 52,799.3 5795.5 5534.2 511,776.4
11 57,113.2 5534.2 52,799.3 5795.5 5534.2 511,776.4
12 57,113.2 5534.2 5618.7 5795.5 52,419.7 511,481.3
13 58,899.4 5522.8 $605.2 51,542.8 5522.8 512,093.1
14 58,863.1 5523.3 $605.6 $1,588.1 $523.3 512,103.3
15 58,899.4 5522.8 51,199.5 $778.3 5522.8 $11,922.8
16. 58,881.6 5523.3 51,216.7 5778.9 $523.3 511,923.7
17 58,899.4 5522.8 5605.2 5778.3 51,036.5 511,842.2
18 58,899.4 5522.8 5605.2 51,542.8 5522.8 512,093.1
19 58,863.1 5523.3 $605.6 51,588.1 5523.3 512,103.3
20 58,899.4 5522.8 51,199.5 5778.3 5522.8 511,922.8
21 58,881.6 5523.3 51,216.7 5778.9 $523.3 511,923.7
22 58,899.4 5522.8 5605.2 5778.3 51,036.5 511,842.2
� 6 M
3 Airport 5�" ..
O
23 57,115.0 5541.9 51,869.0 $2,151.5 5541.9 512,219.3
24 57,115.0 5541.9 51,771.1 52,278.9 . 5541.9 512,248.8
25 57,115.0 5541.9 $627.1 52,384.2 51,460.1 512,128.2
26 57,114.4 5541.9 5627.1 52,508.5 51,374.1 512,166.0
27 58,481.7 5530.5 51,224.3 51,328.0 $530.5 512,095.1
28 58,264.6 5532.4 $1,226.8 51,600.6 5532.4 512,156.6
29 58,844.7 5526.0 $608.2 51,322.1 5748.0 512,048.9
30 58,626.3 $527.8 $611.1 51,594.0 5750.8 512,110.0
SOURCE: P &D Technologies
P&D Aviation
A Division d Pap Technologies
1
§ § §
$ � g
gclq
1
§ §
g
IMP
0
es
N
aD
N
N
A
4P
N
A
N
N
N
N
4Z
= e
eft
0
a
N
0
tt
0
8
O
a
2
w
—r
g-
1
O
8
•••
r
&&&&& !la
•••
•••
. ............. .
VIII` �:: �: �::a. �:':•:•:�:':�:�:':':':':�:•:�:r �:�:•:•:�:�:�:�::�:�:�:�::
INN
•
•••
..•
••
•
11
•••
•
111 ....:I. •�.
.... .............. ..... .
e n
1 J_
••
•
••
•• • ••
_- III say
IS
—•111 eaSESSNMERSEENSSIMI
O pO
8
N h
(Nampo *cum
O
8
h
N
pO
Iltl:
,._• #_ 1 1
N
1111 e4
N
..
1111 1::::::::
1111
•••
•••
1
111::,.....'... ......- ' ....................... r
•
•
ll111:::
•••
•••
•••
IMO
•••
D
W�
•••
11 II:
•••
•••
....... ............................... .............
1111
1111
••
••
iii ISMONSEESSMESMISSI
7...nSECI:=1111
IMO
t144-44-4-4 141:ffttttittiffttfft#111-1E1111 111 IN
•••
111E::
EH =IN 111
v1
M
0 0
3
M
1summ) gammas
i
N
IMO
0
•
P••
'o
•
N
•
1
y
0
G
V
a
0
00
s
0
§ §
cie
cot
(rOO) lain NM
co
V.1
WWI
Owl
0
1'
trt
1
1
C-49
tt
6
0
cl
0
•••
1 I
••• 1111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
NIL
111
..
3 Airport System
. ...................................
f
1111•
1111
••
1
111I
111 . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
EE
111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
rill
11
i=
ll11........• ................• • • - • • • ....-.........• -.........-.....-.-.........-...........-
111E91111 • • •• •"" • • • • • "•• •• • • •"• •• • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• • •• •
111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - • • • - • • • • • - • • - • • • • • • • •
#
2 Airport System)
1
__EEL 1111.
:al Hil. ..............................)........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1111 ...................................
1
ill/ . .................................. .
1111 ...................................
1
1111
. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . .
1
11 1 1 ... .. . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . ..
1
: 1111. .............................47.-.....-.•••••.......................•
lilt.. ....................................
••
.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
Ea: . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . .......................
1 Airport System
— I •
H-3 1111
= .
I... J ).
.... . . .. .. .......... . . . . . . . . . . .
1/.... ..
. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
y y
111E1........................................... .
i I
§ §
cie
cot
(rOO) lain NM
co
V.1
WWI
Owl
0
1'
trt
1
1
C-49
tt
6
0
cl
0
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP8 -Page 28
there are some differences in the total impact among the alternatives which meet the
projected air passenger demand, there are significantly fewer jobs, wage earnings, and
business and tax revenues generated by those alternatives which do not provide sufficient
capacity.
In terms of the distribution of economic impacts within the region, the major differences
among the alternatives are due to the number of airports in the system. The three airport
system maximizes the distribution of the impacts, while the single airport system tends
to centralize the impacts in the county in which it is located.
Visitor - Related Activities
Business and tourist air travelers to the region also create substantial benefits through
expenditures for lodging, entertainment, transportation, food and retail goods. Additional
jobs, wage earnings and business revenues generated by business and tourist visitor
expenditures for each alternative for the region as a whole are presented in Tables V -5
to V -8. As noted earlier, insufficient data were available to distribute these impacts to
each county.
By the year 2020, expenditures by visitors (both business and tourist travelers) could
generate between 178,700 and 230,400 more jobs, $2.5 to $3.2 billion in additional wage
earnings, $6.8 to $8.7 billion in revenues to local businesses, and $13.3 to $17.1 million
in local sales tax revenues due to increased earnings to local residents. In terms of total
economic impacts, the major difference among the alternatives results from those options
that cannot provide adequate capacity to meet the projected passenger demands and those
that meet the 2020 forecast.
Development in the Airport Influence Area
An airport can attract certain types of real estate development around it. Based upon an
analysis of 10 West Coast airports [1] in the United States with air passenger traffic
ranging from 1.2 million to 44.4 million annual passengers, it was found that the types
of land uses that had a significant relationship to passenger demand were office and
hotel, and that the primary area in which such development occurred (the area of
influence) extended between 1.5 and 3 miles around the airport. These findings were
applied to the various alternatives as noted below.
[1] The airports analyzed consisted of Burbank, John Wayne, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Oakland, Ontario, Portland, San Francisco, San Jose and Sea -Tac.
PSD Avatlon A DMtlon d P&D Ti&Jnobpios
TABLE V -5
IMPACTS OF VISITOR (BUSINESS AND TOURIST) EXPENDITURES
ON THE REGION: 2020
(ALTERNATE 1)
TOTAL PASSENGERS 36,500,000
VISITORS 26%
TOTAL VISITORS 9,490,000
Expenditures on:
Impact
Business
Jobs Earnings Revenue
(millions) (millions)
Direct/Indirect Impacts
Restaurants 47,392 S348.8 S1,252.5
Lodging 30,304 S313.0 S936.2
Retail 11,057 $135.6 S925.5
Entertainment /Sightseeing 12,022 S137.2 S446.7
Local Transportation 8,194 ' S122.1 S397.6
Subtotal -- Direct/Indirect 108,969 S1,056.6 S3,958.4
Induced Impacts
Total Impact
77,945 S1,587.8 S3,109.6
186,913 S2,644.4 S7,068.0
SOURCE: Martin O'Connell Associates; Seattle -King County Convention and Visitors Bureau;
P&D Technologies.
TABLE V-6
IMPACTS OF VISITOR (BUSINESS AND TOURIST) EXPENDITURES
ON THE REGION: 2020
(ALTERNATE 2)
TOTAL PASSENGERS 34,900,000
% VISITORS 26%
TOTAL VISITORS 9,074,000
Impact
Jobs
Expenditures on:
Business
Earnings Revenue
(millions) (millions)
Direct /Indirect Impacts
Restaurants 45,314 53333 51,197.6
Lodging 28,976 S2993 $895.1
Retail 10,572 S129.7 $884.9
Entertainment /Sightseeing 11,495 S131.1 $427.1
Local Transportation 7,834 $116.7 5380.1
Subtotal -- Direct/Indirect 104,192 S1,0103 $3,784.9
Induced Impacts
Total Impact
74,528 S1,518.2 S2,9733
178,720 52,5285 S6,758.2
SOURCE Martin O'Connell Associates; Seattle -King County Convention and Visitors Bureau;
P &D Technologies.
TABLE V -7
IMPACTS OF VISITOR (BUSINESS AND TOURIST) EXPENDITURES
ON THE REGION: 2020
(ALTERNATE 3, 6 & 7)
TOTAL PASSENGERS 42900,000
VISITORS 26%
TOTAL VISITORS 11,154,000
Jobs
Expenditures on:
Impact
Business
Earnings Revenue
(millions) (millions)
Direct /Indirect Impacts
Restaurants 55,702 S409.9 S1,472.1
Lodging 35,617 S367.9 S1,100.3
Retail 12,996 S159.4 S1,087.8
Entertainment /Sightseeing 14,130 S161.2 S525.0
Local Transportation 9,630 51435 S4673
Subtotal -- Direct/Indirect 128,076 S1,241.9 S4,652.5
Induced Impacts
Total Impact
91,612 S1,866.2 S3,654.8
219,687 S3,108.1 S8,307.4
SOURCE: Martin O'Connell Associates; Seattle -King County Convention and Visitors Bureau;
P &D Technologies.
TABLE V-8
IMPACTS OF VISITOR (BUSINESS AND TOURIST) EXPENDITURES
ON THE REGION: 2020
(ALTERNATE 4, 5, 8 - 32)
TOTAL PASSENGERS • 45,000,000
% VISITORS 26%
TOTAL VISITORS 11,700,000
Expenditures on:
Impact
Business
Jobs Earnings Revenue
(millions) (millions)
Direct/Indirect Impacts
Restaurants 58,428 S430.0 S1,544.2
Lodging 37,361 S385.9 S1,154.2
Retail 13,632 S167.2 S1,141.0
Entertainment /Sightseeing 14,822 S169.1 5550.7
Local Transportation 10,102 5150.5 S490.1
Subtotal -- Direct /Indirect 134,345 S1,302.7 S4,8803
Induced Impacts
Total Impact
96,096 S1,957.5 S3,833.8
230,441 S3,260.2 58,714.0
SOURCE Martin O'Connell Associates; Seattle -King County Convention and Visitors Bureau;
P &D Technologies.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Office Development
C -55
WP8 -Page 29
The amount of developed office space per passenger in the airport's area of influence was
found to average 0.08 square feet at small airports, 0.07 square feet at medium sized
airports, and 0.04 square feet at large airports. For the purpose of this analysis, small
airports are defined as having less than 10 million annual passengers, medium sized
airports have from 10 to 30 million annual passengers, and large airports are those with
over 30 million annual passengers. The decreasing square foot ratio as compared to
airport size indicates that as airport passenger traffic increases, new office development
in the area of influence occurs at a decreasing rate.
Total annual passengers that could potentially pass through each of the alternative airports
by the year 2020 range from 1.3 million passengers at Olympia/Black Lake airport, to
45 million passengers at either the Olympia/Black Lake or Central Pierce airports.
Sea -Tac is the only airport that has a projection of over 30 million annual passengers in
both the low and high passenger traffic scenarios.
Based on the above mentioned ratios and annual passenger projections, the amount of
office development that would be expected in the area immediately surrounding each
airport is shown in Table V -9. Office development ranges from a low of 104,000
potential square feet at the Olympia/Black Lake airport, to 1.8 million square feet at
either the Olympia/Black Lake or Central Pierce airports. Potential office development
in the Sea -Tac area of influence ranges from 1.4 to 1.7 million square feet.
Furthermore, when applied to the various airport system alternatives, this analysis
indicates that Alternative 1 (Sea -Tac airport only) generates the least amount of potential
office development (1.4 million square feet). Alternatives 23 to 26, on the other hand,
provide the highest office development potential, with a total of 2.3 million square feet
(see Table V -10). Each of these alternatives includes Sea -Tac and two other airport sites
(one north of Sea -Tac and one south).
Hotel Development
A statistical analysis of the sample airport data indicates that there is a significant
relationship between the number of passengers that travel through an airport and the
number of hotel rooms in the corresponding airport influence area. Thus, as the number
of passengers increases, so does the number of hotel rooms in the immediate area
surrounding the airport. Hotel rooms increase at a slower rate, however, as compared
to the number of passengers.
Table V -11 shows the projected number of hotel rooms in the influence area for both low
and high annual passenger scenarios at each alternative airport. Overall, there will be
TABLE V -9
OFFICE SPACE GENERATED BY ALTERNATIVE AIRPORTS
IN THE AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA: 2020 [1]
Projected Total
Passengers
Low
High
Office
Sq. Ft. (000's)
Low High
Arlington
Paine
Sea -Tac
Central Pierce
McChord
Olympia /Black Lake
2,200,000
3,400,000
34,900,000
3,300,000
3,200,000
1,300,000
13,000,000
13,000,000
41,800,000
45,000,000
13,000,000
45,000,000
176
272
1,396
264
256
104
910
910
1,672
1,800
910
1,800
111 The influence area extends approximately 1.5 to 3.0 miles around the airport.
NOTE: The forecast assumes the following:
Average Square Feet of Office
Space per Passenger
SOURCE: P &D Technologies.
Airport Size
Small Medium Large
0.08 0.07 0.04
TABLE V -10
OFFICE AND HOTEL IMPACTS
IN THE AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA 2020 (11
Office Square Feet (000's)
Hotel Rooms
Alternative Sea -Tac North [2] South (3( Total Sea -Tac North South Total
Hotel Room & Sales Tax Revenue
Sea -Tac North South Total
1
1
2
31
32
1,460
1,396
1,460 7,350
1,396 7,117
1,800 1,800
1,800 1,800
7,350 55,841,302
7,117 55,656,314
8,542 8,542
8,542 8,542
55,841,302
55,656,314
55,393,165 55,393,165
52,359,510 52,359,510
3 1,280 763 2,043 6,688 3,087 9,774 55,314,781 51,035,271 56,350,052
4 1,280 910 2,190 6,688 3,503 10,190 55,314,781 51,174,864 56,489,645
5 1,280 910 2,190 6,688 3,503 10,190 55,314,781 52,211,509 57,526,289
6 1,280 763 2,043 6,688. 3,087 9,774 55,314,781 51,948,746 57,263,527
7 1,280 763 2,043 6,688 3,087 9,774 55,314,781 5852,576 56,167,357
8 1,280 910 2,190 6,688 3,503 10,190 55,314,781 51,174,864 56,489,645
9 1,280 910 2,190 6,688 3,503 10,190 55,314,781 51,174,864 56,489,645
10 1,280 910 2,190 6,688 3,503 10,190 55,314,781 52,211,509 57,526,289
11 1,280 910 2,190 6,688 3,503 10,190 55,314,781 52,211,509 57,526,289
12 1,280 910 2,190 6,688 3,503 10,190 55,314,781 5967,535 56,282,316
13 1,672 256 1,928 8,102 1,280 9,382 56,438,484 5429,457 56,867,940
14 1,664 272 1,936 8,074 1,337 9, 411 56,416,352 5448,561 56,864,913
15 1,672 256 1,928 8,102 1,280 9,382 56,438,484 5808,389 57,246,872
16 1,668 264 1,932 8,088 1,309 9,397 56,427,422 5826,446 57,253,868
17 1,672 256 1,928 8,102 1,280 9,382 56,438,484 5353,670 56,792,154
18 1,672 256 1,928 8,102 1,280 9, 382 56,438,484 5429,457 56,867,940
19 1,664 272 1,936 8,074 1,337 9, 411 56,416,352 5448,561 56,864,913
20 1,672 256 1,928 8,102 1,280 9,382 56,438,484 5808,389 57,246,872 n
21 1,668 264 1,932 8,088 1,309 9,397 56,427,422 5826,446 57,253,868
n
00
TABLE V -10
OFFICE AND HOTEL IMPACTS
IN THE AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA.. 2020 [1]
(Continued)
Office Square Feet (000's)
Hotel Rooms
Hotel Room & Sales Tax Revenue
Alternative Sea -Tac North [2] South [3] Total Sea -Tac North South Total Sea -Tac North South Total
22 1,672
256 1,928 8,102
1,280 9,382 S6,438,484
5353;670 S6,792,154
23 1,280 472 568 2,320 6,688 1,987 2,269 10,943 S5,314,781 S666,306 $1,432,519 S7,413,605
24 1,280 520 520 2,320 6,688 2,130 2,130 10,947 $5,314,781 S714,283 S1,344,533 S7,373,597
25 1,280 560 480 2,320 6,688 2246 2,011 10,944 S5,314,781 $753,315 $555,383 S6,623,479
26 1,280 608 432 2,320 6,688 2,383 1,864 10,934 S5,314,781 S799,131 $514,923 $6,628,834
27 1,580 176 264 2,020 7,779 978 1,309 10,066 S6,182,122 $328,166 S826,446 S7,336,734
28 1,532 272 264 2,068 7,609 1,337 1,309 10,255 $6,046,702 $448,561 S826,446 S7,321,709
29 1,660 176 104 1,940 8,060 978 671 9,709 S6,405,275 $328,166 $185,243 S6,918,684
30 1,612 272 104 1,988 7,892 1,337 671 9,900 S6,271,757 S448,561 $185,243 S6,905,561
[1] The influence area extends approximately 15 to 3.0 miles around the airport.
[2] All airport sites north of Sea -Tac: Arlington and Paine.
[3] All airport sites south of Sea -Tac: Central Pierce, McChord and Olympia /Black Lake.
SOURCE: P&D Technologies.
-
TABLE V -11
NUMBER OF HOTEL ROOMS AND TAX REVENUE GENERATED
IN THE AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA.. 2020 [I]
AREA ROOM AREA SALES TOTAL
AIRPORT TAX RATE TAX RATE HOTEL TAX
ARLINGTON 0.0% 1.7% 1.7%
PAINE 0.0% 1.7% 1.7%
SEA -TAC 23% 1.7% 4.0%
CENTRAL PIERCE 2.0% 1.2% 3.2%
MC CHORD 2.0% 1.2% 3.2%
OLYMPIA/BLACK LAKE 0.0% 1.4% 1.4%
AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE (1990) 70%
AVERAGE ROOM RATE (1990) . S77
Projected Total Number of Total Hotel
Passengers Hotel Rooms Tax Revenue
Airport Low High Low High Low High
Arlington 2,200,000 13,000,000 978 3,503 S328,166 S1,174,864
Paine 3,400,000 13,000,000 1,337 3,503 S448,561 $1,174,864
Sea -Tac 34,900,000 41,800,000 7,117 8,102 S5,656,314 S6,438,484
Central Pierce 3,300,000 45,000,000 1,309 8,542 S826,446 S5,393,165
McChord 3,200,000 13,000,000 1,280 3,503 S808,389 52,211,509
Olympia /Black Lake 1,300,000 45,000,000 671 8,542 $185,243 S2,359,510
[11 The influence area extends approximately 13 to 3.0 miles around the airport.
SOURCE: "1990 Market Profile Report ", CIC Research; Seattle -King County Convention and Visitors Bureau; Washington Department of Revenue;
P &D Technologies.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP8 -Page 30
sufficient demand by the year 2020 to support from 671 to 8,542 additional hotel rooms
in the airport influence area.
--
TABLE V -12
SUMMARY OF DIRECT, INDIRECT AND INDUCED JOBS
GENERATED BY AIRPORT ACTIVITY AND VISITOR EXPENDITURES: 2020
Alternative
Airport Related
Direct/
Indirect
Induced
Total
Visitor Related
Direct/
Indirect
Induced
Total
Total
Direct/
Indirect
Induced
Total
•
1 29,856 28,961 58,817
2 28,622 27,762 56,384
31 36,363 44,255 80,618
32 36,363 43,017 79,380
cr iR2'^� Y M . •P8 '�.:< �. h i b.c < Y <
•
3 35,948 35,250 71,198
4 37,674. 36,996 74,670
5 37,674 38,954 76,628
6 35,948 36,912 72,860
7 35,948 33,052 69,000
8 37,674 36,996 74,670
9 37,674 36,996 74,670
10 37,674 38,954 76,628
11 37,674 38,954 76,628
12 37,674 34,407 72,081
13 36,945 35,964 72,909
14 36,970 35,994 72,964
15 36,945 36,497 73,442
16 36,957 36,528 73,485
17 36,945 35,257 72,202
18 36,945 35,964 72,909
19 36,970 35,994 72,964
20 36,945 36,497 73,442
21 36,957 36,528 73,485
22 36,945 35,257 72,202
108,969 77,945 186,914
104,192 74,528 178,720
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
128,076 91,612 219,688
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
128,076 91,612 219,688
128,076 91,612 219,688
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
134,345 96,096 230,441
138,825 106,906 245,731
132,814 102,290 235,104
170,708 140,351 311,059
170,708 139,113 309,821
164,024 126,862 290,886
172,019 133,092 305,111
172,019 135,050 307,069
164,024 128,524 292,548
164,024 124,664 288,688
172,019 133,092 305,111
172,019 133,092 305,111
172,019 135,050 307,069
172,019 135,050 307,069
172,019 130,503 302,522
171,290 132,060 303,350
171,315 132,090 303,405
171,290 132,593 303,883
171,302 132,624 303,926
171,290 131,353 302,643
171,290 132,060 303,350
171,315 132,090 303,405
171,290 132,593 303,883
171,302 132,624 303,926
171,290 131,353 302,643
TABLE V -12
SUMMARY OF DIRECT, INDIRECT AND INDUCED JOBS
GENERATED BY AIRPORT ACTIVITY AND VISITOR EXPENDITURES: 2020
(continued)
Airport Related
Direct/
Alternative Indirect
Induced
Total
Visitor Related
Direct/
Indirect Induced Total
Total
23 38,145 38,578 76,723 134,345 96,096 230,441
24 38,148 38,492 76,640 134,345 96,096 230,441
25 38,146 36,203 74,349 134,345 96,096 230,441
26 38,139 36,313 74,452 134,345 96,096 230,441
27 37,399 37,033 74,432 134,345 96,096 230,441
28 37,552 37,223 74,775 134,345 96,096 230,441
29 37,115 35,836 72,951 134,345 96,096 230,441
30 37,271 36,029 73,300 134,345 96,096 230,441
Direct/
Indirect Induced Total
172,490 134,674 307,164
172,493 134,588 307,081
172,491 132,299 304,790
172,484 132,409 304,893
171,744 133,129 304,873
171,897 133,319 305,216
171,460 131,932 303,392
171,616 132,125 303,741
SOURCE: P&D Technologies.
�
-
TABLE V -13
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
GENERATED BY AIRPORT ACTIVITY AND VISITOR EXPENDITURES: 2020
Alternative
Airport Related
Jobs Earnings Revenue
(millions) (millions)
Visitor Related
Jobs
Total
Earnings Revenue Jobs Earnings Revenue
(millions) (millions)
(millions) (millions)
..............
1
2
31
32
2 ��{{..YT�.Y• t \Y
58,818
56,385
80,618
79,376
Y ' 6y 1 X:.;x
ally w. Y�4W5.•
81,717.6 84,261.7
81,647.1 84,086.2
$2,302.3 85,503.7
82,273.6 85,432.4
3 71,199 82,082.0 84,987.3
4 74,668 82,182.9 85,206.4
S 76,627 82,230.5 85,463.6
6 72,861 82,122.5 85,205.7
7 69,001 82,033.4 84,984.5
8 74,668 82,182.9 85,206.4
9 74,668 82,182.9 85,206.4
10 76,627 82,230.5 85,463.6
11 76,627 82,230.5 85,463.6
12 72,080 82,125.7 85,203.1
13 72,906 82,128.9 85,226.0
14 72,963 82,130.7 $5,226.9
15 73,439 82,141.9 85,296.1
16 73,485 82,143.3 85,297.9
17 72,200 82,113.3 85,225.0
18 72,906 82,128.9 85,226.0
19 72,963 82,130.7 85,226.9
20 73,439 82,141.9 85,296.1
21 73,485 82,143.3 85,298.5
22 72,200 82,113.3 85,225.0
186,913 $2,644.4 87,068.0
178,720 82,528.5 86,758.2
230,441 $3,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 $3,260.2 88,714.0
219,687 83,108.1 88,307.4
230,441 $3,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
219,687 83,108.1 88,307.4
219,687 83,108.1 88,307.4
230,441 83,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 83,260.2 88,714.0
245,731 $4,362.0 811,329.7
235,105 $4,175.6 810,844.4
311,059 85,562.5 814,217.7
309,817 85,533.8 814,146.4
290,886 $5,190.1 $13,294.7
305,109 85,443.1 813,920.4
307,068 $5,490.7 $14,177.6
292,548 85,230.6 813,513.1
288,688 85,141.5 $13,291.9
305,109 85,443.1 $13,920.4
305,109 85,443.1 813,920.4
307,068 $5,490.7 $14,177.6
307,068 85,490.7 814,177.6
302,521 85,385.9 813,917.1
303,347 85,389.1 813,940.0
303,404 85,390.9 813,940.9
303,880 85,402.1 814,010.1
303,926 85,403.5 814,011.9
302,641 $5,373.5 813,939.0
303,347 85,389.1 $13,940.0
303,404 85,390.9 813,940.9
303,880 85,402.1 $14,010.1
303,926 85,403.5 814,012.5
302,641 $5,373.5 813,939.0
TABLE V -13
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
GENERATED BY AIRPORT ACTIVITY AND VISITOR EXPENDITURES: 2020
(continued)
Alternative
Airport Related
Jobs Earnings Revenue
(millions) (millions)
Visitor Related
Jobs
Total
Earnings Revenue Jobs Earnings Revenue
(millions) (millions)
(millions) (millions)
23 76,722 $2,240.6 $5,416.4
24 76,640 $2,238.7 $5,405.2
25 74,349 $2,185.8 $5,268.6
26 74,470 $2,187.7 $5,267.5
27 74,432 $2,173.4 $5,331.3
28 74,775 $2,184.1 $5,337.6
29 72,951 $2,133.5 $5,244.7
30 73,302 $2,144.2 $5,251.3
230,441 $3,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 $3,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 $3,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 $3,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 $3,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 S3,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 $3,260.2 $8,714.0
230,441 $3,260.2 $8,714.0
307,163 $5,500.8 $14,130.4
307,081 $5,498.9 $14,119.2
304,790 $5,446.0 $13,982.6
304,911 $5,447.9 $ 13,981.5
304,873 $5,433.6 $14,045.3
305,216. $5,444.3 $14,051.6
303,392 $5,393.7 $13,958.7
303,743 $5,404.4 $13,965.3
SOURCE: P&D Technologies
Sea -Tac). However, loss of airport tenant leasehold possessory interest taxes at
Sea -Tac would partially balance this gain. Conversely, if a replacement airport
—•11114111r—
PAD Aviation A Division of PAD Tednabpae
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE V -14
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL SALES TAX REVENUES
GENERATED BY EARNINGS FROM JOBS RELATED TO
AIRPORT ACTIVITY AND VISITOR EXPENDITURES: 2020
Local Share of Sales Tax Revenues (000s)
Alternative Airport Related
Visitor Related
Total
I Airport Stem
1
2
31
32
2 Airport System
s9,755.9
s9,355.5
S10,193.9
510,651.5
3 $11,828.1
4 $12,401.8
5 S11,776.4
6 S11,297.7
7 $11,046.6
8 S12,401.8
9 S12,401.8
10 $11,776.4
11 S11,776.4
12 $11,481.3
13 $12,093.1
14 $12,103.3
15 S11,922.8
16 S11,923.7
17 $11,842.2
18 $12,093.1
19 $12,103.3
20 S11,922.8
21 S11,923.7
22 $11,842.2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$12,219.3
S12,248.8
$12,128.2
512,166.0
$12,095.1
$12,156.6
$12,048.9
$12,110.0
•
$13,883.1
$13,274.6
$17,116.1
517,116.1
S16,317.5
S17,116.1
$17,116.1
$16,317.5
$16,317.5
S17,116.1
$17,116.1
$17,116.1
517,116.1
$17,116.1
$17,116.1
$17,116.1
$17,116.1
$17,116.1
517,116.1
517,116.1
$17,116.1
$17,116.1
$17,116.1
$17,116.1
•
523,639.0
522,630.1
527,310.0
527,767.6
528,145.7
529,517.8
528,892.4
527,615.2
527,364.1
529,517.8
529,517.8
528,892.4
528,892.4
528,597.3
529,209.1
529,219.4
529,038.8
529,039.7
$28,958.2
$29,209.1
529,219.4
529,038.8
$29,039.7
$28,958.2
,e„ - ?�� �A CY,Yai ec..^. yiJCt.^YO ..;>vl6'?�'y" "`Q7Q•'cQ�� •:
is o:•. i ..
529,335.4
529,364.9
$29,244.3
529,282.1
529,211.2
$29,272.7
529,165.0
529,226.0
SOURCE: P&D Technologies
P D Avtitlan e A Division d PSO TidnabVas
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -67
NNN -M.
fln...
YM.��MII
WP8 -Page 32
is developed at the privately held Central Pierce site (versus the Fort Lewis site)
or Olympia/Black Lake, land would be removed from the tax roles, negatively
impacting property tax revenues in these areas. However, depending on the type
and extent of new private development around the airport, as well as the gains
from airport tenant leasehold taxes, these negative impacts would be reduced or
eliminated.
Issue: Diversification of the economy and minimizing the dependence on one major
employer (e.g., the Boeing Company, which is the largest single employer and
accounts for 21 percent of the employment in the Puget Sound Region).
• The vast majority of jobs generated by the alternatives are not related to
aerospace manufacturing, thus reducing the region's dependency on Boeing.
Issue: Increasing international and domestic tourism
• Although the alternatives do not directly promote international or domestic
tourism, the ability of the alternatives to meet future air passenger demand will
help facilitate tourist visits to the region.
• Depending upon the alternative system, air passenger visitors (tourists and
business) to the region are expected to generate between 178,700 and 230,400
jobs, $2.5 to $3.2 billion in household earnings and $6.8 to $8.7 billion in
annual business revenues for region.
Issue: Creation of jobs in manufacturing and other industries to replace declining
employment opportunities in the resource -based industries, such as mining
and timber.
The vast majority of the jobs created by airport activity and visitor expenditures
will be in non - resource -based industries.
Issue: Increase the competitiveness of the region's businesses in the new global
economy
• The region's position in the global economy will be enhanced to the extent the
alternatives are integrated with other modes of transportation in the region (i.e.,
sea, rail, highway) to form an efficient intermodal system.
• Due to the limited vacant, available land around Sea -Tac, development of
facilities to allow the Puget Sound Region to fully capitalize on emerging
aviation /industrial linkages (i.e., air freights' role in "just in time methods and
PaD Aviation A Division d P &D Technologies
■A
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COAMIITTEE
WP8 -Page 33
air cargo industrial complexes, etc.) may be limited. Therefore, alternatives that
replace Sea -Tac or provide supplemental airports may be needed to capitalize on
these trends.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
Following are questions beyond the scope of this analysis posed to members of expert panel:
1. What strategic economic issues other than those discussed in this paper should be
considered in evaluating the alternative airport systems?
2. What are the impacts of the alternatives on these other economic issues?
3. Which alternative best supports the Puget Sound Region's growing role in the
global economy? Which supports it the least?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages other than those listed in this paper
of a replacement airport vis -a -vis a multiple airport system?
5. Given the emerging trend toward air cargo /industrial complexes, should
provisions be made in any of the alternatives for such facilities? If so, which
alternative? What amount of air cargo should be accommodated?
6. Locating supplemental airports in various counties does, to varying degrees, serve
to distribute additional employment to these areas. This additional employment,
however, and additional population likely to occur, will create the need for public
services, such as schools, police, fire, sewer, water and other infrastructure.
Who will pay for these needed public services? Where will the funds come from?
7. If hubbing became a larger part of the Puget Sound airport system, would this be
an increase in air passenger demand above the 45 MAP level?
AID Aviatlon A °hike d P &D T .JW1iO ias
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUCE 1 SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -69
APPENDICES
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGE T SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATIONCOMMITTEE
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
C -71
Bangsberg, P. T. "Aircraft Conversion Groups Likely to Reap Benefits of Asia Cargo Boom."
The Journal of Commerce. 1991 (April 19). Sec. B, p. 9.
Bluechel, Alan. "Reaping Profit from a New World Order." The Journal of State Government.
1991 (Jan /March). Vol. 64, Issue 1, pp. 18 -21.
Breslin, Ira. "US Airlines Urged to Consider Expanding Use of Combi Aircraft.• The Journal
gf Commerce. 1991 (April 1). Sec. B, p. 5.
Brown, Tom. "Trade, Traffic on I -5 Corridor Raise Vision to Global Level." Seattle Times.
1991 (June 9). Sec. E, pp. 1 and 8.
Davies, John. "Major New Runway Ruled Out for Seattle - Tacoma Airport." The Journal of
Commerce. 1991.
Davies, John. 'Port of Tacoma Hopes to Reap Benefits of Nearby Boeing Plant.• The Journal
of Commerce. 1991.
Davies, John. "Sharp Growth in Air Cargo Fleets Forecast." The Journal of Commerce. 1990
(July 30). Sec. A, p. 1.
Hamer, John C. The New Crossroads: Greater Seattle and the Global Economy. 1991 (Feb).
Prepared for the Trade Development Alliance of Greater Seattle.
Kasarda, John D. "Global Air Cargo-Industrial Complexes as Development Tools." Economic
Development Quarterly. 1991 (Aug). Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.187 -196.
Kennedy, D. M. The New International Cities Era: The Global Activities of North American
. 1989. ed. E. H. Fry, L. H. Radebaugh and P. Soldatos.
Northwest Policy Center, University of Washington Graduate School of Public Affairs.
SIZMies of the Pacific Northwest Economic_Regign. 1991 (March).
Puget Sound Council of Governments. CeatzgliNglagmailegiMILFAIIIMOCIIIGAUCLand
Regional Economic and Demog nhi Forecasts:_ 1990.2020. Technical Documentation
Draft. 1991.
Puget Sound Council of Governments. EmploymenaaliMaleLitILSOSSEMIXIMILCOCIZI
Fanployment and Payroll. First Quarter. 1989. 1991 (June).
Redmond, Ron. "Seattle Lands a Plum: Free -trade negotiations to begin here Aug. 20." Seigle
Post - Intelligence. 1991 (June 13). Sec. A, pp. 1 and 16.
P60 Aviation
A &vision of PS0 T.cnnoagi.s
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COuwl-TEE
WP8 -Page A -2
"Seattle -Africa Ties Important." Editorial. Seattle Post - Intelligence. 1991 (June 27). Sec. A,
p. 10.
Solomon, Mark B. "Global Service Drives Air Cargo Growth." The Journal of Commerce.
1990 (July 13). Sec. B, p. 9.
Stafford, Bill. "Where's Seattle? Trade Development Alliance of Greater Seattle will supply the
answer." Seattle Post - Intelligence. 1991 (May 12).
Stier, Kenneth J. "Aviation Growth in Asia - Pacific Held Inadequate.• The Journal of
Commerce. 1991.
Washington State Economic Development Board. Washington Works Worldwide. 1988 (Nov).
A long -term economic development strategy for Washington State.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -73
APPENDIX B
METHODOLOGY FOR PROJECTING THE
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AVIATION ACTIVITY AND
AIR PASSENGETAISITOR EXPENDIWRES
A°Niond MID T&Pr. Oplut
P80 ANttlon
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
APPENDIX B
METHODOLOGY FOR PROJECTING THE
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AIRPORT ACTIVITY
AND AIR PASSENGER VISITOR EXPENDITURES
airport activity and visitor expenditures.
P40 Aviation A OMrkn of P40 Tiohiobg ioa
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COA11111TTEE
C -75
WP8 -Page B -2
A. AIRPORT ACTIVITY
1. Estimate direct and indirect employment generated by airport activity.
Total direct employment at each airport and alternative for the year 2020 was projected
on a per passenger basis using the following equation:
Logto(Direct Employment) = 2.938 + (.929 x Log10(Passengers))
This equation was developed by P &D based on a statistical analysis of direct employment
at 89 commercial airports in the United States which ranged in size from .004 million
annual passengers (MAP) to 43.653 MAP [1].
Total indirect employment at each airport and alternative for the year 2020 was projected
on a per passenger basis using the following equation:
Indirect Employment = 142.42 x Million Annual Passengers
This equation was developed by P &D based upon the relationship of indirect employment
to total passengers found in a 1989 Economic Impact Study (EIS) prepared for the Port
of Seattle [2].
Total direct and indirect employment was then allocated to specific industries based on
the distribution of these industries found in the above referenced Economic Impact Study
prepared for the Port of Seattle.
2. Estimate direct and indirect wage earnings generated by airport activity.
Wage earnings were projected based upon average salary per job data from the 1989
Sea -Tac EIS. However, these data were in 1987 dollars. Thus, the salary per job data
[1] The R2 between observed and predicted direct employment using this equation is .909.
The t value is 20.123 with 87 degrees of freedom, indicating that the coefficient is
statistically significant at the .005 + percent level. The F -ratio for the equation is
404.915, indicating that the equation is statistically significant at the .005 + percent level.
[2] Martin O'Connell Associates, The Economic Impact of the Seattle Harbor and The
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, prepared for the Port of Seattle, February 1989.
PSD Aviation
A ° on d PSD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COA1111ITTEE
OOOOO 00.100
111 OOOOO MOOS.
ur• Iii
■
WP8 -Page B -3
were increased by seven percent to estimate 1990 salaries [1]. Total wage earnings
were projected using the employment projections derived above and average 1990 salaries
per job.
3. Estimate revenue generated by airport activity.
Revenues to local firms were projected based upon revenue per job data from the 1989
Sea -Tac EIS, updated to 1990 dollars using the same inflation assumption as was applied
to wage earnings. For all industries except airlines and air freight, all revenues were
assumed to represent expenditures for local goods and services due to airport activity.
The revenue data for airlines and air freight were reduced to account for the portion of
revenue which would: (1) flow out of the region; and (2) be respent for goods and
services from other industries included in the direct and indirect categories (i.e., catering,
government, etc.). Total revenues were projected using the employment projections
derived above and the adjusted 1990 revenues per job.
4. Distribute direct and indirect impacts to each county in the region.
Direct and indirect job, earning and revenue projections were then distributed to each
county as follows: 75 percent of the jobs, earnings and revenues generated by a
particular airport were assumed to remain in the county where the airport was located,
the remaining 25 percent were divided evenly among the other counties. This formula
assumes that over time, businesses serving individual airports will tend to locate near the
airport, and was based upon the percentage of employees at Sea -Tac which live within
King County, as found in the 1989 Sea -Tac EIS.
5. Estimate induced impacts within each county generated by the direct and indirect
impacts.
Induced jobs, wage earnings and revenues within each county were estimated from the
direct and indirect impacts using input/output multipliers obtained from the United States
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The multipliers were developed specifically for
each county and the region from the BEA's Regional Input- Output Modelling System
(RIMS II). It should be noted that Thurston County was added to the study area late in
the process and BEA was unable to generate multipliers for this county in time for use
in this project. Therefore, due to similar population sizes, for all alternatives except
Alternative 32 (Replacement Airport at Olympia/Black Lake), the multipliers for Kitsap
County were used to estimate induced impacts in Thurston County. In the case of
[1] This increase is based on the percent change in average salaries for Port of Seattle
Aviation Division employees between 1987 and 1990.
PAO Aviation A revision d PAD Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C -77
WP8 -Page B-4
Alternative 32, due to the magnitude of the direct and indirect job creation in the county
generated by the replacement airport, the multipliers for Pierce County were considered
more appropriate for estimating the induced impact in Thurston County.
6. Estimate sales tax revenues generated by increased earnings.
A portion of the wage earnings generated by airport activity will be respent on taxable
retail goods, resulting in increased retail sales tax revenues to the region. According to
the State of Washington Department of Revenue, an average of 35 percent of wage
earnings are spent on taxable retail goods. This percentage was applied to direct,
indirect and induced wage earnings to estimate taxable retail sales and the local tax rate
was then applied to estimate sales tax revenues.
7. Add direct, indirect and induced impacts within each county to estimate total
impacts within each county and the region.
The direct, indirect and induced impacts within each county were added to estimate total
impact on jobs, wage earnings and revenues.
B. AIR PASSENGER VISITOR EXPENDITURES
1. Estimate the percentage of air passengers which are business and tourist visitors to
the region.
The percentage of total air passengers that would be visitors to the region was estimated
at 26 percent, based upon information found in the 1989 EIS for Sea -Tac.
2. Estimate expenditures by air passenger visitors for local goods and services.
Expenditures for local goods and services (lodging, ground transportation, retail goods,
sightseeing and restaurants) was estimated on a per passenger basis using information
from the 1989 EIS and the Seattle -King County Convention and Visitors Bureau.
3. Estimate employment generated by air passenger visitor expenditures.
Total employment generated by visitor expenditures was estimated on relationships
between jobs and revenues found in the 1989 EIS.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WP8 -Page B -5
4. Estimate wage earnings generated by air passenger visitor expenditures.
Wage earnings were projected based upon average salary per job data from the 1989
Sea -Tac EIS. However, these data were in 1987 dollars. Thus, the salary per job data
were increased by 7 percent to estimate 1990 salaries [1]. Total wage earnings were
projected using the employment projections derived above and average 1990 salaries per
job. ,
5. Estimate induced impacts within the five county region generated by the visitor
Induced jobs, wage earnings and revenues within the five county region were estimated
from the direct impacts using input/output multipliers obtained from the United States
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA multipliers were developed specifically
for the region from their Regional Input - Output Modelling System (RIMS II).
6. Estimate sales tax revenues generated by increased earnings. '
A portion of the wage earnings generated by airport activity will be respent on taxable
retail goods, resulting in increased retail sales tax revenues to the region. According to
the State of Washington Department of Revenue, an average of 35 percent of wage
earnings are spent on taxable retail goods: This percentage was applied to direct,
indirect and induced wage earnings to estimate taxable retail sales and the local tax rate
was then applied to estimate sales tax revenues.
7. Add direct and induced impacts to estimate total impacts within the region. '
The direct and induced impacts were added to estimate total impact on jobs, wage
earnings and revenues. '
[1] This increase is based on the percent change in average salaries for Port of Seattle '
Aviation Division employees between 1987 and 1990.
PA0 ANatlon A &Mon of PAD Technologies
WORKING PAPER #11
CAPITAL COSTS AND FUNDING
PRESENTED
OCTOBER 23, 1991
ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 26, 1991
C -79
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: November 4, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
FROM: P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 11 CAPITAL COSTS AND FUNDING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Capi . Costa
Table 1 on the following page summarizes the major conclusions of the capital costs analysis of
the Flight Plan options and shows the consultant's suggested composite ranking of the options
based on these costs.
The option which receives the highest ranking (Rank 1) and lowest cost is existing Sea -Tac with
demand management. The second and third ranked options are the existing Sea -Tac with a
supplemental 1- runway airport and Sea -Tac with a supplemental 2- runway airport respectively.
The replacement airport option is shown to be the most costly of all the options.
Aircraft delay Costa
The amount of airport operational capacity provided, relative to the number of passengers
served, varies substantially among the options being evaluated. A comparison of property
acquisition and construction costs alone does not recognize this difference. In order to account
for the relative capability of each option to serve its allocated demand, aircraft delay costs were
examined. Airport options with greater capacity will have lower aircraft delay costs.
In Working Paper No. 7, the alternatives were compared in terms of annual delay costs for the
year 2020. In Working Paper No. 11, the cumulative delay costs for the period 2000 -2020 have
to be projected in order to provide a better comparison with capital costs. Table 1 summarizes
the cumulative aircraft delay costs for the major option groups, together with a ranking.
Funding
The results of the financial analyses are summarized below:
• The average net operating revenue (including depreciation) is $1.2 per passenger at
9 supplemental airports surveyed. These supplemental airports varied in size from 1.5 to
12 million annual passengers (enplaned and deplaned), approximately the same range of
airport size as forecasted for a supplemental airport in the Puget Sound Region between
the years 2000 and 2020. The U.S. average for airports of the same size is $0.9 net
operating revenue per passenger.
PAGE.003
FROM P/D TECH ORANGE
D
0
0
f
TABLE I ri
FLIGHT PLAN PHASE III 0
EVALUATION OF OPTION COST
-
Alternatives and Options
Estimated
Acquisition and
Construction
Costs
($ Millions)
Rank
[a]
Estimated
Aircraft Delay
Costs
(S Millions)
Rank
fa)
SEA TAC AIRPORT
Existing Sea -Tac with Demand Management`
230
1
4,900
6
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT
1,564 - 2,078
7
1,600
1
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea Tac plus Supplemental (1 Runway)'`
Existing Sea-Tac pins Supplemental (2 Runways)
Sea -Tac with new AC Runway plus Supplemental (1 Runway)
Sea -Tac with new AC Runway plus Supplemental (2 Runways)
433 - 730
474 - 879
755 - 1,043
786 - 1,158
2
3
4
4
4,900 - 5,100
4,900
2,500 - 2,900
2,500 - 2,900
6
6
4
4
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac plus 2 Supplementals (1 Runway)
Sea -Tac with new AC Runway plus 2 Supplementals (1 Runway)
Sea -Tac with new AC Runway plus 2 Supplementals (2 Runways)
788 - 1,028
1,086 - 1,362
1,320 - 1,760
4
5
6
4,400 - 4,900
1,800 - 2,500
1,500 - 2,100
ii
5
3
2 J
Pi Ranking 1.9 with 1 best.
*Does not meet 2020 demand forecast.
LJIlV 7OJtJial(v /!1 <`.f :::svii tllv(I(J(h'5 4:117
a
n
00
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
Pu::► ► Stf;►Wp Mr; !►i:INti1")1i IA11011C0M1:611l_L
WP11 -Page 3
improvement costs for each site include all off - airport roadway improvements. Estimated access
improvement costs for each alternative were provided by Puget Sound Regional Council staff.
The estimated capital costs for each alternative are in 1991 dollars and arc shown in Table 2.
Engineering, administrative and contingency costs were estimated at 25 percent of all costs.
'Engineering and administration" costs related to property acquisition include legal fees, resident
relocation expenses, and administrative site acquisition costs.
Working Paper No. 6 provided conceptual drawings for each of the airport site concepts. A
discussion of the improvements assumed in the cost estimates for each of the sites is presented
below.
Seattle- Tacoma Internnational Airport Withouj New Runway
This concept is essentially the existing Sea -Tac Airport. Although no new runways are included
under this alternative, minor improvements such as new taxiway and terminal area expansions
would occur. No land acquisition is assumed for this alternative.
Airport access improvements include : Widen SR 518 /Airport Freeway for four and one half
miles and widen I -5 for two miles. Revise SR 518 interchanges at I -5 and the SR 509 and
Airport Freeway interchange with SR 518. Pacific Highway South would be widened for three
miles.
Seattle - Tacoma International Airport With New Commiter Runway
Under this alternative, a new 5,000 -foot commuter runway would be constructed on the west
side of the present runways, approximately 1,000 feet from the western boundary of the Airport.
The new runway would be located entirely on existing airport property. The west side parallel
taxiway would be removed and a new runway constructed with a centerline separation of 700
feet from the existing westerly runway (Runway 16R -34L). No land acquisition is assumed for
this alternative.
Airport access improvements include : Widen SR 518/Airport Freeway for four and one half
miles and widen I -5 for two miles.. Revise SR 518 interchanges at I -5 and the SR 509 and
Airport Freeway interchange with SR 518. Pacific Highway South would be widened for three
Iles.
I It
• -I .1
n
nw
In this alternative, a new 7,004 -foot runway would be constructed 2,500 feet from
Runway 16L -34R. This separation distance would allow dependent instrument approaches. For
GOO ' Hodd
3ENddO H ?31 Q/d WOd3 LE:tt tE, t CON
•
w
(n
2
o
w
tJ
0.
O
w
TABLE 2
FLIGHT PLAN PHASE 111
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 01,000)
Page lof2
Alt
De eriptiem
NoiseArar
Air fel
She
Ae'fis M++
Airport
Ca.etn.etlu
Access
C.rrtr.ction
Ceatiegreary
Engherring
Aderlaietratiee
TMd
1
Sea- T.owidioetCoerrooe►DJW
50,000
0
45,578
49,000
36,145
180,723
2
Sea-The with Commuter R/W
50,000
0
74,979
49,000
43,495
217,474
3
Magnate 1 + Arrington 1 R/W
74,000
4,600
182,665
85,000
86,566
432,831
4
Akenrb 1 + Paine 1 R/W
300,000
25,000
I
188,839
70.000
145,960
729,799
3
Alternate 1 + MCCHORD 1 !1W
62,000
19,125
191,569
82,000
88,674
443,368
6
Ahermta 1 + Central Pierre 1 R/W
60,000
115,000
227,340
( 74,000
119,085
595,425
T
I
Menthe 1 + Olytapia/Blaek Lake 1 R/W
53,300
` 7,500
345,249
85,000
122,762
613,811
8
Mten*1s 1 + Arlington 2 RJW
74,000
36,000
230,592
90,000
107,648
538,240
9
AheratM 1 + Pains 2 R/W
300,000
81,750
188,839
90,000
165,147
625,736
10
Alternate 1 + MeCbord 2 WW
62,000
33.000
197,561
87,000
94,892
474,460
11
Altercate 1 + Central Piave 2 WW
63,500
290,000
275,794
74,000
175,824
879,118
1 12
Alternate 1 + Oly okWJBlaok Labe 21/W
54,500
23,600
481,837
85,000
161,234
806, 171
13
Ss. -Tat eddy. WW + Ae k,$oe 1 A/W
74.000
38,800
419,639
85.000
154,360
771,799
14
Sea-Tae w4dep. RAN + Rine 1 P/W
300,000
59.200
404,977
70,000
208,544
1,042,721
15
Sea -Tae wldep. R/W 4- McCho d 1 R/W
62,000
53,325
406,554
82,000
150,970
754,849
16
Sea -Tae w /dep. PJW + Cereal Three 1 R/W
60,000
149,200.
464.942
74,000
187,036
935,178
17
Sea.T c wldep. R/W + Olymplelllack Leke 1 RAW
53.300
41,700
516,518
85,000
191,630
958,148
1S
Sea -Tae wldep. RAM + Arlington 2 R/W
74,000
70.200
419,639
90,000
163,460
817,299
19
See-Tae w /dep. WW + Puns 2 R/W
•
300,000
115,950
404,977
90.000
227,712
1,138,659
20
Sea -Tc w/4perdett R/W + McCbord 2 RAY
62,000
67,200
412,552
87,000
157,188
783,940
21
Sea- Tacw/depea0ea1*/W + Central P[uo.2 R/W
63,500
324,200
464,942
74,000
231,661
1,158,303
22
Sea-Tae vaaperdeat R/W + Olympia/MA Lake 2 R/W
54,500
57,800
586,518
85,000
195,955
979,773
23
Alt. I + Arlington 1 RAW * Caatnt Pfera 1 RM►
14,000
119,600
316,767
110,000
157,592
787,959
24
Alt. 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Central Mere. 1 R/W
310,000
140,000
254,974
95,000
199,994
999,961 ,
21
M. 1 4 Arlington 1 RIW + Olyeepia/Baack Lase 1 R/W
77,300 4
12,100
_ 423,432
_ 121,000
158,483
_ 792.415
1p'11;10d lT."1 t t,ii.w I 11V (Inner: '111,
00
PAGE.007
1
FROM P/D TECH ORANGE
D
O
TABLE 2
PLIGHT PLAN PHASE III
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (SMON)
Page 2of2
Ak
DaaerlpL..
Nabs Lj.ce
Are
As�wiei t Tel
Ski
Ae piskisu
Airport
CARracl�
�
Moan
Goer rutihra
Cane:gatay
Ab.laiseratir�a
Talal
126
Alt. 1 + Pains 1 RAN + Ceywis lab& Lab 1 R/W
303,300
32,500
350,299
106,000
205,525
1,027,624
27
Abeam 13 + Coma! Phew 1 RAN
114.000
153,500
525.112
110,000
211,233
1,091,165
25
Allsrmsu 14 + Central Ram 1 RAN
310,000
174,200
510,470
95,000
272,411
1,362,055
29
Akerson 13 + Olympia/Melt Lab 1 R/W
77,300
46,300
624,070
121,000
217,165
1,065,535
1,356,760
30
Alternate 14 + OlynVWlibrk Lake 1 R/W
303,300
66,700
609,401
106,000
271,352
31
Central Plata 3 RAN
45,000
400,000
1,031,439
186,000
415,610
2,071,049
32
Olympia/Rack Inks 3 VW
15,000
34,000
_
1,312.414
56,000
363,554
1,109,265
AA Demand Msnyames
45,922
34
FT
30,000 I
45,400 f
1.036,690
136,000 I
12,773 I
1.363,563 j
la) For Sea- Tae. this Carne represents ebs eost albs Sea -Tae noise renrrdiation program pro rammed from 2000 to 2020 (350 million for sound attenuation in existing structures).
UUKUROMUUDMUDwma
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
i'vcF r !:c ,rru or' COAM71nLL
C; -85—
WP11 -Page 4
this alternative, additional property must be acquired between 9th and 12th Avenues South and
between South 176th Street and SR 518, to provide for construction of the new runway.
Land Acquisition is estimated to total 110 acres with 230 homes.
Airport access improvements include: Widen SR 518/Airport Freeway for four and one half
miles and widen I -5 for two miles. Revise SR 518 interchanges at I -5 and the SR 509 and
Airport Freeway interchange with SR 518. Pacific Highway South would be widened for
three miles.
Arlin on Municipal A With New unway Extension
Under this alternative, the north -south runway at Arlington Municipal Airport would be
lengthened 1.670 feet at the north end to a total of 7,000 feet. The general aviation area on the
east side of the airport would remain. A new passenger terminal would be constructed between
the two runways. Long -term parking could be provided at the west side of the airport and air
cargo, maintenance, and support activities can be accommodated south of Runway 11 -29. New
parallel taxiways would be constructed for each runway to serve future aviation needs.
Land Acquisition is estimated to be 100 acres with 20 homes on 60 acres and 35 acres with
industrial potential.
Airport access improvements include the widening of I -5 for three miles, a new access road from
I -5 (1.5 miles) and a new interchange at 1-5.
Arlinstualztv Runway
A new 7,000 foot long parallel north -south runway would be constructed west of the existing
north -south runway. Additionally, the present north -south runway would be extended 1,670 feet
to 7,000 feet. Additional property would be acquired on the north, east, and south sides of the
airport to accommodate the required expansion. The passenger terminal would be located at
midfield between the parallel runways on the east side of the airport. Air cargo and maintenance
activities could be located at the northeast corner of the airport. Support functions could be
accommodated at the south end of the airport.
Land acquisition estimated includes 360 acres on the north side of the airport which contains
70 homes and some pasture and wooded areas. Approximately 185 acres is needed on the east
which is industrial land and includes Bayliner Industries at 140 acres. An additional 130 acres
is needed at the southwest corner of the airport. This land is a mixture of potential commercial,
industrial, a major commercial nursery and an additional 25 homes.
PAD Aviation
A &Aim at PAD Tatholo 6
EOO ' 39Nd 39N060 HD31 Q/d WC6d 6C : t t le. t (ION
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
rtiCi t Sol/LI1. i1; 11 ;AtJ:Cr'l)1; ATIONcor t1aT1tt
WP11 -Page 5
would be located on the east side of the base on existing Air Force Base property. A new
PAO Att stun A &Asian • PAD Talnobpli
60 . 39►dd 3
9NFi80 H031 G/d 1.106d s6: 1 1 16, V OON'
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
!'Uc: 1 r;O:rral• run IIl1%N:4'01 i 1.1 11! #1 i OrlUf l ILL
WP11 -Page 6
parallel taxiway would be constructed on the east side of the runway to serve the civilian
functions. Air Force facilities currently located in these areas include hazardous materials
loading aprons. This option is based on relocating these loading areas to other locations on the
base. If alternate loading areas cannot be provided, the area encompassed by the civilian
activities would have to be reduced.
Land acquisition for this alternative is entirely within the military airport boundary. A value of
the land could be minimal if surplused and transferred from the government. The appraiser's
recommendation was to use S1.50 per square foot for land acquired for estimating purposes. It
was assumed that land would be acquired only for the landside facilities. Approximately
295 acres are needed for this purpose.
Airport access improvements will require the widening of I -5 for four miles, a new access
roadway from SR 512 for one mile and a revision of the Steele/SR 512 interchange.
Jolnt Use of McC6ord A rForce Base_ With_New Runway
In this concept, a new civilian runway would be constructed east of the existing runway, with
a centerline separation of 700 feet. The passenger terminal area, long -term parking, and air
cargo, maintenance, and support services would be located on the east side of the base on
existing base property. Although this concept provides a separate runway for civilian use, the
remaining area on the east side of the base is reduced.
Land acquisition for this alternative is again estimated only for the area required for the landside
facilities and would involve approximately 505 acres.
Airport access improvements will require the widening of I -5 for four miles, a new access
roadway from SR 512 for one mile and a revision of the Steele/SR 512 interchange.
Central yktile.pnajmitunsosamtniaukort
Under the one - runway supplemental alternative, a new runway would be constructed west of
Highway 161. The runway would be 7,000 feet long with a parallel taxiway on the east side.
The passenger terminal area, vehicle parking and air cargo, maintenance, and support services
would be located between the runway and Highway 161. The runway would be extended to the
south to a total length of 10,000 feet. The critical factor effecting runway placement was the
presence of high terrain to the south.
Land acquisition for this alternative will involve 1,140 acres of land with major housing
developments including Gem Heights, commercial frontage along Merida, major improved
commercial properties, condominiums and residential land. Preliminary estimates are
594 homes, 75 acres commercial, 620 acres vacant and a 134 unit condominium complex.
PAD AbIltbn
010' 39t4d
A preion of PAO Tics neibple
3SSNbei0 H031 0/d IJO' 6C : 1 1 16, t' (lON
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
1 soma, Au; l;n!J ;I ORTn 1101) CO4 4111 TEl
75 acres commercial, 1,230 acres of vacant residential land and a 134 unit condominium
complex. ,
Airport access improvements for this alternative include the widening of I -5 for four miles, a
new interchange at I -5 and new access road connecting I - -5 to airport (approximately 14 miles'
roadway).
—,. ..-
PAD Marton ■ A Dhlrlon d PAD Tai abaus
3n Nt+21_ n H031 O/d WO 8d EC 11 16 1- (1OIJ'
1 1 e1 • 3EHd
. C -89
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
&'UNl)alu I11AM.:I'n1.IA HIM t-OAIAIIIILL
WP11 -Page 8
Olympia/Black Lake One- Runwgv Supplemental Airport
This one - runway concept includes a 7, 000 -foot runway with passenger terminal and associated
facilities to the east, access to the airport would be by Lathrop Road from Interstate 5. Bloom's
Ditch which runs through the site would be rechanneled into Salmon Creek to the north. Hills
directly south of the runway would be removed to provide adequate approach surface clearance.
Land acquisition for this alternative is approximately 800 acres including 50 homes and
550 acres of vacant acreage.
Airport access improvements include the widening of I -5 for two miles; a new access road from
I -5 for two miles and a new interchange at 1 -5.
Olynwla/Black Lake Two-Runway Supplemental Airport
The two-runway concept for Olympia/Black Lake would be similar to the two-runway concept
at the Central Pierce site. However, at the Olympia/Black Lake site the westerly runway must
be offset to the south to prevent relocation of. Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and to avoid
wetlands areas to the north. Hills at the south end of the runway must be removed for runway
construction and approach surface clearance.
Land acquisition for this alternative will involve 1,900 acres with a total of 175 homes and
1,025 acres of vacant land.
Airport access improvements include the widening of I -5 for two miles, a new access road from
I -5 for two miles and a new interchange at 1 -5.
QI mniaBtaek Lake Wkh Replacement A rt
This alternative consists of three 10,000 -foot runways on the Olympia/Black Lake site with the
center runway capable of expanding to 12,000 feet. With the exception of the offset westerly
runway, the configuration of this concept is similar to the replacement airport at the Central
Pierce site.
Land acquisition for this alternative will involve approximately 4,020 acres, 225 homes,
2,800 vacant land and 100 acres of potential industrial land.
Airport access improvements will include the widening of .I -5 for four miles with a new
interchange. A new access road from I -5 to the airport (2 miles) and widen 93rd Avenue SW/
Littlerock Road for four miles.
PAD AvWron
21 0 ' 3.1i d
A AbWan of PAD Tia woko ar
3SNtid0 H331 U/d W02l3 Ot : l 1 16, b (ON
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
11101 ! ?;)rINUnrrr fruit, :; Y ? +;1.'t T IO4COkrrnI1ri
Fort Lewis Replacement Airgortlke
39Nb &0 HD31 U/d WOdd OV :11 16, b (ON
C' T r, . 7LlNJ
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
1'utL 1 ::01.11J1) All: 'HAW:1'0111AHOU c04 1411 7 11.L
C -91
WP11 -Page 10
aircraft delay costs for the alternative. Appendix A provides the annual tally of delay costs for
each alternative and the cumulative costs. It should be noted that for the replacement airport
scenarios it was assumed that the airport would commence operations in the year 2006, and thus
for the preceding years in the analysis delay costs experience at Sea -Tac are assumed.
The results of the analysis are presented Table 3 and are also compared to the results for the
year 2020 presented in Working Paper No. 7. The ranking indicated is with respect to the
cumulative delay costs. The results are organized by major option groups (which consist of a
number of alternatives) to simplify the presentation.
=RATING REVEN J S AND COST;
This section and the following section describe the analyses of two additional factors important
to the comparison of airport site alternatives: airport operating costs and revenues, and the
financing of capital improvements. The purpose of these analyses is to provide data which
characterize each of the alternatives in order to compare the desirability of alternatives from an
operating revenue and financing perspective. The 33 airport system alternatives described in
Working Paper 5 and an additional site at Fort Lewis are addressed. Due to the number of
alternatives evaluated and the lack of specific construction program details, the financial analyses
were performed on a generalized basis. The objective of the analyses is to assess the relative
merits of the alternatives, rather than develop specific financial assessments of each airport.
implemental Airy
In this section, the operating revenues and expenditures of a supplemental airport are addressed
to determine whether a new supplemental airport in the Puget Sound Region could generate
sufficient operating revenues to cover its costs of operations. To address this issue, the
operating revenues and expenditures of existing supplemental airports in the United States were
examined. Only supplemental airports which would be similar to a supplemental airport in the
Puget Sound Region were studied. Airports considered similar were in a market dominated by
a single air carrier airport and served between 1.5 and 13 million total passengers (enplaned and
deplaned) annually. These airports (listed in Table 3) are Chicago Midway Airport, Dallas Love
Field, Houston Hobby Airport, Burbank -Glendale- Pasadena Airport, John Wayne Airport
(Orange County, California), Long Beach Airport, Ontario International Airport, Ft. T Auderdale-
Hollywood Airport, Oakland International Airport, and San Jose International Airport.
The net operating revenue per passenger for each of the supplemental airports surveyed is shown
in Table 4. The net operating revenue per passenger varies substantially from airport to airport
due, in part, to the methods of accounting and the allocation of costs between other activities
operated by the airport owner (such as other airports or ports). No attempt was made to
reconcile differences in accounting and financial reporting methods because of the general nature
of this analysis. Net operating revenues are the difference between airport operating revenues
PAD Aviation A Woke el PAD Talwrologles
riri ?�rd
39NU80 HJ31 Q/d WOb 3 1 t: l 1 16, t AON
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
f:01 MD Atli II +AW: OI?IAr:o i ("pal P.11111.!
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE AIRCRAFT DELAY COSTS
Option
2020 Delay Costs
(millions $)
Cumulative Casts
(millions $)
— — —
- —
—
Sea -Tac with Demand Mena : emeat
5232
$4,900
Replacement Airport
$24
$1,600
Existing Sca -Tac with 1 R/W Supplemental
$234 - $271
$4,900 - $5,100
Fainting SaTac with 2 R/W Supplemental
$233 - S237
$4,900
j Sea Tac with New AC R/W + 1 R/W Supplemental
5232 - $241
$2,500 - $2,900
Sea•Tac with New AC RNV + 2 R/W Supplemental
*232 - $241
$2,500 - S2,900
Existing Sea •Tac + 2 Supplementala (1 Rive)
$235 - $241
$4.400 - $4,900
Sea -Tac with New AC R/W + 2 Supplemental! (1 R/W)
S141 - $229
51,800 - $2,500
Sea -Tac with New AC R/W + 2 Supplemantels (2 R/W)
$140 - $166
$1,500 • $2,100
PAD Aviation
S 1 0 ' 39Nd
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
!:I writ, Alf? „ :Ar::rorTd UO1J ((Mlt.lt111 E
TABLE 4
NET OPERATING REVENUES OF REPRESENTATIVE
SUPPLEMENTAL AIRPORTS [a]
C -93
Primary Airport/Sup • lemental AI • • rt
Chicago O'Hare International Airport
Midway
Net
Operating
Revenue [b]
(millions of
dollars)
Total
Passengers [c]
(millions)
Net Operating
Revenue per
Passenger
(dollars)
1.3
8.8.
0.1
Dallas -Fort Worth International
Love Field
4.2
5.7
0.7
Houston Intercontinental
Hobby
11.9
8.1
1.5
Los Angeles International
Burbank - Glendale- Pasadena
3.0
3.0
1.0
John Wayne
18.2
4.6
4.0
Long Beach
0.5
1.5
0.3
Ontario International
1.7
5.5
0.3
Miami International
Ft. Lauderdale - Hollywood
21.9
9.1
2.4
San Francisco International
Oakland
3.3
12.0.
0.3
San Jose
11.1
6.9
1.6
Total
77.1
65.2 -
- 1.2 J
Data are for calendar year 1990 or fiscal year ending 1990 or 1991.
Includes depreciation.
Enplaned and deplaned passengers.
Source: Pact) Aviation Survey.
PLO ArYtlan
A ("Asian of PAD Teams ogles
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
Puna r ±UurJlfAtr: rh/UJSPcm1ATio1JCO 1tUTILE
-..s
WP11 -Page 11
PAD ANmon
1O 3r?Hd
A OMslonaAID Tschnologice
3SNtidO HJ31 G/d WO63 ar : 1 1 1 6 , r (SON
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE 111
1'Ut:l 1 :u1Jw1,,111 rn,VJSroR 1A 110,4 (;o,. UU1 T 1E+
TABLE 5
NET OPERATING REVENUES OF
PRIMARY AIRPORTS [a]
G-9-5-
Primary Air rt
Net Operating
Revenue [b]
(millions of
dollars)
Total
Passengers (c]
(millions)
Net Operating
Revenue per
Passenger
(dollars)
Chicago O'Hare International Airport
75.9
60.0
1.3
f: Dallas -Fort Worth International
77.9
48.5
1.6
Houston Intercontinental
31.4
17.5
1.8
1 Los Angeles International
56.1
45.3
1.2
" Miami International
[d]
(41
[d]
San Francisco International
27.7
29.6
0.9
Total
269.0
200.9
1.3 _ J
[al Data are for calendar year 1990 or fiscal year ending 1990 or 1991.
(b] Includes depreciation.
[c] Enplaned and deplaned passengers.
[d] Data not available.
Source: P&D Aviation Survey.
TABLE 6
NET OPERATING REVENUE PER PASSENGER.AT
SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1986 TO 1990
Calendar Year
Net Operating
Revenue [a]
(millions of dollars)
Total Passengers
(millions)
Net Operating
Revenue per
Passenger
(dollars)
1986
14.4
13.6
1.1
1987
14.4
14.4
1.0
1988
13.7
14.5
0.9
1989
13.2
15.2
0.9
1990
19.5
16.2
1.2
[a] Net after allocation of depreciation expenses.
Source: Port of Seattle.
PADAv1mon
8 1 0 ' 3E"zid
A Division of PAD Tschndoprs -
39Nti'O H131 u•'d WO 33 E:t:11 1E., t ()ON
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
1'uc r ► f,Qu:j1! Ain I 1:41,154.01:1 W'1 C0111:111 1II 1 EF
through the airports' net operating revenues. Typically, projects are funded through accumulated
revenues held in reserve accounts or through airport revenue bonds in which airport operating
revenues are pledged as security for the payment of revenue bond principal and interest. As
described in the preceding section, net operating revenues at supplemental airports in the range
of 1.5 to 12 million annual passengers (enplaned and deplaned) averaged approximately S1.2 per
Pab AvIaDo ►
c1ra•�nN�
A&Aliced PAD T &u &4le
39Ntid0 HD31 Qid WO8d Eb :11 16, r SON
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUCE 1 SOU:JI) nn; rr:4N : ;l'0I;1 n uvrj cQr.7r.;
C-98 3'+ 1'0'3E d 1tIUl **
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
l uc :f I : ::)uu;r.a:ce Irrnr.:>>cv:Ia1101rc0111111
TIFF
WP11 -Page 14
At the time of this working paper, no airports have been approved for PFCs, although many
have initiated the application process. To date, all applicants have proposed to levy $3.00 PFCs.
Program durations vary from two years to thirty -three years. The City and County of Denver
has proposed the largest program so far, $2.39 billion over thirty -two years. Under FAA's
letter of intent for the new airport issued last year, Denver is required to imposed PFC 'as soon
as administratively feaaible.• The airport will issue a series of bonds backed by PFC revenues
and airport revenues. Other applicants for PFCs include Portland, Columbus, Buffalo and
Las Vegas.
FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
The FAA's Aid to Airports Program provides funding for planning, construction, or
rehabilitation at any public -use airport. Eligible work consists of: capital outlays for land
acquisition; site preparation; construction, alteration, and repair of runways, taxiways, aircraft
parking aprons, and roads within airport boundaries (except for access to areas providing
revenue, such a as parking lots and aviation industrial areas); construction and installation of
lighting, utilities, navigational aids, and aviation - related weather reporting equipment, safety
equipment required for certification of an airport facility; security equipment required of the
sponsor by the Secretary of Transportation; limited terminal development at commercial service
airports; and equipment to measure runway surface tension. Grants may not be made for the
construction of hangars, automobile parking facilities, buildings not related to the safety of
persons in the airport, landscaping or artwork, or routine maintenance and repair.
The AIP provides two types of funds for air carrier airports: entitlement funds and discretionary
funds. Entitlement funds are made available to all commercial service airports based on the
following formula:
$7.80 for each of the first 50,000 passengers enplaned each year, plus
$5.20 for each of the next 50.,000 passengers enplaned each year, plus
$2.60 for each of the next 400,000 passengers enplaned each year, plus
$0.65 for each passenger over 500,000 passengers enplaned each year, to a maximum
total of $16,000,000 a year.
Discretionary funds are available on the basis of need and priority as determined by the FAA.
PAD Archon A WWI, d PAD Tachielogitg
1 c•C1 ' 3Jdd
3ENd80 HD31 G/d Woad r. r : I I 1 6 , 1, noN
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUC A l ::vtlHU A :11 r rinla5r'OR 1 n 11014 COLME 1►T 1 LL
C -99
WP11 -Page 15
State of Washington
The State Aeronautics Commission Act of 1947 authorized the Commission to provide financial
assistance to municipalities in support of public airport development. Specifically, the
Commission was permitted to make grants or loans for planning, construction or maintenance
of publicly owned or controlled airports.
In 1977 the Aeronautics Commission was dissolved and its staff became the Aeronautics
Division of the new Washington State Department of Transportation. The Aeronautics Division
Airport Aid/Grant Program has grown to S3 million per biennium. Funding for the program
is through a tax on general aviation fuel sold in the State.
The program is geared to satisfy the planning and construction needs of general aviation in
Washington State. It is one of the more active and productive in the nation, and is driven by
the combined results of the Washington State Continuous Airport Systems. The main objective
is to satisfy airport needs at the non -hub airports that serve as feeder airports to our state and
regional air carrier airports, as well as the general aviation airports.
Although small grants (under $100, 000) have been made to air carrier airports, State Aeronautics
grants are not expected to be a significant source of funding for the Flight Plan airport
alternatives.
Local Sources
A potential source of airport funding is general revenues from the City or County which owns
and operates an airport. In recent years, however, local governments have looked for other
means of financing airport operations and capital improvements because of the lack of adequate
tax revenues.
Another method of airport funding is the establishment of a special purpose district such is an
airport district or authority which can collect a percentage of property tax revenues within its
jurisdiction. The formation of any multi- county airport jurisdiction must be approved by State
legislature. The Port of Seattle has authority to operate outside of King County and therefore
could operate a supplement airport in. another County. However, the Port of Seattle can not
collect tax revenues from another County. Presently, no tax revenues collected by the Port of
Seattle are used to fund airport operations or airport capital improvements.
Private Sources
A significant source of private funding at airports is tenant provided improvements such as
terminal equipment and facilities, hangar buildings, and associated aircraft ramps. In the
PAD Arision
A Ort slon ar Paa Tirfnobpas
,c,�� • ar,Ha 39NUNO H031 Q/d WO83 bS: t l 16. b rlON
00
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
ru :, 1 Sou :Jr) l.IN ulna : :1 •u1 :1 A11Uu [:oMAIIT Tr,
WP11 -Page 16
estimated capital costs prepared for the airport alternatives, these tenant improvement costs have
been excluded.
For the past several years, interest among the aviation community in the privatization of public
airports has increased. The American Association of Airport Executives and the Airport
Research and Development Foundation have recently undertaken a study of expanded private
sector involvement in public airports, focusing on the issues of privatization and the role of
private equity capital in public airports. Some recent attempts toward airport privatization, such
as the proposed British American/Lockheed Air Terminal proposal to Iease Albany County New
York Airport, have not been successful.
A decision in August 1991 by the City of Los Angeles to investigate privatization for Los
Angeles International Airport has attracted industry attention. Selling the airport to private
interests is being considered because of the large amount of revenue the City of Los Angeles is
asking the airport to provide the City, $100 million a year or over $2.00 per passenger.
Case Studieg
Two large -scale airport improvement programs underway now are using a variety of funding
sources (Table 7). Funds for the new Denver airport are largely being furnished through airport
revenue bonds backed by airport operating revenues and PFCs, the sale of Stapleton Airport,
and FAA discretionary funds. Four issues of revenue bonds to finance the airport will total
$1.4 billion. FAA Al? discretionary funding of $330 million has been awarded for the new
airport. Stapleton Airport which comprises 4,700 acres will eventually be sold and redeveloped
to provide funds for the airport improvement program. The total capital 'cost for the new airport
is expected to be $2.6 billion.
Pittsburgh International Airport has embarked on a program to relocate its passenger terminal
facilities to the other side of the airport. The total cost of the program is estimated at over
$700 million. Almost SS00 million will be supplied through a 1988 revenue bond issue. FAA
entitlement funds and discretionary funds will each contribute $67 million to the project. County
and State funds together will provide over $120 million.
Costs for related access improvements; at the two airports are not included. These could be as
high as S200 million at Pittsburgh and $1 billion at Denver. Funds for these improvements
could be provided by state and federal. highway funds.
FINANCIAL CAPAE1LTTY OF AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES
Airport alternatives were compared on the basis of their relative ability to provide funds to
finance the estimated capital improvement costs. A "funds/costs ratio" was developed which
provides a measure of the financial capability of the alternatives. The funds/cost ratio is
E0C1' 39tid
A Division of Pab Tiolrloloplas _
39Nd210 HD31 Q %d WOd3 SS:11 1E. b noN
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
rlic:r 1 SOUND AIH 1 /tAUSPOH 1A NON C.OILMUT) EE
TABLE 7
SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS FOR NEW DENVER AIRPORT AND
PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
C -101
Source of Funds
New Denver Airport [a]
Pittsburgh International Airport
Amount
(millions of
dollars)
Percent
Amount
(millions of
dollars)
Percent
County
0
0
42
5.6
State
0
0
85
11.2
FAA Entitlement Funds
107
4.1
67
8.9
FAA Discretionary Funds
330
12.7
67
8.9
Revenue Bonds
Sale of Stapleton Airport
and Other Sources After
1999
1,400 [b]
736
53.8
28.3
494 [c]
—
65.4
—
' Total Cost of Project
2,600
100.0
755
100.0
[a] Sources of funds through 1999, except as noted.
[b] Backed by Airport revenues and PFCs.
[c] Backed by Airport revenues.
P4D Aviation j A Division d P&D TicJnobgios
t-00.3E?Hd
39NOHO HD31 aid WOdH 95 :11 16, r
(SON
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
'UCF I SOZ.1tID Au: Ili' I r 4'p /t l A UUON COE74 11 1FF
WP11 -Page 17
computed by dividing the total estimated airport funds by the total capital outlay for each airport
alternative. The funds/cost ratio was also computed for the system of airports, to provide an
indication of the financial capability of operating the airport under a single ownership (Table 8).
Five sources of funds were considered in this analyses. Sources of funds were estimated for the
20 year period from the year 2000 to 2020. All dollar figures are in 1991 dollars. The
estimated funds were derived on the basis of the constrained allocation of passengers to airports
shown in Table 9. This table appeared as Table 3 in Working Paper 5. Funds from State or
Federal highway programs are not included, although these funds are not expected to be large
enough to change the results of the analysis. Each source is discussed below:
• Net Operating Revenue. Airport operating revenues can fund improvement projects
directly or be used to support airport revenue bonds. Net operating revenues for both
primary and supplemental airports (including Sea -Tac) were estimated to average
$1.2 per enplaned and deplaned passenger. This average is consistent with current
experience at supplemental and primary airports as well as Sea -Tac as shown in Tables 4
through 6).
• Passenger Facilities Charger. A passenger facility charge of $3.00 per enplaned
passenger is assumed to be collected at each airport from the year 2000 through 2020.
Passenger facility charges were estimated under all airport alternatives except
Alternatives 1, 2 and 33. PFCs were estimated without regard to the potential cost of
eligible projects. Therefore the PFC funding represents a funding capability, but the
PFC charges shown in Table 7 may exceed the cost of eligible improvement projects.
Under multiple airport alternatives PFCs estimated for Sea -Tic could be used for a
supplemental airport if controlled by a single owner - operator, such as the Port of Seattle.
PFC legislation allows air carriers to retain 8 cents of each PFC collected after 1994.
Therefore the PFC revenue allocated to each airport is estimated at $2.92 per enplaned
passenger.
• FAA ATP Entitlement Fundy. FAA ALP entitlement funds were allocated on the basis
of the formula discussed earlier. Airport alternatives which reach or exceed the medium
hub designation level, as explained earlier, will take a 50 percent reduction in entitlement
funds if a PFC is collected. Therefore an airport could show a greater amount of funds
from FAA entitlements than another airport that has more passengers if the smaller
airport were a small hub airport and the larger airport was a medium hub airport.
Estimated FAA entitlement funds were totaled for the 20 -year period from the year 2000
to 2020.
P&D Aviation A &Vision of P &D Tioh obgies
c0O• ?raid
3E)Nt321O H031 4.'d N0213
gS:it 16. h OON
C -103
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF CAPITAL COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDS
TO YEAR 2020
(Millions of Dollars)
ALTERNATIVE / AIRPORT
FUNDS/
COST
RAT1O
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COST
SOURCES OF FUNDS (TO 2020)
TOTAL
NET OPER-
ATING
REVENUE
PASSENGER
FACILTIY
CHARGES •
FAA AIP
EN17TLE-
MENT
FM MP
DISCRE•
TIONARY
SALE
OF
SFA-TAC
1 Ses•Tre - No New Rwy
4.3
180.7
783.8 679.2
0.0
105.6
0.0.
0.0
2 Sea•Tac - With Com Rwy
4.0
2173
863.1 738.6
0.0
113.7
10.9
0.0
3 Sea -Tac • No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
1611.2 6792
826.4
105.6
0.0
0.0
Arlington -1 Rwy
1.4
252.1
352.2 138.6
168.6
44.9
0.0
0.0
Total
43
432.8
1963.3 817.8
995.0
150.6
0.0
0.0
4 Sea -Tar • No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
1609.8 678.6
825.6
1055
0.0
0.0
Paine • 1 Rwy
0.7
549.1
383.3 151.8
184.7.
46.8
. 0.0
0.0
Total
2.7
7298
1993.1 830.4
10103
152.3
0.0
0.0
5 Sea-Tar - No New Rwy
8.0
180.7
16098 6784
825.6
1053
0.0
0.0
McChord - 1 Rwy
1.5
262.6
• 383.3 1518
184,7
• 462
. 0.0
0.0
Total
45
443.3
1993.1 830.4
1010.3
. 152.3
• 0.0
0.0
6 Sca-Tar • No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
1609.8 678.6
825.6
1055
0.0
0.0
Central Pierce -1 Rwy
1.0
414.7
395.1 139.2
169.4
45.1
415
0.0
Total
3.4
595.4
2004.9 8178
995.0
.150.6
413
0.0
7 Sea -Tar • No Ncw Ray
8.9
180.7
16112 679.2
826.4
105.6
0.0
0.0
Olympia/Elk Lakc • 1 Rwy
0.9
433.1
3953. 138.6
168.6
44.9
43.3
0.0
Total
3.3
613.8
2006.7 817.8
, 995.0
150.6
43.3
0.0
8 Sca -Tar • No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
1611.2 6792
826.4
105.6
0.0
0.0
Arlington - 2 Rwy
1.1
3575
399.7 151.2
184.0
. 46.6
17.9
0.0
Total
3.7
538.2
2010.9 830.4
1010.3
152.3
17.9
0.0
9 Sea Tae - No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
16092 6784
825.6
105.5
0.0
0.0
Paine • 2 Rwy
0.6
645.0
41.5_5 151.8
184.7
46.8
32.3
0.0
Tots!
2.5
825.7
2025.3 830.4
1010.3
132.3
. 32.3
0.0
10 Sea -Tat - No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
1609.8 678.6
' 825.6
1055
0.0
0.0
McC Nord - 2 Rwy
Total
1.4
4.2
293.7
474.4
398.0 131.8
2007.7 830.4
184.7,
1010.3
46.8
152.3
14.7
14.1
0.0
0.0
11 Sea -Tae • No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
16092 678.6
825.6
1053
0.0
0.0
Central Picts - 2 Rwy
0.6
698.4
453.1 151.8
184.7
46.8
69.8
0.0
Total
2-3
879.1
2062.9 830.4
1010.3
1.52.3
• 69.8'
0.0
39Ntrd0 HD31 G!d WOdd
5S:11 16. t' (1Otl
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF CAPITAL COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDS
TO YEAR 2020
(Millions of Dollars)
ALTERNATIVE / AIRPORT
FUNDS/
COST
RATIO
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COST
SOURCES OF FUNDS (TO 2020)
TOTAL
NET OPh-R-
. ATING ,
REVENUE
' PASSENGER
FACILITY
CHARGES
FAA Al?
,ENTITLE•
MENT
FAA MP
DISCRE•
TTONARY
SALE
OF
SEA.TAC
12 Sea -Tac - No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
1611.2
679.2
826.4
105.6
0.0
0.0
Olympia /Blk Lake • 2 Rwy
0.7
625A
444.3
1312
184.0
46.6
62S
U.0
Total
2.5
806.1
20553
830.4
1010.3
132.3
623
0.0
13 Sca -Tac With Dep Ray
3.1
615.8
1890.4
7843
954.8
119.9
301
0.0
Arlington - 1 Rwy
0.9
156.0
140.7
45.6
555
39.7
0.0
0.0
Total
2.6
771.8
2031.1
830.4
1010.3
159.6
30.8
0.0
14 Sca -Tac With Dcp Roy
3.0
615.8
18523
768.6
935.1
'117.7
3015
0.0
• Paine -1 Rwy
0.4
426.9
181.0
61.8
75.2
44.0
0.0
0.0
Total
2.0
1042.7
20333
830.4
1010.3
1618
308
0.0
15 Sea -Tac With Dep Rwy •
3.0
615.8
1855.1
769.8
936.6
117.9
308
0.0
McChord • 1 Rwy
1.3
139.0
178.0
60.6
73.7
43.7
• 0.0
0.0
Total
2.7
7548
20331
830.4
1010.3
161.6
30.8
0.0
16 Sca•Tac With Dep Rwy
3.0
61.5.8
1853.7
769.2'
935.9
117.8
30.8
0.0
Central Pierce -1 Roy
0.7
319.4
2113
61.2
745
43.9
31.9
0.0
Total
2.2
935.2
2065.1
830.4
'1010.3
161.7
62.7
0.0
17 Sea -Tac With Dep Ray
3.1
615.8
1912.9
794.4
9663
121.2
30.8
0.0
Olympia /BLk Lake - 1 Rwy
0.4
312.3
151.1
36.0
• 433
37.1
34.2
0.0
Total
2.2
958.1
2064.0
830.4
1010.3
158.3
65.0
0.0
18 Sca-Tac With Dep Rwy
3.1
6158
1890.4
7848
954.8
119.9
30.8
0.0
Arlington • 2 Rwy
0.7
201.5
150$
45.6
55.5
39.7
10.1
0.0
Total
2.5
817.3
2041.2
830.4
1010.3
159.6
40.9
0.0
19 Sea-Tac With Dep Rwy
3.0
61.513
1852.3
768.6
935.1
117.7
30.8
0.0
Paine - 2 Rwy
0.4
522.8
207.2
61.8
75.2
44.0
26.1
0.0
Total
L8
1138.6
2059.4
830.4
1010.3
161.8
56.9
0.0
20 Sea-Tic With Dep Rwy •
3.0
615.8
1855.1
7698
936.6
117.9
30.8
0.0
McChord - 2 Roy
1.1
170.1
1863
60.6
73.7
43.7
83
0.0
Total
2.6
785.9
2041.6
830.4
1010.3
161.6
39.3
0.0
21 Sea :Tee With Dep Ray
3.0
615.8
1853.7
7692
• 935.9
• 1178
30.8
0.0
Central Pierce - 2 Rwy
0.4
5423
233.8
61.2
74.5
43.9
54.3
0.0
Total
1.8
. 1158.3
, 2087.4
830.4
1010.3
- .161.7
85.0
0.0
LOG ' Hitid
3r9NddO H131 Q:'d WOd3
Ls�
1 1 1 E.: r n O r1
C -105
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF CAPITAL COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDS
TO YEAR 2020
(Millions of Dollars)
ALTERNATIVE / AIRPORT
FUNDS /
COST
RATIO
TOTAL
CAPITAL
. COST
SOURCES OF FUNDS (TO 20201
TOTAL
NET OPER-
AT1NG
REVENUE
PASSENGER
. FACILITY -
CHARGES
FAA AIP
ENTIIT.E•
MENT
FAA AIP
- DISCRE-
TIONARY
SALE
OF
SEA.TAC
22 Sca•Tac With Dep Rwy
3.1
615.8
1012.9
794.4
9663
121.2
30.8
0.0
Olympia/131k Lake - 2 Rwy
0.4
364.0
153.3
36.0
. - 43.8
37.1
36.4
0.0
Total
2.1
979.8
. 2066.2
. 830.4
1010.3
158.3
67.2
" 0.0
23 Sea-Tac - No New Roy
8.8
180.7
1592.8
671.4
816.9.
104.6
0.0
0 -0
Arlington • 1 Rwy
0.9
237.7
225.8
79.8
97.1
48.9
0.0
0.0
Central Pict= • 1 Rwy
0.7
3693
247.0
79.2
96.4
343
37.0
0.0
Total
2.6
787.9
2065.6
830.4
1010.3
187.9
37.0
0.0
24 Sea•Tac - No New Riley
8.8
180.7
1583.0
667.2
811.8
104.0
0.0
0.0
Paine -1 Rwy
0.5
4593
230.3
81.6
99.3
49.4
0.0
0.0
Central Pierre - 1 Rwy
0.7
159.7
266.3
81.6
993
49.4
36.0
0.0
Total
2.1
999.9
20793
830.4
1010.3
202.8
36.0
0.0
25 Sca•Tac - No New Rwy
8.9
180.7
1608.
678.0
824.9
1053
0.0
0.0
Arlington -1 Rwy
0.9
237.7
221.4
84.0
102.2
352
0.0
0.0
Olympia/Blk Lake • 1 Rwy
0.6
374.0
234.8
68.4
83.2
45.8
37.4
0.0
Total
2.6
'792.4
2064.6
830.4
1010.3
• 1863
37.4
0.0
26 Sea -Tac • No New Rwy
8.8
180.7
1398.5
673.3
•819.8
104.9
0.0
0.0
Paine -1 Rwy
03
485$
254.8
97.8
119.0
38.0
0.0
0.0
Olympia/Blk Lake - 1 Rwy
0.6
361.1
209.7
58.8
713
43.2
36.1
0.0
Total
2.0
1027.6
2063.0
830.4
1010.3
186.1
36.1
0.0
27 Sea•Tec • With Dcp Rwy
2.9
615.8
17603
729.6
887.7
112.5
30.8
0.0
Arlington • 1 Rwy
0.8
156.0
12.5.8
39.
48.2
38.0
'
0.0
0.0
Central Pierre - 1 Ray
0.7
319.4
2113
61.2
743
43.9
31.9
0.0
Toul
1.9
10912
20973
830.4
1010.3
194.4
63.7
0.0
28 Sea Tac - With Dep Rwy
2$
613$
1708.3
707.4
860.1
109.4
.
30$
0.0
Paine -1 Rwy
0.4
426.9
181.0
61.8
75.2
44.0
0.0
0.0
Central Pierce -1 Rwy
0.7
319.4
211.5
61.2
743
43.9
31.9
0.0
Tow
13
1362.1
21008
830.4
1010.3
197.4
62.7
0.0
29 Sea -Tac - With Dep Ray
3.0
615.8
1866.6
766.2
932.2
117.4
30.8
0.0
Arlington - 1 Rwy
0.8
156.0
125.8
39.6
48.2
38.0
0.0
0.0
Olympia /B1k Lake • 1 Rwy
0.4
314.0
119.9
24.6
29.9
34.0
31.4
0.0
Total
1.9
1085.8
2092.3
830.4
10103
189.4
62.2
0.0
EGG' 3E1Nd
3910'dO HD31 G/ d WOd LS: 1 1 16. 1- (ION
C -106
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF CAPITAL COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDS
TO YEAR 2020
(Millions of Dollars)
ALTERNATIVE / AIRPORT
FUNDS/
COST
RATIO
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COST
SOURCES OF FUNDS (TO 2020)
TOTAL
NET OPER.
ATING
REVENUE
PASSENGER
• FACILITY
CHARGES
FAA AIP
ENTITLE-
MENT
FAA AIP
DISCRE-
TIONARY
SALE
OF
SEA-TAC
30 Sca -Tac • With Dcp Rwy
2.9
615.8
1794.4
• 744.0
905.2
114.4
30.8
0.0
Paine . 1 Rory
0.4
426.9
181.0
• 61.8
75.2
44:0
0.0
0.0
Olyrapia/Blk Lake -1 Ray
0.4
314.0
119.9
24.6
29.9
34.0
31.4
0.0
Total
13
1356.7
2095.3
830.4
1010.3
192.4
62.2
0.0
31 Central Pierce - 3 Rwy
1.3
2078.0
2798.6
830.4
1010.3
126.1
207.8
62.4.0
32 Olympia/Blk Lake . 3 Rwy
1S
1809.3
2771.8
830.4
1010.3
126.1
180.9
624.0
33 Sea-Tar With Dem Mpnt
4.0
229.6
908.8
788.4
0.0
120.4
0.0
0.0
34 Fort Lewis - 3 Ray
18
1.5619
2747.2
• 830.4
10103
126.1
156.4
624.0
Source: P 6c D Aviation.
600' 39Hd
30Nti60 H031 Gid 14083
L S: t t 16, r• PI O N
n
0
w
f_R
a-
FROM P/D TECH ORANGE
CO
u-1
to
-r
TABLE 9
CONSTRAINED ALLOCATION OF PASSENGERS TO AIRPORTS
Alternate
Description
F: lased and Deptawed Passengers
Year 2000 (2SAMAP)
Year 2014 (34.0 MAP)
Year 2020 (45.0 MAP)
Sea -Ti4 North I South I Unsat.
Sea•Tacl North I South I Unsat.
Sea -Tact North I South I Unsat.
I
Sea Tat without Commuter R/W
23.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
28.8
0.0
0.0
5.2
32.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
2
Sea -Tar with Commuter R/W
25A
0.0
00
0.0
31.4
0.0
0.0
2.6
34.9
0.0
0 0
10.1
3
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
23.6
1.8
0.0
0.0
28.8
5.2
0.0
0.0
32.0
10.9
0.0
I.1
4
(Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
21.5
1.9
0.0
0.0
28.8
5.2
0.0
0.0
32.0
13.0
0.0
00
5
Alternate 1 + Mc Cord 1 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
6
Alternate 1 • Central Pierce I R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
10.9
2.1
7
Alternate 1 4 Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W
23.6
0.0
1.8
00
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
I09
2.1
8
Alternate 1 4 Arlington 2 R/W
23.6
1.8
0.0
00
28.8.
5.2
0.0
0.0
32.0
1311
0.0
0.0
9
Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
233
1.9
0.0
0.0
28.8
5.2
0.0
0.0
32.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
10
Alternate 1 4 McCbord 2 R/W
21.5
0.0
1.9
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
11
Alternate 1 4 Central Pierre 2 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
288
0.0
5.2
0.0
32.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
22
Alternate l + Olympia /Black Lake 2 R/W
23.6
0.0
1.8
0.0
28.8
0.0
5.2
0.0
.32.0
00
13.0
0.0
13
Sea -Tat w/Depen0en1 11/W + Arlington 1 R/W
24.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
32A
1.6
0.0
0.0
41.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
14
Sea -Tae w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
235
1.9
0.0
0.0
313
2.5
0.0
0.0
41.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
15
Sea-Tat w / Dependent R/W + McChord I R/W
235
0.0
1.9
0.0
313
0.0
23
0.0
41.8
0.0
12
0.0
16
Sea Tat w/Dependent R/W + Cert. Pierce 1 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
313
0.0
25
0.0
41.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
17
Sea -Taew /Dependent R/W 4 O2ym. /81k. Lake 1 11/W
24.6
00
0.8
0.0
33.0
0.0
1.0
00
418
0.0
3.2
0.0
18
Sea-Thew/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
242
1.2
0.0
0.0
32.4
1.6
0.0
0.0
418
3.2
0.0
0.0
19
Sea-Tae w/Dependrnt R/W + Paine 2 11 W
235
1.9
0.0
0.0
313
25
0.0
0.0
41.6
14
0.0
0.0
20
Sea -Tar w /Dependent R/W 4 Mc(toril2 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
31.5
0.0
-23
00
412
0.0
3.2
0.0
21
Sea -Tat w /Dependent R/W + Con. Pierce 2 R/W
233
0.0
1.9
0.0
31.5
0.0
23
0.0
41.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
22.
Sea-Tae w /Dependem 11/W 4 Olym. /Blk. take 2 R/W
24.6
0.0
•0.8
.0.0
33.0
00
1.0
0.0
41.8
0.0
3.2
0. i
23
Alternate 2 • Arlington 1 R/W 4 Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
223
1.2 .
1.9
0.0
281
3.1 .
2.1
0 0
32.0
5.9
7.1
0.0
24
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierre 1 R/W
21.6
1.9
2.9
0.0
28.8
2.6
2.6
00
32-0
6.5
6.5
0.0
23
Alternate 1 • Arlington 1 R/W + Olym. /Blk. take 1 R
23.4
1.2
0.8
0.0
28.8
2.9
2.3
0.0
32.0
7.0
6.0
0.0
26
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 4 Olym. /111k. Lake I R/W
227
1.9
08
0.0
28:4
3.4
1A
00
12.0
7.6
5.4
0.0
27
Alternate l3 4 Cemrul Pierce 1 R/W
' 22.3
1.2
1.9
0.0
29.9
1.6
23
1.0
39.5
2.2
1.1
0.0
28
Alternate 14 4 Central Pierce 1 11/W
21.6
1.9
1.9
0.0
29.0
23
2.5
0.0
38.3
3.4
3.3
0 0
29
Alternate I3 • Olyvnpia /Illack Lake 1 11/W
23.4
11
0.8
0.0
31.4
1.6
1.0
00
41.5
2.2
1.3
0.0
30
Alternate 14 • Olympia /Mack lake 1 R/W
22.7
1.9
0.8
0.0
303
2.5
1.0
0.0
40.3
3.4
1.3
0.0
31
Central Pierce 3 R/W
0.0
0.0
25.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.0
00
0.0
0.0
45.0
0.0
32
Olympia /Black Lake 3 11/W
0.0
0.0
25.4
0.0
00
0.0
34.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.0
0A
33
Alternate 1 4 Demand Management
25.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.9
0.0
0.0
7.0
Note: Supplemental airport demaruf is bared on mkt range of anconstrnined demmud (i,c.,aceammodaring 73 percent of snarl limit and 30 pertYnr of lone Mal demand,
O
1
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
1'1I, L I SOUND ,111? 11:111 ::∎1'<11 :1 R 11011 COL.
1UI IEF
WP11 -Page 18
• FAA AIP Discretionary Fund. Although the FAA can make no commitment on future
It0- 3r't'd
39NtidO H_'31 G/d WOd3 8G:11 16. b (ON
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
J'Ut;I 1 !:Until, MI? II ,arJ :;r'i , 11% IlNJ CVr.Irt it
(C -109
WP11 -Page 19
• Capital funding could be insufficient for existing airports if converted to supplemental
airports due to the large capital costs relative to the number of passengers served. For
1- runway supplementals the funds/cost ratios, based on the funds identified in Table 8,
are estimated to be between 0.4 and 1.5. For 2- runway supplementals, the ratios are 0.4
to 1.4.
• Capital funding is estimated to be inadequate for new airport alternatives. New
supplementals are estimated to have a funds/cost ratio of 1 or less due to their high cost
and relatively low level of passengers served. New replacement airports are estimated
to have funds/cost ratios from 1.3 to 1.8.
• Airport alternatives with funds/cost ratios below 2.0 to 2.5 could possibly become
financially viable if additional sources of funds were obtained, such as from local
sources, or if passenger levels were to increase, especially in earlier years.
• Nearly all multiple airport system alternatives would be financially feasible if: (a) funds
from Sea -Tac were used to finance improvements at the other airports and (b) PFCs are
collected at Sea -Tac and the supplemental airports.
• During the period analyzed ( 2000 -2020) supplemental airports do not appear to be
financially viable without subsidies from Sea -TAC.
• -T the only
new commuter runway or dependent air carrier runway at Sea ac are y
capacity improvements which generate sufficient funds to offset costs.
a10•3nrd
39NU8O H031 O/d WOd3 65:11 16. h f10N
C-110
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
"In :f I AO; I 1.1110U C001.111 IFF
APPENDIX A
TOTAL ANNUAL DELAY COSTS
FOR YEARS 2000 THROUGH 2020
NW Aviator)
10'3F)Hd
A CiVision PAD TOOMCd0006 —
3DNUd0 H331. U/d WO8 6G:II 16, V CON
:T.
,l,
n,
APPENDIX A
TOTAL ANNUAL Dia,AY (X)STS
Page 1 of 2
Attrrnate
1)rneription
2000
20•1
20112
2043 l 2001
2005
2006
1 2007
I0041
t
tea -Tae without Commuter R/W
1232,000,000
$232000,000
$232,000,000
$212,000,000
3232,000000
1232,000,000
$232,n90,000
1$232,000,000
$232,000,000
2
Sea -Ter with Commuter R/W
$225600,000
3227,040,000
1228,480,000
3229,920,000
2231,3360,000
3232,800.000
3231,240,000
3235,680,000
1237,120000
3
4
5
6
-7
Alternate 1 4 Arlington 1 R/W -
Alternate I • Paine 1 R/W
5213,886,738
$230,434,267
5234,183,989
$230,606,893
5234,481.240
1234,778,491
1233,075,741
$231,124,773
5235,372,994
*233,297,400
2235,670,245
1231,470,027
$231,470,187
$233,967,496
3231,642,653
1231,642840
2236,264,749
3231015,280
$231,815,493
5215,947,770
1210,779320
$230,952,141
Alternate 1 • MCCbord 1 R/W
$230,434,267
3230,606,920
3230,779373
$230,952,227
3231,124,880
$231, 297,533
Alternate 1 4 Central Pierce 1 R/W
3232,301,850
$232,757390
5233,213,330
2233,669,070
3234,124,810
5234,580350
2235036,290
$235,492,030
Alternate 1 4 Olympia /Mark Late 1 R/W
3233,886,738
$234,183,989
3234,481,240
1234,778,491
$215,075,743
$233,372,994
$235,670,245
1235,967,496
1236,264,718
11
9,
Ill
11
Alternate I • Arlington 2 R/W
$232,919,700
1232,971,309
3233022,918
3233,074,528
3L13,126,137
$233, 177, 746
3233 ,229,355
1733,280,964
$233,332,573
Alternate 1 • Paine 2 R/W
$230,434,267
$230,606,893
5230, 779320
3210,932,147
1231,124,773
3231,297,400
3231,40,027
5231,642,653
2211,643/127
$232,903,374
1231,815,280
3231,815,707
2233014,047
Alternate 1 4 Me(.lwrd 2 R/W
3230,434,267
1231,327,067
2230,606,947
$230,779,627
2230,952,307
5231,959,684
1231,124_987
$232,170,557
$231, 297, 667
2232, 381, 429
3231,470,347
Alternate 1 • Central Pierce 2 R/W
$231 ,537,939
5231,748612
$232,192,302
12
Alternate l • Olympia /Black Lake 2 R/W
3232,919,700
1212,971 309
3233,022,918
3233,074328
$233,126,157 $233,177,746
$233,229,355
5233,380,964
1233 ,332,573
13
14
Sea -7'ac w /lependent R/W • Arlington 1 R/W
$61,822,400
3611,818,410
172014,420
176,810,430
$80,1106,440 $84,802,450
$88,798,460
$92,794,470
$94790,480
Sea - I'ac w /Dependent R/W • Paine l R/W
556,034,267
156,034,267
356,981,600
369,494,400
$59,134,693
559, 154, 707
$60,1011,580
$74,219,710
$62,275,120
162,275,147
$63,225,560
$78, 945, 020
365,393,547
$65393,587
$66,347340
383,670 ,330
568315,973 371,636,400
568,316,027 $71,636,467
369,469320 $72,591,500
388,395,640 $93,120,950
574,756,927
574,736,907
$75,713,480
$97,946,264
$77377,253
$77,877,347
378,815,460
1102,571370
$80,997,680
$80097,797
$81,957,440
$107,296,880
15
Sea-Tae w /Dependent R/W a MeChord l R/W
Sea -Tae w/Depentlent 11/W • Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
16
17
Sea- Tar w/Deperdent R/W • Olpin. /1111t. Lake 1 R/W
18
Sea -Tic "/Dependent R/W • Arlington 2 R/W
364,411,200
S68,412,187
$72,413,173
176014,160
S80, 415,147 $14,416,133
$88 ,417,120
$92,418,107
$96,419,093
19
Sea - Tie /Dependent R/W • Paine 2 R/W
$36, 034,267
$59,158`573
362,292,880
$65,407,187
$69,531493 $71,655,800
174,780,107
$77,904,413
381,028,720
381,028,110
20
21
Sea-Tae w /DependentR/W 4 McCloud2R/W
356,034,267
339,138 ,573
$62,282,880
265,407,187
368,531,493 171,655,800
$74,790,107
$77,904,413
Sea -Tat w /Dependent R/W 4 Cen. I'ieae 2 R/W
356,434267
$39357,733
$62,679,200
565,800, 667
268,922,133
S72,041,600
392,790,933
173,165,067
197,319,360
178,2861533
$102,219,787
581,408,000
2106,960,213
22
Sea -Tat w /DepeMAem R/W • Oiymlg1k. Lake 2 Rf4
269,196,800
$73,917,227
$78,637,613
$87:158,080
128078,507.
23
24
Alternate I • Arlington 1 R/W 4 Cen. Pierre 1 R/W
Alternate 1 4 Paine 1 R/W • Cen. Pierre 1 R/W
3178393.230
$181,221,837
$189,656,423
3195,488,020
2X01,119597 3206,711,183
3212,382,770
$196,991,607
$218,014,357
5206,115,988
$233,247,953
1223,645,943
$213,240 ,370
$142,245,317
$151,3696941
$160,494,080
$169,618,462
3178,742,43 $187,867,225
25
26
Alternate 1 • Arlington 1 R/W • Oiym. /111k. Lake I R
$229,38/3,400
43191,432,467
549,104,000
141, 015,967
$62,316,800
$229,932,908
31956161,220
252,601,970
244,618,273
$230,485,415
$231037,923
$231390,430 3232,142,938
5232,695,445
3233,800,460
3224,902,493
$72,187,920
$62,835,120
231 ,327,360
$73,174,560
Alternate 1 • Paine 1 R/W 4 Olym. /1113.I.a1e 1 R/W
5199,799973
353,399,0.90
348,2220,680
367,119,440
1203913,727
S38, 197, 910
S208,167,480
360.995,960
335,425.493
3212,351,233
363,793,930
1216,134,997
$66,591,940
362,630,307
376,724,720
$69363,067
1220,718,740
569,389,930
$66,232,713
$79,126,040
27
2A _
29
30
Alternate 13 • (:entral Pierre 1 It/V.'
Alternate 14 • Central Pierre_I It /Its'
559,027,9(0
_- - -
Alternate 13 • Olympia / Black Lake 1 RLW
Alternate 14 4 Olympia /Illaut Lake 1 R/W
264,718,1710
_331,923,087
169320,760
373,922,080 174,323,400
$52,728,667
$55,334,403
359310,140
$61, 145,817
$63,951,613 166,757,330
572,368,323
31
32
Central Pierce 3 R/W
$232,000,030
1232,000,000
323000,0W
$232,000000
3212000000 3232000000
311,374,401
$11008,000
$12,243,270
Olympia/111mk lake 3 R/W
$232,000000
$232,000 000
$232,000,000
$232,400000
$232,000,400 1232,000,000
311 ,374,400
111,8318,800
$12,243,200
)3
Alternate 1 • Dervand Management
1232,000,000
1232;000,0(10
1232 000000
$ 232000,000
$212,000000 1232,000,000
1232,000,000
5232,400,000
$232,000,000
_34
13
Alternate 18 • Olympia black late 2 R/W
153,208000
238,568,633
361, 929, 707
$65290360
368,661,413 572,012,267
375,173,120
373,373,120
$78,733,973
352,481,360
Alternate 19 • ("affirm' Pierce 2 R/W
336, 470,800
238,472,120
S40,473,440
142, 474, 760
144,176,090 346,477,11))
$416,4711,720
250,480,040
Sayre: Jt4Dorta
sir
APPENDIX A
TOTAL ANNUAL DELAY COSTS
r. 1 o12
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
7420
TOTAL
$232,000,000
5338.560,000
S2)2,000,000
3240,000,000
12 ;2,000,000
3240,000,000
$232,000,000
3240,000,000
$212,000,000
32.10,000,000
12.32,000,000
12.10,000,000
3232,000,000
$232,000,000
$232,000,000
1240,000,000
3232,000,000
1232,000,000
3240,000,030
3232000,000
57.40,000,090
34,872,000,000
24,060,3100,000
1240,000,000
5240,000,000
5249,000,000
1336 ,561,999
52.1,987,007
1231,988.147
3216,403510
2116,561,499
1236,859,250
5232,160533
3232,160,800
1236,859_,250
,$2.36,859,251
5240,248,325
1232,321,813
1243,637,400
3247,026,475
3232,614,373
3232,644560
3250 ,415 ,550
2231,895,633
1253,804,625
$257,193,700
1260582,775
5263,971,850
$267,360,925
$270.7501100
55,144,044356
5232,483,097
5232,966,933
1233,128,213
3233,289,49)
3233,450,773
5233,450,1127
3763971,850
$233,612,0S3
1233,773,333
3233,773,333
14,874,747,133
34,1174,749,RM
3232,322,053
$240,240325
3240,248325
3232,483,307
$232,805,813
$250,413,530
$212,967,067
3233,128,320
3233,2189 ,573
1233,612,080
$241,637,400
1243,637,41W)
1247,026,475
1247,026,475
1253,804.621
353,804,625
3257,193,700
1260.582,773
3260,582;775
3267160 923
3270,750,000
3270,750,000
31,I3S 377,675
33,144,094,556
3251/A15,550
3257,193,700
3263,971,850
1267,360,925
3233,384,183
1231,987,907
3231,988,387
1_233,224,939
133,384.181
$233,435,792
$233,752,913
3234,070,033
3274,387,154
3232,431573
3232,431,947
3234,704,275
1235,021,396
3235,338517
3233,655,618
1232,792,960
5235,972,738
$212,883,307
1216,2891879
5236 ,607,000
14,916,754,767
3232,160 ,533
$232,161,167
1233,435,792
1212,150,880
3232,251,360
5233,752,913
3233,752,913
3232,341,227
3232,52I,920
3232,612,67
$232,702,613
3232, 973,653
5233,064,0(1
24,870,845,800
1232,341,653
3232,522,24D
$232,612 ,533
1232,702,827
$232,793,120
1232,833,4 13
3232,973,707
3233,064,000
14.8 70,115 1,1 33
1211.070,033
1234 070,033
3234,387,154
3234,701,275
3234,701,275
3235,021,36
3235,338 ,5 17
5235,635,6238
3235,972,758
3236,289,979
1236,607,000
34,907,995,283
34,916,754,767
3233,435,792
$234,387,154
$235,021,396
1135,338,517
1235,655,638
3235,972,758
$2.36 2891179
1236,607,000
100,786,490
119781
187,218 ,533
5113,418,050
$112,053400
3145,019.! e
." ,
3139,324,700
3172,940,230
18c 592000
S o..,....,..N.
1109 2+. +
.�w.u�..S ^v
121+ 86
,cuoc£SC1"iv
's227,50I,450
3241, 138,4100
5232,046,400
1-2,730.n07,200
12,436,929,000
584,118,107
384,118,227
$101,719,320
$116,200,107
3130,680,193
1143,161,680
3148,360,610
1159,642,467
$174,123,253
3188,604040
$203,08027
3217,565,613
587.238,667
$88,201400
S102,519,160
3117,799,653
1133,180,147
3163,641,13)
3178,921,627
$194,202,120
3209,482,613
3224,763,107
$240,043,600
32500,814,933
385079,420
1112,022,190
3103,095,793
$117,990,187
3132,884580
1147,778,973
3162,673,367
3177567,760
3192,462,153
$207,356,547
5222,250,940
3237,145,3.33
32,499,712,133
5116,747500
3129,186,150
3141,625,600
$154,061,650
3166,503,700
1178942,750
1191,381,500
1203,820,850
3216,259900
1228,698,950
3241138,000
32,875,953,200
1100,420,080
184,153,027
3104,421,067
1118,035,960
3131,650,613
3143,263 A47
$158,880,240
3172,495,033
1186,109,827
$199,724,620
5213,339,413
1226954,207
5240569,000
$2,721,601,767
32,457,472,200
$97,277.333
$101,738,880
$116,240,427
$130,721,973
1145,201520
$159,685,067
$163,682,267
1174,166,613
$188,640160
3203,129,707
1217411,253
5232,092,800
534,153,027
S84 ,529,467
187,277,333
3102 ,558120
$117,839,307
$117,435,280
$133,120,293
1132,327,453
3148,401,280
3147,219,627
$178,963,253
$194,244,240
$209,525,227
3224,806,213
2240,087,200
$2,501,441,400
187,650,933
3102543,107
3162,111,90D
3177,003,973
$191,896,147
$206,788,320
$221,680 ,493
32,481,058,467
3111680,640
$116,401,067
1128,817,860
3141,234,1113
3153,6251,447
3166,068,240
3178,486,073
1190,901,827
3203,318,6,20
1215,735,413
_$236,572,667
3228,152,207
3I40,569,009
$21167,722367
1229,277 ,530
$224,364,752
3234,909,117
3235,465,008
1236,020,898
1236576,789
3237,132,680
3237,688571
3238,244,462
1238,300,353
$239 ,356,243
5239,912,134
1240,460023
31.453,928,179
34,415,671,065
_3_4,934,215,196
24,680,724.433
5213,489,133
1134,905.475
5233,749,047
3235 ,480,1624
3234,006,961
1234,265,875
5234 ,524,788
3237,204,248
S234,783,70I
3235,042,616
1238,353,615
1235,301530
1235,560,443
$235,819,357
3236,078,271.
$234,352,968
1236,054,862
3236,629,353
3233,933,320
!237,773.942
2234 373 ,533
$238,928,128
.3239 ,503022
5240,077,715
5235,259,960
$240,652,408_
3235,481,067
3229,086,247
3233,270,000
3233,491,107
3233,712,213
1234,154,427
3234596,640
$234,17,747
1235,038,553
374,985,910
173,437527
383928,680
577,980,297
_$77,753,90_0_
$77,919, 931
386,330,00
S80,786,013
196,685,643
$95,587,387
31111,489,130
$96,235,473
3129,059,620
3113,390,873
3122,292,617
$109,115,833
3131,191,360
3140,096,103
$148,997447
1157,899,590
$134,776,553_
$214,5181160
3166,801,373
1111,191 733-
1229,762.067
3189552,467
31,969,168,333
359,87(!293
$102,710,653
3115531,013
3171,789,240
3146,041,893
3121,916,193
3186,032,417
1156,922,537
3128,361373
$1,7_72,541,113
32,464,231,767
S2,140,406,367
_$81,455,113
3103573,207
1114,816,413
5143,302,827
3124,292,607
3157546033
1200,273,653
391,662,671
3107,539330
$113,415,963
$135,169,250
3167,799,180
1178,675,823
$12,677,600
112,677,600
_513,112,000
$13,112,000
$14,246,133
314,246,113
315,380,267
$16,514,400
317,648 ,533
$18,782,667
$19,916,800
121,050,933
$21,050,933
122,135,067
$22,185;067
523.3i9.200
=?,4,453,331 21,640713373
$13,380,267
$16,514,400
3174641537
3111082 /41
319,916,800
223,319,200
324,453,333 51,646,713,333
$232,000,000
3232,000400
3232,000,000
3232,000,00
3232,003,000
1232,000,000
$132,00,000
3232,000,0830
1732,000,000
11321130,000
3232,000;000
3232,000,000 $4,872,000,000
382,094 ,826
554,482,680
388,816 ,51)
556.484,0110
596,497,200
$64,80)587
$104,177P6
$71 277,173
3111,853 ,533
591,673,760
$119 ,539,200
590,070,347
5127,219,867
598 ,466,934
5134,900533
U42581,210
5150,211,867
5123,6561/91
3157,942,333
1112,1213,150
3165,627,2110 12,092,654,170
5106,863,20
1115,260,107
$140.4-19,1167 11 ,537,903,69
APPENDIX D
INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENTS
WORKING PAPER # 10
INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
PRESENTED
OCTOBER 23, 1991
ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 26, 1991
DATE: November 6, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC)
FROM: Staff: Puget Sound Regional Council and
Port of Seattle
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 10 - INSTITUTIONAL and
IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The goal of Flight Plan Phase III is to evaluate alternative means of meeting the
future air travel needs of the region, and for the advisory PSATC to develop long
term recommendations to the Puget Sound Regional Council and Port of Seattle.
An important part of these recommendations will address the institutional steps
needed to implement the selected course of action.
The purpose of this working paper is twofold:
(1) to compare institutional capabilities and needs (particularly with
regard to siting and operational authority) for each of the system
alternatives, and
(2) To identify the steps that would be needed to implement the
alternative system plans in the state of Washington.
This paper is divided into six major parts: (i) a Summary, (ii) Growth Manage-
ment Elements Common to all Alternatives, (iii) Site Specific Considerations,
(iv) Ways to Operate Multi- Airport Systems, (v) Implementation Steps and (vi) the
Expert Panel Recommendations.
I. SUMMARY
HIGHLIGHTS
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC) is advisory to the Port of
Seattle (POS) and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). This joint body,
created through the Interagency Agreement in 1989, involves interested parties in
the development of a long term recommendation on air carrier service and facilities
for the Puget Sound region. Using staff research and an expert panel, the
Committee has explored ways to develop and operate each of the air transportation
systems alternatives. The following is a summary of its findings:
The Flight Plan Project is intended by the sponsoring agencies to develop
recommenations about the future of air carrier services and facilities in the
Puget Sound region. Other components of the air transportation system
which are included in the 1987 Regional Airport System Plan (such as
general aviation) may need to be addressed in subsequent steps, once the
PSATC's recommendations are completed. While Flight Plan was not
created to address general aviation needs, the possible impact of Flight Plan
recommendations on general aviation should be considered by the PSATC in
its transmittal to its sponsoring agencies.
The Flight Plan recommendations (and programmatic environmental
impact statement - -EIS) should lead to additional and more specific
studies and decisions implementing the selected system alternative,
Under current state statutes, municipal airport operators including the Port
of Seattle possess the power to act outside of their respective jurisdictional
boundaries; this authority can be exercised either singly or jointly.
Siting of any new facilities recently has been addressed by the State Growth
Management Act (GMA). This includes significant deadlines in 1992
(countywide and multicounty policy plans), 1993 (coordinated local
comprehensive plans) and 1994 (consistent local regulations). Flight Plan is
not a siting study, but does examine specific likely sites in evaluating system
level alternatives (no- action, replacement, two airport systems, three airport
systems).
Airports, unlike many other public infrastructure projects, are primarily
funded by private investment, either in the form of airline fees or direct user
fees. The amount of revenue generated by these fees is a function of the
level of service provided to the public by these air carriers. the legvel of
airline service depends on airline conclusions regarding market demand.
Airports' abilities to regulate air carrier service are quite limited by federal
grant assurances attached to FAA funding agreements, but do include the
opportunity to regulate gates (as opposed to air traffic).
A number of strategic actions can be used to implement the PSATC's
recommendations. These include specific demand management actions,
compliance with the state Growth Management Act with regard to siting of
facilities of regional or state significance, establishment of joint operational
structures under other current state law, and landbanking. Linkages between
actions /inactions at Sea -Tac and on other sites, and with continued
collaborative mechanisms to follow the completion of the Flight Plan
recommendations on alternatives, and monitoring and phasing tools, should
also be considered.
The attachment to this Working Paper illustrates some of the linkages
between Flight Plan implementation steps, the Growth Management Act
requirements, and other related regional planning issues.
II. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL
ALTERNATIVES
Regardless of which air carrier airport system alternative is reocommended by the
PSATC, the resulting implementation actions by the Puget Sound Regional Council,
its member governments, and the Port of Seattle (and possibly other facility
operators) will have to comply with related provisions in state and federal 1
2
legislation. This section outlines the most significant of these provisions, most of
which come under the new State Growth Management Act or the authority of the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Also of great importance is that fact that a multiple airport system recommendation
will not be successful unless the airlines themselves concur in the routing of their
planes to airports in the new market areas. This factor weighs as heavily as all of
the public sector factors addressed below in this section. The Palmdale Airport
provides a good example of a selected site which is not in use because the market
potential is not sufficient to attract the airlines.
A. STATE LEGISLATION
The State Growth Management Act has created a unique and important window of
opportunity for integrating regional transporation facility plans with local, county,
and regional level plans and policies. Federal guidelines also support the need for
statutes like the GMA to coordinate between airport planning and state and local
planning (see FAA Advisory Circular AC No. 150/5050 -34B, Sec. 23).
1. Local Plans
Pursuant to the GMA, cities and counties (including those that operate airports) are
required to complete comprehensive plans that are consistent with countywide
plans, to be completed by July 1993. Local regulations (e.g., zoning) are to be
adopted in 1994 and are to be consistent with these plans.
2. Countywide Plans
The GMA, as amended (Sec. 2, 1991), requires completion of "countywide policy
plans" with language on a range of factors including:
Siting
(Sec. 2 calls for "policies for siting public capital
facilities of a countywide or statewide nature ").
Transportation (Sec. 2 calls for "policies for countywide transportation
facilities and strategies ").
Section 1 of the GMA requires that the 1993 comprehensive plans (local plans
integrated at the countywide or multicounty level) provide a "process for identifying
and siting essential public facilities ". Listed in this category are "airports ".
The statutory deadline for "county -wide policy plans" is July 1992. Coordinated
countywide comprehensive plans (involving counties and cities) are to be completed
by July of 1993. Earlier identification of "critical areas" in 1991 might infringe on
possible airport sites; however, a balanced consideration of community needs and
final action on critical areas is to be accomplished in the 1993 local adoption of the
comprehensive plans.
3
Countywide planning structures in our region include:
King County: either the merged Metro /King County structure or a
less formal coalition of Seattle, the Suburban Cities
Association, and King County.
Kitsap Regional Planning Council: Interlocal agreement between the cities,
county, and Indian tribes.
Pierce County: countywide coordination led by Pierce County and
including joint planning between the military bases and
the adjacent communities (including Pierce and
Thurston Counties).
Snohomish County Tomorrow: County and city collaboration.
Thurston Regional Planning Council: Thurston County, combined with the
cities and towns, Intercity Transit, Port of Olympia,
School Districts, Evergreen State College and the State
Capitol Committee.
By mid 1994 local land use regulations must be consistent with the coordinated land
use plans adopted in July 1993. These regulations could affect the airport siting
options now under consideration by Flight Plan.
Failure to influence these countywide plans within the GMA planning deadlines
(1992,1993) could compromise the chances of implementing multicounty solutions
to air transportation. Amendments are subject to annual review by each local
jurisdiction. On the other hand, countywide plans that fail to meet the goals of the
1990 GMA are subject to appeal to one of three Governor - appointed Hearings
Boards, under the 1991 GMA amendments. (One of these Boards is responsible for
the four county region of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties.)
3. Multicounty Planning Policy
Regional Airport System Plan
The Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) is maintained by the Puget Sound
Regional Council. This is broader than Flight Plan (air carrier service) and in 1987
included recommendations regarding general aviation services. These address the
need to assess the feasibility of new general aviation facilities (if existing capacity is
lost in future years) and to consider the impacts on general aviation when assessing
the possible expansion of Sea -Tac capacity. In addition, further analysis is
recommended to either retain or to expand existing GA airport capacities, or to
develop a new GA airport.
These adopted 1987 system level recommendations interact with the airspace and
facility aspects of the Flight Plan alternatives, and should be addressed by the PSRC
when it acts on the Flight Plan recommendations. (Flight Plan focuses on the issue
of regional air carrier service, and because GA accounts for only 5 percent of total
operations at Sea -Tac International, this aspect of the overall multicounty airport
4
system (and airspace) is not fully addressed in this stage of regional decision
making.)
Growth Management Act
More broadly than the RASP, the GMA also mandates that "multicounty planning
policies" be developed for the metropolitan region of King, Pierce, and Snohomish
Counties (all counties over 450,000 population), with the full participation of cities.
"Multicounty planning policies shall be adopted by two or more counties,
each with a population of four hundred fifty thousand or more, with
contiguous urban areas and may be adopted by other counties, according
to the process established under this section or other processes agreed
to among the counties and cities within the affected counties throughout
the multicounty region (GMA 1991, Sect. 2(7)) ".
This additional task might be addressed collaboratively by the three countywide
organizations, acting through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) or by some
other means also consistent with the GMA. To be consistent with the intent of the
GMA, the PSATC's airport alternatives should be included at the multicounty level
rather than subjected to separate amendment procedures later at possibly only the
countywide level, or to the appeals process established in the GMA.
Also of interest is the coordination of the regional High Capacity Transit plan
(timed for ballot funding issue in King County in autumn 1992) with the April 1992
PSATC recommendation. That is, long term future transit rail corridors should not
bypass the leading new airport site(s) now appearing before the PSATC (Flight
Plan). In addition, during Phase II, the PSATC strongly supported the related work
of the State Rail Commission tp explore the feasibility of creating high -speed inter-
city rail services in the State of Washington.
4. State Plans and Commissions
The GMA requires state actions to conform to local comprehensive plans (1991 Act,
Sec. 4), and does clearly require the local comprehensive plans (integrated at the
countywide and multicounty levels) to address airport needs. Statewide
transportation issues are also under review by the State Rail Commission, and the
Washington State Air Transportation Commission (WSATC).
Collaborative approaches may emerge from the complementary work of the Flight
Plan (PSATC) and the WSATC. Also possible is negotiated siting, similar to what is
provided for the siting of hazardous waste facilities under the 1985 State Hazardous
Waste Management Act (i.e., state siting preemption, with negotiated mitigation
between the vendor and the community).
As the relationship between the Flight Plan and the WSATC are sorted out, points
like these are becoming more clear:
the WSATC is based on statute rather than an Interagency Agreement (but
also is directed in statute to acknowledge ongoing planning),
5
the WSATC is not involved in site selection, and is broader in its statewide
mandate (e.g., considering general aviation as well as air carrier needs),
the WSATC and state are interested in the relationship between
Washington State and Portland and Vancouver as part of a potential
continental free trade zone and a member of the Pacific Rim.
6. Port Plans
The GMA does not specifically mention port authorities. Ports might not be
specifically required to comply with local comprehensive plans. Yet, the GMA
"concurrency" requirement does apply to county or city plans governing adjacent
lands. Concurrency requires that permit approval be contingent upon scheduled
provision of necessary public services (e.g., roads, utilities).
The Municipal Airport Act (RCW 14.08) auathorizes municipal airports to build
and operate airports either "within or without the territorial limits of such
municipality ", and to acquire needed property through either purchase or
condemnation. A direct takeover of existing airport property is not permitted
without consent, although joint exercise of responsibilities (between municipalities
together and /or with the state) is permitted.
Specific initial steps at the Port of Seattle would probably involve amendment of the
Sea -Tac Comprehensive Plan, and if land acquisition is involved, an update to the
Port's "Comprehensive Scheme ".
B. FEDERAL LEGISLATION
1. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
All aiport actions must meet the requirements of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979, the Airport and Airways Act of 1982, and the Airport and
Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, the Airport Noise and Capacity
Act of 1990, and /or the Federal Aviation Regulations.
The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) is a ten -year plan that is
updated every two years, based on state, regional, and local airport plans. The
general relationship between airport master plans and state airport systems is
addressed in FAA circulars (AC Nos. 150/5070 -6A and 5050 -3B, respectively). The
NPIAS generally governs such factors as broad criteria, airspace, Air Transportation
Control (ATC) centers, navaids, and airport design standards.
It is assumed here that the state GMA will govern local and state system plans for
new facilities as they are approved and then incorporated into the State Aviation
System and the NPIAS. In addition, federal grant assurances signed by any airport
accepting federal funds bind airport operators to provide equal access to all classes
of airport users. The effect of this is that airport roles in the system plan are
governed largely by airline responses to market trends and the availability of
adequate physical facilities. Periodic inadequacy of facilities (e.g., instrument
landing capabilities during foul weather) has recently led to the FAA Central Flow
Control program, which delays airport takeoffs to match the affected landing
capacities at receiving airports.
2. Interstate Commerce Clause
Airports with capacity cannot discriminate against classes of aircraft, or exercise an
"undue burden" on national and international travel once federal funds have been
accepted for any projects. On the other hand, airports cannot be compelled by the
federal government to expand their facilities.
3. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
This Act (1969) calls for a broadly integrated consideration of the environmental
consequences of proposed actions. Federal guidelines strongly encourage this
assessment to begin as early as possible in the planning process. This is also true for
airport projects that use federal funds.
Further, FAA is to cooperate with state and local agencies which are subject to state
or local requirements comparable to NEPA (FAA Order 5050.4A, p. 76,(b)2)).
Flight Plan is doing its programmatic environmental review under the State
Environmental Policy Act of 1970, which except for the preamble, has identical
wording to the federal statute. The EIS will be one of the several attachments to
the PSATC recommendations.
4. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA,1990) could conceivably restrict
airport siting, particularly if near term regional compliance milestones are not
addressed. Specifically, under the CAAA "non- attainment" areas are subject to
possible highway funding sanctions if future auto traffic significantly exceeds 1992
forecasts. This precedes completion of land use plans under the GMA. Access to
outlying potential sites would be the projects most affected: Olympia /Black Lake,
Arlington, Central Pierce County.
Forecasts are to appear in the updated air quality State Implementation Plan (SIP)
which is to be done by state and local agencies working together (state DOT, state
Ecology, regional Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency -- PSAPCA, regional
PSRC, and local elected officials).
This conformity requirement applies at all levels: plans, programs, and projects (e.g.,
airport access roads). Flight Plan alternatives must be recognized in forecasts of
auto vehicle miles traveled (VMT's), to be included in the November 1992 update
of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. New aiport sites should not
be foreclosed inadvertently by the failure to include appropriate language in
regulatory plans addressing air quality. The most immediate milestone is the SIP
amendment in November 1992.
III: SITE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS
A goal of this institutional analysis is to help ensure that all of the different Flight
Plan alternatives are capable of being implemented. As a step in this direction,
unique implementation features of each alternative are identified here.
A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE WITH MAXIMUM DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Port of Seattle amend Master Plan for Sea -Tac International Airport,
Demand Management actions by Port of Seattle, other operators, the
FAA, and the airlines, pursuant to Working Paper No. 4: e.g., gate
pricing installed at Sea -Tac, use of generated funds to encourage
and help finance improvements at expansion sites, use of larger
aircraft to moderate rising trend in operations, technological advances
to improve lateral separation and spacing, increasing use of Central
Flow Control.
The only site exempted from conditions of the 1990 Airport Noise and
Capacity Act (because of previously negotiated Mediated Noise
Agreement completed under FAR 150)
(Example: St. Louis Lambert Field is the example of a replacement
airport effort that was reversed (by federal action). Resulting major
investments - -in contrast with demand management - -in Lambert Field do not
assure air capacity for needs beyond the year 2010.).
B. REPLACEMENT AIRPORT
Landbanking could involve financing provided by Sea -Tac acting
extraterritorially (pursuant to RCW 14.08),
Premature disclosure of sites can result in speculation and inflated
purchase prices.
(Example: This was avoided in the Denver case -- replacement of
Stapleton - -only because 80 percent of the 50 square
mile site was was held by two owners.
Central Pierce County site requires either consistency with the County
Comprehensive Plan, or this together with concurrence with the
United States Army if land is to be purchased from the 90,000 acre
Fort Lewis site.
Airspace conflict between Fort Lewis replacement site and McChord
Air Base requires action by the FAA, in conjunction with the Air
Force.
8
Olympia /Black Lake site entails recommendations from the PSATC
affecting jurisdictions in Thurston County not party to the 1989
POS /PSCOG Interagency Agreement initiating Flight Plan.
Necessary closure of Thun Field or of Olympia Airport would be
more likely with their consent. Airspace conflict would involve FAA,
and policy issues would involve the WSATC. Possible air carrier
amendments to the Regional Airport System Plan -- reflecting the
PSATC recommendations - -would have to address the potential for
reduced access to general aviation.
State economic issue may be the long term siting decisions
(Washington or other states) of the Boeing Company, combined with
needed access to airport facilities (e.g., Boeing Field, Paine Field, and
the Frederickson site in Central Pierce County),
Multiple airport systems have emerged in other parts of the country,
even where the intent was for a replacement airport. This highlights
the need for a clear understanding of the commercial airline industry,
particularly following deregulation.
Airlines must realize new income exceeding the additional costs of
serving new locations. Flight Plan makes a range of assumptions
regarding the split of short haul and medium haul travel between Sea -
Tac and the potential supplemental sites.
(Examples: Chicago (with Midway Airport), Dallas (Dallas Fort
Worth with continued use of Love Field), Washington
D.C. (Dulles was to be the replacement), and Houston
(with Hobby Airport). The Dulles and Houston systems
are now well- coordinated largely because each system is
under one operating authority.
Use of revenues gained from conversion of present Sea -Tac
International Airport site could be partially constrained by FAA,
acting as a funding source for previous site investments.
(Example: Denver is the major example of a replacement airport. Sea -Tac
International Airport is also a replacement airport, originally having been
located midway between Tacoma and Seattle to supplement Boeing Field.
This is comparable to the construction of the much larger Dallas /Fort Worth
midway between those two cities in the early 1970's.)
C. TWO - AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES
Port of Seattle completes Sea -Tac Master Plan to either include or
exclude an air carrier runway, and to include demand management --
Sea -Tac expansions may require consistency with City of SeaTac
comprehensive plan, particularly with respect to "concurrency" (e.g.,
provision of services to any new or expanded airport site), but this and
other local plans may not preclude the siting of necessary state or
regional public facilities (GMA).
9
Airport jurisdictions may act outside of their jurisdiction and /or
jointly (RCW 14.08).
Owners /operators update Master Plans as recommended by PSATC,
Arlington may require consistency with Snohomish County compre-
hensive plan (city ownership /operation, but site unincorporated).
Paine Field requires consistency with Snohomish County (owner/
operator) comprehensive plan, and with the 1978 noise mediated
agreement (Paine Field does allow "commuter" service, and due to
past federal funding conditions cannot prohibit access; however,
discourage such service),
McChord site requires Joint Operating Agreement with the Air Force
(AFR 55 -20). Military review procedure begins only after submittal
of a formal proposal by an eligible sponsor.
Joint use at McChord would require completion of an environmental
impact statement under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)
rather than the state act, with the Air Force acting as the lead agency.
Olympia /Black Lake site requires consistency with county
comprehensive plan.
Need to coordinate regional High Capacity Transit (HCT) planning
with possible new outlying airport sites, over the long term.
With regard to accessibility and quality of service, and airline route
planning, see the last bullet under "replacement airport ".
(Example: Atlanta Hartsfield Airport has been expanded as part of i
aggressive "inland gateway" economic strategy, comparable to Dallas+ %Fort
Worth and Denver. Landbanking for supplemental airports began in the
1970's (two 10,000 acre sites). A search is now underway behind the
leadership of the Atlanta Regional Council to verify the correct
supplemental site. The wisdom of system plans that can adjust to demands
that are either higher or lower than expected is demonstrated by the recent
loss of passenger traffic at Hartsfield, due to the bankruptcy of one of the two
airlines using Atlanta as its hub airport. Unlike Atlanta or Denver and other
hub airports, Sea -Tac draws most of its service volume from origin and
destination passengers, rather than connecting passengers.)
D. THREE - AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES
Generally the same as for Two - Airport Systems
(Example: The Atlanta Regional Council (ARC) has assumed the
lead over adjacent regional planning areas, by interlocal
agreement, for the search for supplemental airport
sites. The ARC has noticed that perhaps four
supplementals can be built for the cost of a single
replacement airport ($1.6 billion).)
10
The danger of overbuilding increases as the number of airports
increases.
(Example: Tampa International /St. Petersburg /Sarasota illustrates
the dangers of poor coordination (nearly all passengers
use Tampa International) and the small population
base of the region.)
IV. WAYS TO OPERATE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Individual airports and airport systems can be owned and operated by a variety of
entities, with or without formal agreements between each other. These entities can
in some cases also build new airports, generate surplus revenues, and operate other
transportation systems. These options are discussed below:
1. Independent Local Authorities
This is the current arrangement in Washington State and in the San Francisco area.
San Francisco International is operated by the San Francisco Airport Commission
(an appointed branch of City government). The San Jose and Oakland airports are
operated by a city and a city port authority, respectively. Market forces seem to
compensate for lack of airport systemwide planning, as the private airline systems
compete within this particular region.
Another more complex example is the multiple airport "system" in the Los Angeles
area. FAA supplies the system overview through airspace regulation. Included are
Los Angeles International (City), Ontario (City of Los Angeles), John Wayne
(Orange County), Burbank (Burbank, Glandale and Pasadena Aiport Authority),
and Long Beach (City of Long Beach).
In the Puget Sound region, all of the existing airports and their operators make up a
system in which, at this point, all air carrier service is being provided at one airport.
As discussed above, the main factors affecting the existence of air carrier service to
a community are the proximity of a strong local market for passengers and adequate
physical facilities.
2. Local Authorities with Voluntary Agreements
Under Washington State legislation, this arrangement could also include the state
and federal governments (RCW 14.08.200).
One modest and temporary example for planning purposes (not operations) is the
Interagency Agreement (1989) between the Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound
Regional Council. This is a planning effort and initiated the Flight Plan project. In
the Boston area, Logan Field has entered into interlocal agreements with
surrounding airports to provide technical assistance in hP reationsif.serise 2
mark . This could relieve congestion at Logan Field. Dallas-Fort Worth is
operated by both municipalities, through a joint Airport Board. The voting is
weighted 7:4, roughly reflecting the relative populations of the two owners.
11
3. Regional Authority
This could also involve a combined effort between new countywide "airport districts"
(RCW 14.08.290 and 302).
One example of a joint regional effort is the Joint Regional Policy Committee
(JRPC) for high capacity transit. The JRPC is a collaborative effort between
operating agencies (the transit agencies.) in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties.
In 1990 the Legislature provided (SHB 1825) authority for the parties to jointly
develop a plan and financing for submittal to be voters within a given deadline.
The state Department of Transportation is also a member. Two years are allowed
to develop an interlocal agreement, with an additional four years to complete the
ballot package. Also created was a Governor - appointed "expert review panel" of
national and local figures.
Another example of a regional body would be the creation of a new agency
overlaying the existing authorities. This approach explains the 12- county Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority (actually a state -level body) created in 1985.
Members are appointed by the Governor. Amendments in 1990 now provide that
the chair of the Authority shall be the Director of an existing state agency (the
Department of Ecology) rather than director of the Authority staff.
4. State Authority
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a bi -state compact based on
state legislation and federal approval. The Authority operates JFK International,
Newark, and LaGuardia Airports. The same arrangement could be set up within
Washington State if a comparable governing board were formed. Examples of
single state authorities are found in Alaska and Maryland.
Cases of federal authority can also be cited. Dulles International is owned and
operated by the United States Government. Siting was influenced by federal action
and the appearance of funds to purchase the present site. Dallas Fort Worth was
also located during the pre - deregulation era when a strong federal presence was
brought to bear, along with the coordinated efforts of the Dallas and Fort Worth
business communities. The St. Louis' Lambert Field is an expansion example,
selected in 1977 over the replacement alternative. This occurred at the hands of the
Secretary of Transportation. Saturation is expected to occur in 2010; the Flight Plan
time horizon is 2020 and beyond.
5. Regulated Private Utility
This would probably require new state or federal legislation. The airport(s) would
be owned and operated by a private corporation and in this sense would be similar
to the private airline industry. Federal or state regulations would be imposed
regarding rates or facilities, or to achieve other public purposes. No examples exist
in the United States although some discussions have been held with regard to the
Albany, New York, airport and privatization is coming under review as a
theoretically possible option for the municipally owned Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX). For LAX the new options are sale to a regulated public utility,
development of a governmental corporation (consisting of cities and counties), or a
hybrid wherein the facilities would be rented to a consortium of governments.
6. European Hybrid Model
A quasi - private corporation is formed to operate one or more airports, and is owned
by various levels of government. Daily airport operations are controlled by a
working board which, in turn, is overseen by a federated board composed from each
of the owner governments. (A unitary government- operated system would be the
control of Washington National Airport and Dulles Airport, both operated by the
U.S. Government.)
Examples of the European model are the Frankfurt Airport, Scandanavian Airlines,
and the rent model used by the Port Authority of New York /New Jersey.
V. IMPLEMENTATION STEPS: TOWARD AN ACTION PLAN
Needed is an action plan to accomplish one of the four Flight Plan alternatives,
combined with a decision regarding the possible Sea -Tac air carrier runway. All
actions /inactions at Sea -Tac must be linked to other actions affecting other possible
sites.
Section A and B, below, outline the major elements of an action strategy, and
generally identify some of the major kinds of actions now required.
A. STRATEGY OUTLINE for an ACTION PLAN
If negotiations become a major feature of a collaborative implementation, general
guidelines for this effort have already become apparent.
1. Comprehensiveness
Any new construction can be reduced as part of a broader comprehensive package,
or action plan, involving demand management at the Sea -Tac site, and overall
system management covering several sites,
(Example: Solid waste management offers instructive guidelines. Major
facility siting (incinerators, landfills, transfer stations) is linked
to broader efforts at waste reduction and recycling. Presented
as part of an overall package, the minimized siting elements
have gained public support.)
2. Total Cost Pricing
The airport system can be selected in terms of "total cost pricing" as is used by
public utilities, whereby "costs" include environmental costs (and mitigation). The
balancing of supply and demand requires a consideration of price, and this price
includes non - monetary costs and in many resource areas, a consideration of scarcity.
(Examples: In California, consumption of water resources involves the
creation of a water bank, in addition to subsidized and
regulated consumption. This would be roughly equivalent to
13
slot pricing (not to be confused with slot rationing). ` In the
larger southwest, consumption of limited Colorado River
Water involves Interstate Compacts on water use. The
functional equivalent in the airline industry might be the
national Central Flow Control program. In other. words, "equal
access" for all classes of air carriers may not mean equal
unlimited access. Statutes and regulations controlling noise--,
e.g., the Sea -Tac noise budget- -also illustrate market pricing
sensitive to third parties, i.e., total cost pricing.)
(Example: Addition of a second runway at Vancouver, B.C., restricts a
new second runway primarily to arrivals and Stage 3 aircraft,
imposes a noise curfew, and limits reverse thrust operations),✓
In the United States, the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act of 1979 permits restrictions that do not involve an "undue
burden" on interstate commerce (Sec. 104(a)2 and (b)).
3. Phasing
Phasing might include early landbanking which might be financed by congestion
charges or other revenues generated at facilities nearing capacity.
(Example: The Atlanta Hartsfield Airport is nearing capacity, and
beginning in the 1970's landbanked two 10,000 acre sites in the
path of future urban development.)
4. Collaboration
The membership in collaborative implementation could include local entities,
together with state (e.g., Washington State Department of Transporation) and
federal entities (e.g., FAA), given the broad provisions of existing state law
(RCW 14.08).
Also necessary is cooperation with the airlines to ensure that service will locate at
any new airport sites.
(Example:. .Even with high congestion, major carriers did not locate at
Stewart Airport in New York (site of a former air force base 65
miles north of New York) until American Airlines was offered
as part of the agreement additional gates at JFK Airport.
The PSATC demand management expert panel also suggests
that revenues collected at Sea -Tac might be used to help
develop alternative sites also under operational control by the
entity collecting the revenues.)
Collaboration might also involve mediation to develop a package of actions
including the distribution of future demand levels within a new Multiple Airport
System. Mediation is not a panacea, but can work if specific minimum conditions
satisfied (e.g., a willingness by all parties to participate).
(Example: Within Washington state, important mediation projects have
addressed tradeoffs between water quality and forest practices (the
14
1987 Timber /Fish/ and Wildlife Agreement), and more recently, the
allocation of water among competing interests (the experimental 1990
Statewide Chelan Agreement continues to be tested at the state and
regional levels. The Noise Mediation Agreement at Sea -Tac is also
an example of this approach.)
B. SOME NEEDED ACTIONS
Considering the siting and operational issues discussed in previous sections,
elements of the PSATC recommended action plan should include the following
elements:
1. Monitoring and Phasing of Actions
During Phase I the Demand Forecasting Subcommittee developed a critical idea
relating forecasts to the recommended action package. They identified the need to
identify 'reasonable alternative futures" to help guide policy choices shaping the real
future. The focus is on the policy thresholds, rather than the calendar of very long
term forecasts. They expressed confidence in the log forecasting model . up to the
year 2010, and identified the need to track passenger trends between 1990 and 2010.
At the same time, the full PSATC concurred in a mission statement that provides
facilities in 2020 that are expandable to meet additional needs to the year 2050.
Example: This approach has been pioneered by the four -state Northwest Power
Planning Council enabled by the Federal Power and Conservation Act
of 1980. The Council develops a wide range of possible needs in the
future, a range of tools for meeting future power needs (i.e.,
conservation, hydropower, co- generation, coal -fired and nuclear
plants), lead times for each element of the action portfolio, and a
monitoring capability to match actions to needs as these become more
clear, and particularly threshold decisions points.
The PSATC might include this kind of approach as it monitors demand trends, as
well as legislative windows, and the options within the air carrier "portfolio" (e.g.,
diminishing landbanking opportunities). The technical threshold decision points
identified thusfar by Flight Plan include the inadequacy of Sea -Tac under all
alternatives, and the need for three IFR runways.
2. Countywide Policy Plans and Implementation (1992 -4)
ziorThe PSATC should propose specific language to be included in July 1992 in
the respective "countywide policy plans" (the first GMA deadline). This language
might acknowledge the Flight Plan process and recommendations to the Port of
Seattle, the PSRC, airport operating agencies and regulators, and others.
Depending upon the final technical recommendations of PSATC, recommendations
also should be prepared addressed to the 1993 comprehensive plans of the affected
local jurisdictions. Concurrent with this might be interlocal discussions on the
allocation of future travel needs and capital funds, with either Pierce, Snohomish or
Thurston County airport operators, depending upon the preferred general location
for either supplemental or replacement airport facilities.
15
Legal authorization for joint operations is provided under state law (RWC 14.08).
3. Multicounty Policy and Implementation (1992 and 1993)
PSATC recommendations to the PSRC should include a adoption of a multicounty
air carrier transportation element, amending the 1987 Regional Airport System Plan
(RASP) and linking it to the separate countywide comprehensive plans due to be
completed in 1993 under the GMA. Federal funding of all surface transportation
projects depends upon consistency with the regional transportation plan.
PSATC recommendations and documentation should be sufficiently focused on
siting and transportation to enable their use in possible presentations before the
Growth Management Hearings Boards (the GMA appeals process).
Depending upon the airspace analysis, evaluate and accommodate possible
impacts /benefits for general aviation. (e.g., The 1987 RASP recommended a
general aviation airport rather than supplemental airports now under
consideration.) This element also should be coordinated with the WSATC and
acknowledged by the PSATC.
4. Regional Plans and Implementation (1992)
PSATC should urge that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality and the
regional High Capacity Transit (HCT) Plan, both scheduled for possible action in
late 1992, accommodate the PSATC airport recommendations due in early 1992.
Fedral funding of access roads to supplemental airport locations could be
jeopardized if a multple airport approach (affecting air quality) is not anticipated in
the SIP.
Regional plans also call for High Capacity Transit. Coordination between HCT and
Flight Plan (e.g., timing and alignments) is addressed in the Accessiblity Working
Paper No. 9. An HCT funding issue is planned for the ballot in November 1992 or
later (statutory deadline: four years after planning began in 1991).
5. State and Regional Partnerships (1991 -4)
Regional cooperation may depend upon specific actions at the state level. For
example, the PSATC might decide whether a subsequent mediation step is needed
for siting, and offer recommendations regarding possible elements of agreements,
procedures and lead time requirements.
Current state law enables joint activities between operators and other entities,
including state and federal agencies (e.g., the WSATC, FAA). With the WSATC,
determine whether a continuing planning and implementation effort, supported in
part by the FAA, now is appropriate for this state and region.
6. Operating Agencies
Amend local master plans (e.g., approval or rejection of an air carrier runway at
Sea -Tac International Airport), or as appropriate, collaborate broadly to complete
16
final site selection studies. This could include environmental work either with FAA
as a joint participant, or with a military party as the lead agency (under the National
Environmental Policy Act - -the NEPA process).
Demand management at the Sea -Tac International Airport is part of all
alternatives. Specific PSATC recommendations should, be based upon the
testimony of the expert panel, and the Working Paper No. 4, and may be part of
item 4 (above).
Depending upon the alternative selected; establish a calendar for possible
landbanking, and continue discussion between the Port of Seattle and King County
to improve coordination of operations at Sea -Tac International and Boeing Field.
7. Federal Government
The FAA might be requested to work with air carriers on demand management
elements, and with the state and local entities in specific ways. The National Plan
for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) also will require updating. The FAA
should indicate the relative weight they place on Airport Layout Plans, Master
Plans, the Regional Airport System Plan, and the State Airport System Plan.
In other words, are FAA statutory consistency requirements comparable to those
required by the Urban Mass Transit Administration and the Federal Highway
Administration?
8. Airlines
The institutional issues involve both public and private sector aspects. The public
sector institutional "map" is addressed in this paper. Equally important are relations
with the airlines, and their judgments regarding the accessibility and marketability
of the alternative airport systems, and demand management (Working Paper No. 4)
and financing options.
The significance of market forces is found even in the underlying passenger demand
forecasts (projected to be 45 million passengers in 2020). These, are shaped by
ticket prices and other market forces, such as the 1978 airline deregulation or the
changing balance between the domestic and the global economy.
9. Business
•
Business communities have played a key role in `promoting the-Inland gateway"
aspects of major airport expansion at Atlanta, Denver and Dallas /Fort Worth.
Also, in each of these cases, the spokesman for airport development has been the
mayor of the name city, since in these cases, the airport is a city airport. San
Francisco and Los Angeles International Airports are also municipally owned and
operated.
In Dallas /Fort Worth business support for the airport has continued, and evolved
into the North Texas Trade Commission with a broadened economic development
mission. (The rough counterparts in our region might be the Washington Trade
Alliance, or the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.)
17
10. Financing
In its recommendations, the PSATC should identify a financing strategy, or a
process leading to such a strategy. This is addressed in Working Paper 11 (Capital
Costs and Funding). A flexible siting action package (phasing and timing) is also a
prudent response to market uncertainties. This idea is expanded in item 1, above.
For purposes of comparison, other major capital projects have been identified
together with their costs. Access to federal funds (e.g., FAA up to 80 percent of
eligible capital costs) varies. Sea -Tac International Airport is a self - funded
operation based on user and vendor charges, while capital costs are covered in part •
by the FAA.'
Illustrative Project Costs:
Flight Plan Alternatives (Working Paper No. 11)
Sea -Tac /Demand Management
Replacement
Multiple Airport (2)
Multiple Airport (3)
N/A
$2.1 to 2.3 billion
$0.326 to 1.2 billion
$0.619 to 1.8 billion
Interstate 90 Bridge in Seattle Over $1 billion
(90 % federal)
High Capacity Transit $8.5 billion
(Estimate for capital and operating costs through the year 2020. This
includes $1.4 billion for HOV- -High Occupancy Vehicle lanes - -in four
counties. HOV lanes, if effective, are a key component of ground
access to present and possible airport sites.)
Seattle Transit Tunnel
$481 million
(50% grant)
(Possible light rail transit access to airport sites would
utilize this facility, designed to be convertible to rail
use.)
METRO Secondary Treatment
$578 million
(roughly 55 percent
loans and grants)
(This represents the largest recent siting issue in our region.)
18
Private Investments:
Value of major highrises (1989)
Gateway Tower
Washington Mutual
Pacific First
Two Union Square
$195 million
$175 million
$200 million
$177 million
(Value is greater than construction cost, e.g., cost of Gateway
Tower was $105 million.)
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
This paper has identified the implementation steps associated with each of the
technical alternatives. Common insititutional elements have been identified,
together with those that vary from alternative to alternative.
In Summary:
The No Action Alternative requires (a) restrictions on the Sea -Tac Airport
Master Plan, combined with (b) a range of demand management actions by
several parties.
The Replacement Airport Alternative requires (a) removal of Sea -Tac,
combined with (b) landbanking and siting of a new facility, (c) coordination
with surface transportation and land use planning under the state GMA, and
(d) recognition or establishment of an operating authority, or joint authority
(RCW 14.08).
The Multiple.Airport System Alternatives (either one of two supplemental
airports, with Sea -Tac) require (a) possible expansion of Sea -Tac, (b) land
purchase or new construction and operations at existing facilities in adjacent
counties, and (c) clear linkages between actions /inactions at Sea -Tac and
varied actions at the other affected sites.
In addition, all alternatives require continued collaborative efforts following
the completion of the Flight Plan recommendations on alternatives. The
attachment to this Working Paper is provided as an outline for the kind of
recommendations that might be developed to ensure that the recommended
alternative can be achieved.
19
VI. EXPERT PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
OVERVIEW
An expert panel was convened to review this working paper and to offer
institutional recommendations on the Flight Plan alternatives. The panel consisted
of Dick Ford (Seattle attorney and chair of the recent Washington State Growth
Strategies Commission), Jim Waldo (Seattle attorney and mediator), George
Howard (President, Airport Operators Council International), and Cliff Moore
(Executive Director, Los Angeles Department of Airports).
Prior to the panel session, three summary discussion points derived from this
Working Paper were presented:
1. The insitutional issue comes in two parts:
(a) who might operate the selected alternative, and
(b) the separate question of "how do we get there" (for example, siting).
2. The legal tools for accomplishing the two institutional tasks appear to exist in
(a) RCW 14.08 (the Municipal Airports Act, which enables joint actions
by operators), and
(b) the recently passed State Growth Management Act (which for
example requires action on regional siting needs).
3. The forthcoming draft recommendations of Flight Plan should include
(a) a selected system alternative, and
(b) a brief action plan.
Supporting attachments will be an organized compilation of the working
papers documenting the five selected decision criteria used in arriving at (a)
and (b).
GUIDELINES
The Expert Panel offered guidelines that are summarized here:
1. All of the alternatives can be accomplished under current statutes, although
some are easier than others.
2. The Committee should follow a. two part sequence:
(a) first select the leading system alternative, and
(b) then address the various site options within the selected system
alternative.
7n
3. In comparing the system alternatives the Committee should:
(a) first, apply the technical criteria (operations, environmental, economic
and financing),
(b) then, ask whether the institutional factors lower or raise the ranked
alternatives, relative to each other. The second - ranked technical
alternative may be superior to the first - ranked, if it is more readily
accomplished. This institutional review should be recorded as part of
the overall recommendation package.
The PSATC also asked that in addition to a judgment among alternatives,
the recommendation include a "roadmap" on how to implement the selected
(and preserved) alternatives.
4. The recommendation should not isolate a single alternative, but should both
choose an alternative and preserve other options. The public hearings can
then allow comments on more than one course of action.
5. The recommendations should be addressed to the "regional planning policy"
required by July 1992, under the State Growth Management Act. (The
PSATC concurred with the collaborative tone of these guidelines, and the
opportunity to influence both the regional and the countywide policy plans).
6. A system approach is needed, with system management:
(a) among airports to serve capacity needs, and
(b) between air travel and ground travel, especially regional high capacity
transit.
21
0
t)
tv
Flight Plan Implementation Paths
Threshold Monitoring
. 1991-92
Mght Plano
PSATC *filly Recommendetbn end Action Portfolio end Phasing
1992.95 (Z) "Capacity' Minus Lead times
Continued Phasing and Timing of Action Portfolgo
SwTee with
DemendMensgtmtenl
1,11$
1
I POS: Amend Master Plan/Demand Management
�1 (CoBaboreb a with FM, Alines)
oR � JManagement
PSRC: AmendRASPMSI0N2020
)
Demand
O
.
(gatepndng)
RepleameMAirport
Nnts
POS: Amend Master Plan (Phase Out)
—40
OR PSRC: Amend RASPMSION 2020
O
/
Build/Operate
/
Lam be* I Rezone
(eg., Cerdral Perco/Olyrrpia BLac( Lake)
Negotiate Fort Lest parcel.
• Concurrent Actions
• JantAgreement (RCW 14.O6)POS
. Operators,
• F.xtraterribfial Action (RCW 14.08): POS
•
Madden • Siete Action (ag., JRPC model)
Multiple Airport System
(2 Nrports or 3 Airports)
POS: Amend Master Plan/ Demand
Management
PSRC: Arend RASPMSION 2020
: Build/Operate
(-1
AFL
Sea Tac Hui Commitment
Air Carrier Rummy (yes/no)
;
ANDrOR
`-' Anal North r O Paine/Arington 1
Site .– Other (Purchase, mare)
Commitment
/, U
BrildrOperate
O Rnal South ►o McChord peition (AFR 5520) /
Site Central Pierce
Commitment OlympielBladr lake
Other
/-4C)
O
&ikIrperate
Ohaat AavreerAdons
GVA
0 PSCR Muioaurdtr Poky Plan (m 1992)
VISION 2020 -SIP (Am 1992)
O Courdpide Polo/ Res Nii 1 )
0 PSCR: RTPdirtPO Adorn
0 Courdyaide Corry Pars
(Poste Epee! b Growth Hearing
Boasts withSarrlors)
0 PSRC: Amend VISION 2020
Q Local icing rags (July 1994)
• Local Conareency O
HOT
0 JRPC: -AlpmenfsGtzfons
O Badat ha>a (by 1996)
OTHER
0 0 , WSATC: - Rekded Wade
WSATC Irdomred
OFAA: -Carted Flags Calm!
-NPIAS (2yeergde)
0 WSATC Preininery
Report to the
Legslattae
0 FMRevewAeepece(brdgrrationcpforo
• Mince: Re+riaveCanaarence
Permed Marregarnari:
Tech *Kinard size)
0 WSATC Final Report
b the Le9eetrre
FAA: Reconfigure Airspace O
- - --
FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT FINAL REPORT
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
Prepared for
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
216 First Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98104
and
PORT OF SEATTLE
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, Washington 98168
Prepared by
PARAMETRIX, INC.
13020 Northup Way
Bellevue, Washington 98005
In association with
P & D AVIATION
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
January 1992
000e'
2 15'
ag prec_.
-71( /1901,12
—29A41012
FACT SHEET
Description
The Flight Plan Project recommends improvements to the air transportation system serving
the central Puget Sound region in order to provide sufficient airport capacity through the
year 2020 and beyond.
The preferred alternative includes the addition 'of 'a new dependent it carrier runway at
Sea -Tac International Airport. The new runway would be located on the west side of
airport property and would operate in coordination with air traffic using other runways. In
addition, initiation of commercial air service at Paine Field would occur by the year 2000.
To provide system capacity to the year 2050, planning would begin for a third two- runway
airport to operate after the year 2010 at McChord Air Force Base or Fort Lewis Army Base,
or a site just east of Fort Lewis Army Base, or in the Olympia /Black Lake area if a facility
on one of the military bases cannot be achieved.
Proponent
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee
Proposed Date for Implementation
The preferred alternative recommends that improvements to Paine Field and the addition
of a new dependent runway at Sea -Tac International Airport be in service by the year 2000.
Planning would begin immediately for a third two- runway airport at McChord Air Force
Base, at or just east of Fort Lewis or in the Olympia Black Lake area to be in service after
the year 2010.
Lead Agency
Puget Sound Regional Council (nominal lead agency)
Port of Seattle
Responsible Official
Mary McCumber, Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Director
Contact Person
Peter Beaulieu, Puget Sound Regional Council, Transportation Planning (206) 464 -7537.
Michael Feldman, Port of Seattle, Aviation Planning Department (206) 439 -770
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page i Fact Sheet
Licenses Required
A variety of planning approvals would be required to implement the proposed
improvements. These include, but are not limited to:
Regional Airport System Plan Amendment
Sea -Tac International Airport Master Plan Update;
Paine Field Master Plan Update;
Revisions to county and city comprehensive plans;
Joint Operating Agreement with the Air Force or Army if McChord AFB or Fort Lewis is
used.
FAA approvals (Grant authorizations, etc.)
In addition, site - specific permits for each facility would be required from the jurisdictional
local governments.
Authors and Principal Contributors
Parametrix, Inc. - EIS authors and environmental studies
P & D Aviation - Aviation planning
Mestre Greve and Associates - Noise and air quality
Port of Seattle - Aviation division
Puget Sound Regional Council - Transportation planning
Date of Issue of Phase I DEIS
January 7, 1992
Date Comments are Due
February 21, 1992
Send Written Comments To
Flight Plan Project
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, Washington 98168
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page ii Fact Sheet
Time and Place of Public Hearings
Monday January 27, 1992
6pm - 10pm
Bremerton High School Auditorium
1500 13th Street
Bremerton
Saturday February 1, 1992
12pm - 4pm
Everett Civic Auditorium
2415 Colby Avenue
Everett
Wednesday February 5, 1992
6pm - 10pm
Board Room
North Thurston School District No.
305 Collage Street NE
Lacey
Wednesday February 12, 1992
6pm - 10pm
Arlington High School Auditorium
135 South French Avenue
Arlington
Final Action
Tuesday January 28, 1992
6pm - 10pm
Tacoma Convention Center
Sheraton Hotel
1320 Broadway Plaza
Tacoma
Monday February 3, 1992
6pm - 10pm
Chris Knutzen Hall
Pacific Lutheran University
Corner of Garfield St. S. & Park Ave. S.
Tacoma
Thursday February 6, 1992
6pm - 10pm
Flag Pavilion
3 Seattle Center
Seattle
Thursday February 13, 1992
6pm - 10pm
Red Lion Inn, Sea -Tac
18740 Pacific Highway South
Seattle
The Puget Sound Regional Council and Port of Seattle are expected to act on the final
recommendations of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee in April 1992.
Type and Timing of Subsequent Environmental Review
Improvements or new facilities at any airport or site will be evaluated in project- specific
environmental review by the agency responsible for the facility.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page iii Fact Sheet
Location of EIS Background Data
Additional information on the Flight Plan Project is available at:
Port of Seattle
Aviation Planning Department
Sea -Tac International Airport
Puget Sound Regional Council
Information Center
216 First Avenue South
Seattle
Cost of This EIS Document to the Public
Copies of this Draft Final Report and Programmatic EIS are available for $10.00 from the
Puget Sound Regional Council (does not include shipping charge).
Copies of this EIS can also be ordered directly from the following photocopying services (at
their advertised rates) in the region:
Kinkos (3 locations)
• Northgate
2100 N. Northgate Way, Suite C
Seattle, Washington 98133
368 -0340
• Federal Way
2420 South 320th
Federal Way, Washington 98003
946 -2679
• Tacoma
8904 South Tacoma Way
Tacoma, Washington 98499
582 -1995
Pacific Copy and Print Co.
3502 Broadway
Everett, Washington 98201
252 -5898
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page iv Fact Sheet
Draft EIS Distribution List
City of Algona
City of Arlington
City of Auburn
Town of Beaux Arts Village
City of Bellevue
City of Black Diamond
City of Bonney Lake
City of Bothell
City of Bremerton
City of Brier
City of Buckley
Town of Bucoda
Town of Carbonado
City of Carnation
Town of Clyde Hill
Town of Darrington
City of Des Moines
City of DuPont
City of Duvall
Town of Eatonville
City of Edmonds
City of Enumclaw
City of Everett
City of Federal Way
City of Fife
Town of Fircrest
City of Gig Harbor
Town of Gold Bar
Town of Granite Falls
Town of Hunts Point
Town of Index
City of Issaquah
City of Kent
City of Kirkland
City of Lacey
City of Lake Forest Park
City of Lake Stevens
City of Little Rock
Cities and Towns
City of Lynnwood
City of Marysville
City of Maytown
City of Medina
City of Mercer Island
City of Mill Creek
Town of Milton
City of Monroe
City of Mountlake Terrace
City of Mukilteo
City of Normandy Park
City of North Bend
City of Olympia
City of Orting
City of Pacific
City of Port Orchard
City of Poulsbo
City of Puyallup
Town of Rainier
City of Redmond
City of Renton
City of Roy
Town of Ruston
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
Town of Skykomish
City of Snohomish
City of Snoqualmie
Town of South Prairie
City of Stanwood
Town of Steilacoom
Town of Sultan
City of Sumner
City of Tacoma
Town of Tenino
City of Tukwila
City of Tumwater
Town of Wilkeson
Draft EIS Distribution List
City of Winslow
City of Woodway
King County
Kitsap County
Pierce County
Chehalis Tribe
Duwamish Tribe
Mukleshoot Tribe
Nisqually Tribe
Arlington Municipal Airport
Boeing Field
Fort Lewis
McChord Air Force Base
Port of Bremerton
Port of Everett
Port of Olympia
Community Transit
Everett Transit
Intercity Transit
Kitsap Transit
Cities and Towns (Continued)
Town of Yarrow Point
Town of Yelm
Counties
Snohomish County
Thurston County
Indian Tribes
Puyallup Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Tulalip Tribe
Airport Managers
Ports
Olympia Airport
Paine Field
Thun Field
Port of Seattle
Port of Tacoma
WA Public Ports Association
Transit Agencies
Metro
Pierce Transit
Snohomish County Transportation
Authority (SNO-TRAN)
Draft EIS Distribution List
Des Moines Sewer District
Puget Sound Power and Light
Rainier Vista Sewer District
Seattle City Light
Seattle Water Department
Utilities
Snohomish County PUD
Tacoma City Light
Tacoma Water Department
Thurston County PUD
Federal Agencies
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Congressional Delegation
Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev.
Economic Development Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highways Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Urban Mass Transp. Administration
United States Air Force
United States Army
United States Army Corp of Engineers
United States Coast Guard
United States Navy
State of Washington
Department of Community Development
Department of Ecology
Department of Energy
Department of Trade and Econ. Dev.
Department of Fisheries
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Parks and Recreation
Department of Social and Health Ser.
Department of Transportation:
Aeronautics Division
Headquarters
District 1
District 3
Marine Division
Department of Employment Security
High Speed Rail Commission
Legislative Transportation Committee
Office of Archeaology and Historic Pres.
Office of the Governor
Planning, Research, and Public Trans.
Transportation Improvement Board
Utilities Transportation Commission
Department of Wildlife
WA State Air Transportation Commission
Regional Agencies
Central Puget Sound EDC
Kitsap Regional Planning Council
Metro - Environmental Division
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Thurston Regional Planning Council
Seattle /King County EDC
Skagit Council of Governments
Draft EIS Distribution List
Chambers of Commerce
Bellevue Chamber of Commerce
Everett Area Chamber of Commerce
Greater Federal Way Chamber of Comm.
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Aircraft Noise Coalition
Kitsap Co. Assoc. of Realtors
Kitsap County EDC
Tacoma - Pierce Co. Board of Realtors
Pierce Co. Countywide Planning
Policy Steering Committee
South King Co. EDC
South King Co. Board of Realtors
Snohomish County Board of Realtors
Snohomish County Citizens for
Improvement Transportation (SCCIT)
Auburn Public Library
Bellevue Public Library
Enumclaw Public Library
Everett Public Library
King County Library
Kitsap Regional Library
Metro Library
Municipal Research & Services Center
Olympia Timberland Library
Pacific Lutheran University Library
Pierce County Library
Puyallup Public Library
Renton Public Library
Roy City Library
Seattle Pacific University Library
Seattle Public Library
Others
Olympia Chamber of Commerce
Southwest King Co. Chamber of Comm.
Tacoma /Pierce Co. Chamber of Comm.
Snohomish County Tommorrow
Snohomish County EDC
Tacoma /Pierce Co. Econ. Dev. Board
Transit Alliance
WA Transportation Policy Institute
Associated General Contractors
WA Airport Managers Association
WA Pilots Association
Thurston County EDC
Libraries
Seattle University Library
Sno -Isle Regional Library
Tacoma Public Library
University of Puget Sound Library
University of Washington
Suzzallo Library
Government Documents Library
Vashon Public Library
WSDOT Library
Washington State Energy Library
Washington State Library
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FACT SHEET i
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
1. SUMMARY 1 -1
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1 -1
1.2 OBJECTIVES 1 -1
1.3 SUMMARY 1 -1
1.3.1 Controversial Issues and Tradeoffs 1 -1
1.3.2 Alternatives 1 -3
1.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation 1 -4
2. FLIGHT PLAN ALTERNATIVES 2 -1
2.1 ' PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 -1
2.2 SECONDARY ALTERNATIVES 2 -2
2.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 2 -3
2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 2 -3
2.4.1 No Action 2 -3
2.4.2 Replacement Airport 2 -5
2.4.3 Sea -Tac with Demand Management Only 2 -5
2.4.4 Rail or Ground Transportation to Portland
or Vancouver 2 -6
2.5 AIRPORT SITES EVALUATED IN PHASE III 2 -6
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,
MITIGATION MEASURES, AND UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS 3 -1
3.1 NOISE 3 -1
3.1.1 Affected Environment 3 -1
3.1.2 Significant Impacts 3 -4
3.1.3 Mitigation Measures 3 -11
3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -13
3.2 AIR QUALITY 3 -14
3.2.1 Affected Environment 3 -15
3.2.2 Significant Impacts 3 -16
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 3 -22
3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -24
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page vi Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
3.3 TRANSPORTATION 3 -24
3.3.1 Affected Environment 3 -25
3.3.2 Significant Impacts 3 -26
3.3.3 Mitigation Measures 3 -30
3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -32
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 3 -32
3.4.1 Affected Environment 3 -32
3.4.2 Significant Impacts 3 -35
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 3 -39
3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -40
3.5 EARTH 3 -40
3.5.1 Affected Environment 3 -40
3.5.2 Significant Impacts 3 -41
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures 3 -44
3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -44
3.6 LAND USE 3 -44
3.6.1 Affected Evironment 3 -44
3.6.2 Significant Impacts 3 -52
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures 3 -56
3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -57
3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3 -57
3.7.1 Affected Environment 3 -57
3.7.2 Significant Impacts 3 -61
3.7.3 Mitigation Measures 3 -63
3.7.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -63
REFERENCES R -1
LIST OF MAPS R -2
GLOSSARY G -1
APPENDICES:
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Impacts Summary Matrix for Preferred and Secondary Alternatives 1 -5
Table 2. Phase III Airport Systems 2 -4
Table 3. Population Range by Category Within 2020 Noise Contours 3 -7
Table 4. Size of LDN Noise Contours (Square Miles) 3 -8
Table 5. Population Summaries Within 2020 Noise Contours 3 -9
Table 6. Emissions Comparison for Each System Alternative 3 -18
Table 7. Aircraft Emissions (Year 2020) 3 -20
Table 8. Vehicular Traffic Emissions (Year 2020) 3 -21
Table 9. Total Combined Aircraft and Vehicular Emissions (Year 2020) 3 -23
Table 10. Annual Passenger Mileage to Selected Airport Sites - 2020 3 -28
Table 11. Daily Passenger Mileage to Selected Airport Sites - 2020 3 -29
Table 12. Wetland Impacts and Potential Mitigation by Airport Location 3 -38
Table 13. Grading and Excavation Quantities 3 -43
Table 14. 1990 Households and Employment and 1990 Density 3 -52
Table 15. Induced Land Use Estimates 3 -54
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS viii List of Tables
1. SUMMARY
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the Flight Plan Project is to proactively plan for future air transportation
demands of the central Puget Sound region through the year 2020 and beyond. The increas-
ing popularity of air travel and growing population in the region will create a demand that
will saturate the existing Sea -Tac International Airport between 1995 and 2000. Increasing
demand without additional facilities will result in longer and longer delays for air travelers
and ultimately will hurt the trade - oriented regional economy. Forecasts of future air travel
demand have been developed in each phase of the Flight Plan Project and are summarized
in section two of the Draft Final Report.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
To plan for future commercial air transportation needs, the Puget Sound Council of
Governments (now the Puget Sound Regional Council, PSRC) and the Port of Seattle
formed an interagency agreement in 1989 to develop a regional air carrier airport system
plan. This agreement created the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee to study the
problem in detail and develop recommendations for the PSRC and Port of Seattle. The
Committee is a thirty -nine member steering group comprised of citizens, local and state
elected officials, members of the business community, and others with an interest in the
region's future air transportation system. The work of the committee is called the Flight
Plan Project.
The objectives of the Flight Plan Project are defined both by the mission and vision
statements and project objectives developed during Phase I of the project and are listed in
section two of the Final Report. These statements have guided the work of the Puget Sound
Air Transportation Committee throughout the project and are contained in section two of
the Draft Final Report.
1.3 SUMMARY
1.3.1 Controversial Issues and Tradeoffs
1.3.1.1 Noise
The most significant conclusion of the noise analysis is that the future noise environment
for all of the system alternatives represents a significant improvement over that which exists
around Sea -Tac today. The aircraft forecast to be operating in 2020 are significantly quieter
and will result in reductions in both the overall Ldn (combined day and night) noise levels
and the single event SEL levels. For example, the 1990 existing 65 Ldn contour for Sea -Tac
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS Page 1 -1 Summary
covers an area of 22.1 square miles with an estimated resident population of approximately
66,000. Compare this to the worst -case scenario projected for 2020, in which the population
ilwithin Sea -Tac's 65 Ldn noise contour is estimated to be less than 13,000 people. Under
the preferred alternative, the 65 Ldn contour area for Sea -Tac would cover 7.1 square miles,
plus an additional 0.8 square miles for the north airport at Paine Field, and the estimated
total regional population exposed to the 65 Ldn noise level would be 8,100.
•
S
The noise contours generated in this study for the dependent runway at Sea -Tac consider
operational mitigation measures. If measures such as restricting the runway to less noise
sensitive times and for arrival traffic only are imposed, the potential noise impacts from the
preferred alternative would be reduced. With restricted use of the new runway, a multiple
airport system that involves a new dependent air carrier runway at Sea -Tac is more
favorable from an overall noise management perspective than a multiple airport system
without a new dependent runway at to Sea -Tac.
None of the secondary alternatives is significantly superior to the preferred alternative in
terms of noise impacts. While these noise levels are a significant improvement over the
aircraft noise levels that exist in Seattle today, it is expected that some level of adverse
community response to aircraft noise would still be experienced with any of the alternatives.
1.3.1.2 Air Quality
• Aircraft departure delays and vehicular traffic congestion are the major variables in
assessing air quality impacts.
• Implementation of any of the of Flight Plan alternatives will decrease overall air
quality in the Central Puget Sound region.
• Under the Washington State Clean Air Act, transportation projects will have to
conform clean air standards.
• Development of a Replacement Airport would have the greatest air quality emission
impacts due to longer distance travel by automobiles.
• A multiple airport system will generate fewer air pollutant emissions due to shorter
travel distances for automobiles. In addition, systems that use airports closer to
major population centers further reduces emissions.
• Flight Plan alternatives that dQt not meet system capacity demand would generate
the fewest air pollutant emissions.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 1 -2 Summary
• The preferred alternative involving Sea -Tac and Paine Field could realize additional
air quality emission reductions since these sites are considered feasible locations for
stations on the proposed regional light rail system.
1.3.1.3 Transportation
• Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires coordination between
land use planning and transportation planning.
• Regional transportation plans must be consistent with county and city comprehensive
plans under GMA
• Multiple airport systems comprised of sites (or facilities) that are closer to major
population centers are more accessible and overall passenger mileage will be less.
• Roadways around airport locations will need to be upgraded to meet projected traffic
demand.
• Traffic congestion can be mitigated by High Capacity Transit (HCT), transportation
demand management and rail.
1.3.2 Alternatives
During Phase III of the Flight Plan Project, a total of 34 airport systems which are
combinations of site alternatives were evaluated. The Puget Sound Air Transportation
Committee selected its preferred airport system alternative based on its ability to meet the
goals and objectives included in the Flight Plan mission statement. The preferred
alternative is for a multiple airport system to be developed in phases. The system includes:
• Addition of a new dependent air carrier runway to Sea -Tac International Airport to
be operational by the year 2000;
• Commercial service using the existing jet runway, at Paine Field with new passenger
terminal and cargo handling facilities initiated by the year 2000;
• Planning and protection of development rights for a two - runway airport to operate
after the year 2010 at one of the following locations:
Fort Lewis Army Base or McChord Air Force Base, if coordination with military
activities can be achieved;
East of Fort Lewis Army Base, if airspace coordination can be resolved; or
Olympia /Black Lake area in Thurston County if no sharing with either military
facility is possible.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 1 -3 Summary
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee also selected six of the 34 airport system
alternatives to be evaluated as secondary alternatives in addition to the "no action"
alternative required by SEPA guidelines. These six were chosen to represent the range of
airport systems considered by the Committee. These secondary alternatives are highlighted
in this EIS to help show the range of potential environmental impacts. The secondary
alternatives are:
• Existing Sea -Tac International Airport with a 1- runway airport at Arlington and a 1-
runway airport in central Pierce County (Airport System No. 23).
• Existing Sea -Tac International Airport with a 1- runway airport at Arlington and a 1-
runway airport in the Olympia /Black Lake area (Airport System No. 25).
• Existing Sea -Tac International Airport with a 2- runway airport at Arlington (Airport
System No. 8).
• Existing Sea -Tac International Airport with a 1- runway airport at Paine Field and a
1 runway airport in central Pierce County (Airport System No. 24).
• Sea -Tac International Airport with ,a new dependent air carrier runway with a 2-
runway airport at Arlington (Airport: System No. 18).
• Sea -Tac International Airport with a new dependent air carrier runway with a 2-
runway airport in central Pierce County (Airport System No. 21).
The complete list of 34 alternatives evaluated during Phase III of the Flight Plan Project is
shown in Table, 2 at the end of Chapter 2.
1.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation
1.3.3.1 Impacts Matrix
The impacts of the preferred and secondary alternatives by environmental subject are
summarized in Table 1.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 1 -4 Summary
= !
Table 1. Impacts Summary Matrix for Preferred and Secondary Alternatives.
Alternative
Noise
Transportation
Air Quality
Plants & Animals
Earth
Land Use
Public Services &
Utilities
Preferred Alternative:
Sea-Tac with Depen-
dent Runway; Paine
Field,; plan for
southern airport.
Total 65 Ldn popula-
tion affected:
12,600 - 13,100.
With runway use miti-
gation: 8,100 - 8,600
population affected.
Overall auto passenger
mileage generally lower
than Other system.
alternatives:
Daily passenger mile="
age: (DPM, in thou-
sands) = 1,536 - 1,689;
Annual passenger mile -
age' (APM, in millions)
= 567 - 664.
Lowest 'overall ' air.
pollutant. emissions:
28.0: -.35.0 Tons
CO/Day; 7.8.; &6 Tons
NOX /Day.
Wetlands on the Paine
Field and Olympia/
Black Lake site could be
impacted
Salmon- producing
streams on the Fort
Lewis and Olympia/ ;.
Black Lake could be
impacted.
Two endangered plants'
and two endangered .
birds may be impacted ::
on the Fort Lewis site."
Soils types at the
proposed sites are
appropriate for airport
construction.
Compatible vicinity of
Sea-Tac and Paine
Field. Southern airport
changes vicinity land
use.
•
Homes directly
itntpactsd:
Sea-Tac = 2304 -;
Paine V.= Several;
Southern m Up to
1,060::
Minor impacts 16 Sea-
Tac and Paine Reid,
most facilities in .:
place.
Major impacts to
southern airport.
options, new facilities
needed.
Existing Sea-Tac;
Arlington; Central
Pierce County.
Total 65 Ldn
population affected:
7,900.
Overall passenger mile-
age slightly higher than
preferred alternative:
DPM = 1,596; —
APM = 494 - 694. -
Slightly higher emis-
sions than preferred
alternative due to
delays at Sea -Tac: 29.0
- 36.0 Tons CO /Day,
7.7 - 8.9 Tons
NOX /Day.
No impacts.
Soils are appropriate
for construction, with
the exception of the
Arlington site.
Compatible vicinity of
Sea -Tac and Arlington.
Central Pierce airport
changes vicinity land
use.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea -Tac = None;
Arlington = 20 +;
Cent. Pierce = 594 +.
Minor upgrading to
facilities at the Sea -
Tac and Arlington
sites.
Major upgrading to
facilities at Central
Pierce site.
Existing Sea -Tac;
Arlington; Olympia/
Black Lake.
Total 65 Ldn popula-
tion affected: 7,500.
Highest auto passenger
mileage of three
airport systems:
DPM = 1,902;
APM = 494 - 694. -
Emissions comparable
to existing Sea -Tac,
Arlington, and Central
Pierce (above):
29.0 - 36.0 Tons
CO /Day; 7.7 - 8.9 Tons
NOX /Day.
Salmon - producing
stream on the
Olympia /Black Lake
site would be impacted.
Soils are appropriate
for construction, with
the exception of the
Arlington site.
Compatible vicinity of
Sea -Tac and Arlington.
Olympia/ Black Lake
airport changes vicinity
land use.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea -Tac = None;
Arlington = 20 +;
Olympia /Black Lake =
50 +.
Minor upgrading to
facilities at Sea -Tac
and Arlington sites.
Major upgrading to
facilities at Olympia/
Black Lake site.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 1 -5
Summary
Impacts summary matrix for preferred and secondary alternatives (continued).
a�:
G� n
.0
Minor upgrading to
Sea -Tac and Arlington
sites.
O u
A b
a w
N .r
u^. a
a 0.0 u ...
w -, ,m a
R 6
w A 4 cl
Minor impacts to Sea- 1
Tac, most facilities in
place.
Upgrading of facilities
required at Arlington.
�c u.y
y b n
_ a w
u u N.,
CI a
_Eo :=1 S°..
-. E ,,O C
6
4H a z
h
'U
g
a
Compatible with vici-
nity of Sea -Tac and
Arlington.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea -Tac: None;
Arlington: 95.
'5 a ., a o..
a
t a • 4.) v)
u
u T a
•
E± �' u Z II 4)
J a � ;p iiI r5
c u
V � o 6 y u u0.'
a. 46 u a Y E
0
E �•� u c o aa a
g 'e .o8.� a a.2 xva
Compatible with vici- I
nity of Sea -Tac and
Arlington.
Homes directly
impacted:
Sea -Tac = 230 +;
Arlington = 95.
OD
'S a a
s_ .a + n
u
u" >
I E r ;V N w
u p
y'
N • d � •" u p,
p y
1:, u Z 4) �, o
t� a o p ( v °
r3'ca ° x.Evido
t
W
Soils are appropriate
for construction, with
the exception of the
Arlington site.
u
8 o
4 V
u
A a
Soils at all sites, except
Arlington, are appro-
priate for construction
of the airport.
0
0
u W
y u O
u•G .
u .au
z
•o o as c
Plants & Animals
No impacts.
C
0., u �
u
-
o
o a
C 'N u
CI o
6/ 7.).
.E
No impacts.
a u u
y A
a. °
C E u
° -a
y O
u f,
[^ o y FCy
Air Quality
High CO emissions due
to distance from major
centers: 30.0 - 48.0
Tons CO /Day, 7.9 -
10.8 Tons NOX /Day.
u u O'
o a' > N >',
tf.. EFrX
o R z
• '0 I Q N
u NUUEi
Overall rmiccinnc rela-
tively high due to travel
distance: 33.0 - 38.0
Tons CO /Day; 8.3 -
9.1 Tons NOX /Day.
A
u
N y �z>f'„ ,••,
u C I> N a >,
C A
2AN 'E'"WX tn
o� =� '''' M M zz
•N D b 1 N
41 E.C4�MUUE.
Transportation
Comparable to other
comparable 2- runway
supplemental airport
alternatives: DPM =
2,093; APM = 534 -
1,019.
4,
Ou0 yj
u C
C A a
a��
0 3 .a a
° v r•, v
u u u 11
8 E aA¢
ILower n, -rall any, passenger mileage
compared to existing
Sea -Tac:
DPM = 1,747;
APM = 604 - 732.
00
0 •e
7 00 .5 M
uuu !.
w'e o X$
> .. 'o -7. ,p
o e0 w u u u
MI
n E u
3 a°cnAQ
y
•4
0 z
Total 65 Ldn
population affected:
7,500.
A. g
a. so,
;
o
0 'o
32
u
W
r c0
O .... O'
r.
65 r
I Total du nla-
tion affected: 13,000.
o
'
8 , '"
a o
32
v� u
W
_ l0
EO .O
Alternative
Existing Sea -Tac; 2
Runway Arlington.
�6�
F V
d 0
00 w3
.,
w C S:
t0 2
ISeaT. with ne _
dent Runway, 2 Run-
way Arlington.
a.
A N ~
t {O� C r
C 3 7
a �3
u
E C w
7 u
1.3.2.2 Mitigation Measures
This section summarizes the types of mitigation measures that can be applied to reduce the
impacts of using both existing and new airport facilities. Specific mitigation for airport
locations is contained in the text of the DEIS.
Noise
• Preferential runway use and direction.
• Flight track modifications.
• Special nighttime procedures (i.e. Puget Sound departures).
• Nighttime operational restrictions.
• Aircraft use restrictions (i.e. using only quieter Stage III aircraft at night).
• Noise abatement arrival and departure procedures.
• Nighttime ground control measures (i.e. engine run up restriction).
• Land use compatibility enhancement and retrofit (i.e. soundproofing).
Transportation
• Development of regional light rail and high- capacity transit systems.
• Roadway improvements including addition of lanes and added capacity to regional
arterials and freeways.
• New regional arterials and freeways.
• New or modified intersections and local street improvements in vicinity of airports.
Air Quality
• Reduction of vehicular travel associated with project.
• Improvement of mass transit facilities.
• Support and compliance with the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020 plans
and programs.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 1 -7 Summary
• Implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs and transportation demand
management programs.
Plants & Animals
Wetlands
• Protect wetlands with 25 -to 300 -foot buffer.
• If buffer is not feasible, prepare a mitigation plan which seeks to replace the wetland
functions and values that will be impacted by the project.
Streams
• Create or enhance sufficient stream habitat in the general area.
Vegetation /Wildlife
• Revegetating the sites, after construction, would reduce the impacts to plant and
animal communities.
• Avoiding areas with wetlands would serve to ensure no disturbance in valuable areas.
Earth
• Avoiding all sensitive areas with potential geologic hazards would eliminate
significant impacts to earth resources.
• Modern construction practices and minimizing earth movement during rainy seasons
should control most earth impacts.
Land Use
• Local comprehensive plans and zoning regulations modified and implemented in
accordance with the Growth Management Act to accommodate planned airports and
facilities.
Public Services and Utilities
• Local facility plans modified and implemented in accordance with the concurrency
requirements of the Growth Management Act to accommodate planned airports and
facilities.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 1 -8 Summary
2. FLIGHT PLAN ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives considered by the Flight Plan Project are the result of three phases of the
study by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee. During Phase I, the project
mission, vision, and objectives were developed together with preliminary forecasts of future
air travel demand. This established the scope and nature of the problem facing the region.
In Phase II, these forecasts were . refined and finalized and a wide range of both aviation and
non - aviation transportation alternatives were developed, together with generic site areas
used to evaluate their viability. The system alternatives best able to meet the Flight Plan
mission and objectives were recommended for more detailed study. Phase III has
studied the recommended airport system alternatives' operational, economic, environmental,
and institutional characteristics and produced the draft recommendations presented here.
The next step will be for the Committee to receive and respond to public comments through
the EIS process and prepare its final recommendations to the Puget Sound Regional Council
and the Port of Seattle. The entire Flight Plan process is described in more detail in section
two of the Draft Final Report.
2.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee selected its preferred airport system
alternative based on its ability to meet the goals and objectives included in the Flight Plan
mission statement. In the planning process, a total of 34 airport system and site alternatives
were evaluated (see Table 2). Key factors in the selection of the preferred alternative were
its ability to:
• Minimize negative environmental effects and preserve sensitive areas
• Optimize long -range system capacity and economic benefits
• Provide earliest possible relief of capacity pressures and delays at Sea -Tac
International Airport
• Minimize airport system delays.
The preferred alternative is for a multiple airport system to be developed in phases. The
system includes:
• Addition of a new '!depentdent ' arr cer runway to Sea -Tac International Airport to
be operational by the year 2000.
• Commercial air carrier service using the existing jet runway at Paine Field with new
passenger terminal and cargo handling facilities initiated by the year 2000.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 2 -1 Flight Plan Alternatives
• Planning and protection of development rights for a two - runway airport to operate
after 2010 at one of the following locations:
Fort Lewis Army Base or McChord Air Force Base, if coordination with military
activities can be achieved
East of Fort Lewis Army Base, if airspace coordination can be resolved
Olympia /Black Lake area in Thurston County if no sharing with either military
facility is possible.
The new dependent runway at Sea -Tac would be located on existing airport property to
minimize impacts. For this reason, the new runway will not be separated by enough
distance from the existing runways to operate independently. During poor weather
conditions, the new runway is far enough away from two arrival streams to be handled,
although the aircraft must be staggered and not land simultaneously. The dependent runway
allows the airport to operate at almost the same capacity during the 45% of the time when
bad weather occurs as it does during good weather. This runway would be operation in the
year 2000.
The layouts and facilities for each of the airport sites included in the preferred alternative
are described in Working Paper No.'s 6 and 11. The preferred alternative is essentially
Airport System No. 28 or 30, depending on which southern airport location is eventually
developed.
2.2 SECONDARY ALTERNATIVES
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee also selected six of the 34 airport system
alternatives to be evaluated as secondary alternatives. The six alternatives were chosen to
represent the range of airport systems considered by the Committee, and all six would satisfy
the forecasted demand for air travel. These secondary alternatives are highlighted in this
EIS to help show the range of potential environmental impacts. The secondary alternatives
are:
• Existing Sea -Tac International Airport with a 1- runway airport at Arlington and a 1-
runway airport in central Pierce County (Airport System No. 23)
• Existing Sea -Tac International Airport with a 1- runway airport at Arlington and a 1-
runway airport in the Olympia /Black Lake area (Airport System No. 25)
• Existing Sea -Tac International Airport with a 2- runway airport at Arlington (Airport
System No. 8)
• Existing Sea -Tac International Airport with a 1- runway airport at Paine Field and a
1 runway airport in central Pierce County (Airport System No. 24)
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 2 -2 Flight Plan Alternatives
• Sea -Tac International Airport with a new dependent air carrier runway with a 2-
runway airport at Arlington (Airport System No. 18)
• Sea -Tac International Airport with a new dependent air carrier runway with a 2-
runway airport in central Pierce County (Airport System No. 21)
The layouts and facilities for each of the airport sites included in the secondary alternatives
are described in Working Paper Nos. 6 and 11.
2.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
The Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee evaluated 34 different airport systems
during the Phase III study. The alternatives were based on one, two, or three airport
systems, with each system including different combinations of potential airport sites. All of
these alternatives were evaluated in the working papers presented to the Committee during
the Phase III study. Table 2 lists all airport alternatives evaluated. This EIS includes all
of the airport system alternatives to present the full range of options and environmental
effects.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
As a result of the Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III studies, the Puget Sound Air Trans-
portation Committee decided to remove several alternatives initially recommended for study
in Phase III from its draft recommendation.
2.4.1 No Action
Not adding capacity to the region's air transportation service would not fulfill the vision,
mission, and goals adopted by the Committee to guide the Flight Plan process. Allowing
the region's population to grow without providing adequate air service would result in Sea -
Tac Airport's capacity being greatly exceeded and cause extreme delays for air travelers.
To do nothing also results in additional noise, air quality, _ and_surface._transportation__,
congestion impacts. By the year 2020'yunsatisfied demand would range from 7 to _13 million
tnnnual_passengers.'This would also have severe direct and indirect economic impacts for
the region, jeopardizing both its vitality and its ability to compete both nationally and
internationally.
Although the no- action alternative has been eliminated from consideration by the
Committee as a viable choice for the region's future, it has been included in this EIS to
meet SEPA requirements and provide a comparison with other airport system alternatives.
No action includes a package of demand management techniques, new technologies, and
potential use of other modes.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 2 -3 Flight Plan Alternatives
Table 2. Phase III Airport Systems.
1. Sea -Tac without a new runway.
2. Sea -Tac with a new runway.
3. Sea -Tac without a new runway and Arlington Municipal Airport with one air carrier (7,000') runway.
4. Sea -Tac without a new runway and Paine Field with one air carrier (7,000') runway.
5. Sea -Tac without a new runway and McChord AFB with one air carrier (7,000') runway.
6. Sea -Tac without a new runway and a new airport at the Central Pierce site with one air carrier (7,000')
runway.
7. Sea -Tac without a new runway and a new airport at the Olympia /Black Lake site with one air carrier
(7,000') runway.
8. Sea -Tac without a new runway and Arlington Municipal Airport with two parallel air carrier (7,000')
runways.(2)
9. Sea -Tac without a new runway and Paine Field with two parallel air carrier (7,000') runways.
10. Sea -Tac without a new runway and McChord AFB with two parallel air carrier (7,000') runways.
11. Sea -Tac without a new runway and a new airport at the Central Pierce site with two parallel air carrier
(7,000') runways.
12. Sea -Tac without a new runway and a new airport at the Olympia /Black Lake site with two parallel air
carrier (7,000') runways.
13. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and Arlington Municipal Airport with one air carrier
runway.
14. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and Paine Field with one air carrier runway. The
existing primary runway at Paine serves as the air carrier runway.
15. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and McChord AFB with one air carrier runway. The
existing runway at McChord serves as the air carrier runway.
16. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and the Central Pierce site with one air carrier
runway.
17. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and the Olympia /Black Lake site with one air carrier
runway.
18. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and Arlington Municipal Airport with two parallel
air carrier runways.(2)
19. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and Paine Field with two parallel air carrier runways.
20. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and McChord AFB with two parallel air carrier
runways.
21. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and the Central Pierce site with two parallel air
carrier runways.(2)
22. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway and the Olympia /Black Lake site with two parallel
air carrier runways.
23. Sea -Tac without a new runway with Arlington Municipal and the Central Pierce site each with one air
carrier runway.(2)
24. Sea -Tac without a new runway with Paine Field and the Central Pierce site each with one air carrier
runway.(2)
25. Sea -Tac without a new runway with Arlington Municipal and the Olympia /Black Lake site each with
one air carrier runway.(2)
26. Sea -Tac without a new runway with Paine field and the Olympia /Black Lake site each with one air
carrier runway.
27. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway with Arlington Municipal Airport and the Central
Pierce site each with one air carrier runway.
28. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway with Paine Field and the Central Pierce site each
with one air carrier runway.")
29. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway with Arlington Municipal Airport and the
Olympia /Black Lake site each with one air carrier runway.
30. Sea -Tac with a new dependent air carrier runway with Paine Field and the Olympia /Black Lake site
each with one air carrier runway."
31. A replacement airport at the Central Pierce site with three parallel air carrier runways.
32. A replacement airport at the Olympia /Black Lake site with three parallel air carrier runways.
33. A replacement airport at Fort Lewis with three parallel air carrier runways.
34. Sea -Tac without a new runway and full demand management.
(1) Preferred alternative
(2) Secondary alternatives
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
2 -4 Flight Plan Alternatives
2.4.2 Replacement Airport
Phase III studied building three runway airports on either Fort Lewis or at the
Olympia /Black Lake location to replace Sea -Tac Airport. In addition, the Phase II study
evaluated a replacement airport at Moses Lake, connected with the Puget Sound region by
high -speed rail. For_several reasons,_all-of_these alternatives were found to be infeasible
by the Committee;, .Replacement airports in the Puget Sound area' were substantially-Mom
expensive than other alternatives and had substantially greater environmental impacts one
air quality,_ transportation,_plants.and animals, land use, and-public-services-.1 A replacement
airport would, however, concentrate noise impacts, so relatively-fewer—persons would be
subjected to more noise than under other alternatives if appropriate_ zoning and land use
planning practices are employed. Further, closure of Sea -Tac A_ irport would have severe
economic impacts on the surrounding communities Replacement airport systems considered
in the Phase III studies have been included here to present the full range of information
received by the Committee.
The Committee rejected the idea of developing a remote airport at Moses Lake linked to
the Puget Sound area by high -speed rail due to the very high cost of the system,
inaccessibility to most users, and the uncertainties about how it could be implemented.
2.4.3 Sea -Tac with Demand Management Only
Demand management involves a variety of techniques to modify how passengers use air
transportation. Demand management is popularly thought of as a means for getting the
greatest benefit out of an airport facility without adding new runways. Essentially, it is a
means of easing airport congestion by encouraging passengers to travel during non -peak
times and /or to places where they can be most efficiently handled. It can also mean flying
planes at higher occupancy levels or using larger aircraft to carry more people per flight.
Demand management techniques can include allowing congestion to induce passengers to
travel during off -peak periods, applying higher prices for peak - period travel, and using
administrative or regulatory limits on amount of travel allowed.
Phase III included a detailed examination of demand management techniques and their
potential benefits to the future airport system. The results of this study are described in
Working Paper No. 4, contained above in Appendix B. In summary, some forms of demand
management are already in place at Sea -Tac and are included in the forecasts of future
passenger volumes. Essentially, future aircraft fleets are assumed to have a higher
proportion of large aircraft carrying more passengers per operation. Demand management
cannot be effectively used to reduce the demand for flights, but it can be useful in helping
shape demand. As a result, the Committee decided to have all alternatives include the
maximum use of demand management techniques so that all airport facilities are used as
efficiently as possible.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 2 -5 Flight Plan Alternatives
2.4.4 Rail or Ground Transportation to Portland or Vancouver
During the Phase II study, there was considerable interest in developing a high -speed rail
system between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia as a means of reducing
the demand for air travel. The alternative was dropped as a substitute for additional airport
capacity because it was found to only have a small effect on the demand for air travel and
to have very high capital costs. However, the Committee encourages and supports the study
of rail by the State Air Transportation Commission and the State High -Speed Rail
Commission.
2.5 AIRPORT SITES EVALUATED IN PHASE III
To evaluate the operational characteristics and potential impacts of the one, two, or three
airport systems considered in Phase III, it was necessary to develop conceptual site layouts
in actual locations. Both existing airports and locations where no airport now exists where
used. The areas where no airport is now present were carried forward from the Phase II
study, with conceptual layouts prepared based on maps and other published information.
At existing airports, additional facilities were located based on current facilities and
surrounding activities. All layouts are preliminary and have been used only as a means of
comparing the airport system and site alternatives. Extensive site - specific analysis will be
required before any facility is developed. Site layout drawings and descriptions of each site
are contained in Working Paper No. 6, pages 7 -12.
The following alternative airport sites were evaluated in Phase III:
Sea -Tac Airport
Sea -Tac with or without a commuter runway
Sea -Tac with or without a new dependent air carrier runway
Supplemental Airport Alternatives
Existing Arlington Airport with runway extension
Arlington Airport with a new runway
Existing Paine Field
Paine Field with a new runway
Existing McChord Air Force Base used jointly with military
McChord Air Force Base with new runway use jointly with military
Supplemental airport at Central Pierce with one runway
Supplemental airport at Central Pierce with two .runways
Supplemental airport at Olympia /Black Lake with one runway
Supplemental airport at Olympia /Black Lake with two runways
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 2 -6 Flight Plan Altematives
Replacement Airport Alternatives
Replacement airport at . Central Pierce with three runways
Replacement airport at Olympia /Black Lake with three runways
Replacement airport at Fort Lewis site with three runways
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 2 -7 Flight Plan Alternatives
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,
MITIGATION MEASURES, AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
3.1 NOISE
Introduction
The potential noise impacts associated with each of the airport system alternatives under
consideration have been analyzed and compared with the projected future population sur-
rounding Sea -Tac and all the other airport sites. This section summarizes the significant
findings of Working Paper No. 12A - Noise Assessment Study by Mestre Greve Associates/
P &D Aviation, which is reproduced as Appendix 1 of this EIS and incorporated by refer-
ence. Appendix 1 contains more detailed information on the noise study, including back-
ground information on the descriptions of noise, noise metrics, assessment guidelines,
aircraft operational assumptions, and the noise contours and population exposure results.
To effectively evaluate and explain potential noise impacts well into the future, this study
utilizes methods and criteria that consider noise impacts in a larger area around the airport
sites than is usual for traditional airport noise studies. The methods and data assumptions
were uncomplicated and capable of treating all system alternatives as equitably as possible.
The study utilized standard industry-wide methods of computer modeling and noise
assessment analysis such as the 65 Ldn noise level contour. Supplemental noise assessment
criteria were also included so that the potential noise impacts could be more thoroughly
evaluated. The analysis identified the population that would be exposed to a less significant
level of aircraft noise (55 Ldn) and to a level of single -event noise (80 SEL). Populations
that would be newly exposed to noise at both the 55 and 65 Ldn levels were also evaluated.
The total population contained within the projected noise level contours was estimated for
each of the various airport alternatives. The noise contours are based on operational
assumptions for the year 2020. For comparative reasons, the population analysis is based
on population projections for the year 2000 under the assumption that protective zoning and
land use planning practices would be employe around the selected airport site(s) would go
into effect by that date. ��n�,5
3.1.1 Affected Environment
The description, analysis, and reporting of community sound levels from aircraft must be
sensitive to the complexity of human response to sound and the myriad sound - rating scales
and metrics that have been developed for describing acoustic effects. For example,
community noise is generally not constant, but varies with time. Therefore, some type of
statistical metric is necessary to mathematically express a varying noise level that can be
correlated to community response. As a result of the intricacies of describing noise, several
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS Page 3 -1
Noise
noise metrics have been developed to account for noise characteristics such as loudness,
duration, time of day, and cumulative effects of multiple noise events.
Certain types of noise, particularly continuous exposure to high volumes, is known to have
several adverse affects on health and to cause disruption in human activities. Aircraft noise
is intermittent with each event rising to a peak level and rapidly diminishing. The identified
adverse effects of community airport noise on people include communication interference,
sleep interference, annoyance and various physiological responses. Many factors influence
how a sound is perceived and whether or not it is considered annoying to the listener. This
includes not only physical characteristics of the sound but also secondary influences such as
sociological and external factors. A more detailed discussion of factors that describe human
response to sound in terms of both acoustic and non - acoustic factors, and the rating scales
developed to account for human response are presented in Working Paper 12A (see Appen-
dix 1). Based upon the identified effects of noise and the factors that influence annoyance,
noise metrics have been established to help protect the public health and safety by gauging
the potential for disruption of certain human activities.
Noise Assessment Metrics
Different types of noise level measurements were used to describe the noise environment
at each of the alternative sites. It was desirable to employ nationally accepted metrics that
would best predict the potential community response to aircraft noise in the neighborhoods
surrounding the airport sites and which would be defensible in their application to the
aircraft noise issues in the Puget Sound area.
Ldn Noise Metric. The cumulative noise metric, Day Night Noise Level (Ldn), was the
primary noise metric selected to assess the noise impacts from aircraft operations. The Ldn
metric is useful because it combines the loudness of each aircraft overflight, the duration
of these events, the total number of overflights and the time of day these events occur into
one single- number rating scale. The Ldn scale is specified by most government agencies,
including the FAA and the EPA, for the assessment of the noise impacts around airports.
Extensive research using the Ldn index has been conducted on human responses to different
levels of aircraft noise. Community noise standards are derived from tradeoffs between the
impacts expressed in community response surveys and economic considerations for achieving
these levels. Examples of the results of these surveys, expressed in terms of community
reaction versus Ldn noise level, are presented in Working Paper 12A (see Exhibit 12 -1 in
Appendix 1). These interpretations of noise response are derived from case histories
involving aircraft noise problems at civilian and military airports and the resultant
community response.
-The 55 Ldn noise_level can be used as an indicator for when impacts_from aircraft noise will j
likely begin to occurs The EPA has identified 55 Ldn as the noise level desirable for
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -2 Noise
protecting the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. This includes
both residential land use with outdoor use areas and recreational land uses. This recom-
mendation does not constitute an EPA regulation or standard. Rather, it is intended to
identify a goal for safe levels of environmental noise exposure without consideration for the
economic cost of achieving these levels. In this study, the 55 Ldn is considered for
comparative evaluation of the potential noise impacts around airport sites. Although it is
not feasible as a mitigation level in developed areas, the 55 Ldn is indicative of a desired
goal for the noise environment within the communities of Puget Sound.
The 65 Ldn noise level is utilized by the Federal Aviation Administration and most govern-
ment agencies throughout the country as the threshold level for determining compatibility
of aircraft noise with residential land use. This reflects a balance between a desired sound
environment and the economic costs of attaining this level. For the purposes of this
programmatic EIS, population exposure to noise levels in excess of 65- Ldn would be
considered the :,threshold for determining a significant adverse - impact:;
SEL Noise Metric. While it has been demonstrated that cumulative noise metrics corres-
pond well with overall community ratings of the noise environment, a number of airport
studies have shown community response to noise is not completely predicted through one
descriptor, such as Ldn. While the total noise exposure as described by the cumulative noise
metric serves as the basis for a person's judgment of the noise environment, it is often a
single interference with some activity that people use to express their immediate concern
over noise. In such cases, single -event metrics can be used to supplement the analysis as
a predictor of when annoyance from aircraft noise is likely to occur.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is a "single- event" descriptor of an individual overflight; is
often used to supplement the Ldn analysis. A single -event SEL level of 80 dBA corresponds
to the level at which sleep disturbance and speech interference start to occur in the general
population. Thus, the 80 SEL level was selected as one of the evaluation criteria for this
study.
Existing Aircraft Noise Levels
Indications of community response information obtained from studies around Sea -Tac
confirm that the 55 Ldn and 80 SEL are good indicators of the overall noise levels at which
complaints and annoyance from aircraft start to occur. The 65 Ldn represents the threshold
for significant impacts from cumulative noise exposure.
The existing noise conditions around Sea -Tac, based on 1990 noise exposure data produced
for the Port of Seattle's Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 150 Update, estimated
a resident population of approximately 66,000 within the 1990-existing 65 Ldn noise contour
area of 22.08 square miles. Within the 1990 existing 70 Ldn noise_contour- -area of 11.11
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -3 Noise
square miles, the total population was estimated to be 31,300 including a population of 9,155
residing within the 75 Ldn area of 5.09 square miles.
According to FAA Part 150 guidelines, specified levels of structural noise insulation can be
used as a mitigation measure within the 65 -70 Ldn and the 70 -75 Ldn contour intervals to
achieve compatibility of residential land use with these levels of aircraft noise exposure.
The Port of Seattle is actively engaged in an FAA - funded, Noise Remedy Program to
provide neighborhood reinforcement and noise insulation for residences surrounding
Sea -Tac. Also, new building codes established by some local jurisdictions since 1987 require
noise insulation in all new construction. Thus, by the year 2020, a substantial portion of the
residential housing stock within the currently established Noise Remedy Program boundaries
would be compatible land uses within the 65 Ldn noise level.
With the exception of Olympia /Black Lake and the Central Pierce area, all of the other
alternatives are at existing airport sites which currently experience some significant level of
aircraft noise. For example, Paine Field has a mix of general aviation activity including
business jets and test flights of commercial aircraft. Since McChord is an active military
airfield, and military aircraft are generally much noisier than commercial carriers, its
surrounding population currently experiences relatively higher Ldn and SEL noise levels for
the number of operations.
3.1.2 Significant Impacts
Overview of Noise Impact Analysis
The noise impact analysis estimated the total population noise exposure for each of the air-
port system alternatives (see Table 3). The following noise assessment criteria were used
in the analysis: (1) population exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 55 Ldn, (2)
population that would be newly exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 55 Ldn, (3)
population exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 65 Ldn, (4) population that would
be newly exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 65 Ldn, and (5) population that
would be exposed to single -event SEL noise levels in excess of 80 SEL. Rationales for use
of these various noise assessment criteria are further explained below:
(1) Residential population exposed to aircraft noise of 55 Ldn or greater. A noise level
of 55 Ldn and greater indicates the population to which the aircraft noise will be
noticeable and some degree of annoyance or adverse community response would be
expected to occur. Experience at Sea -Tac indicates most (but not all) areas where
noise complaints occurred were exposed to Ldn levels of 55 or greater. For a new
airport site, the 55 Ldn represents the area in which future residential land use
development may consider zoning and other land use control measures to avoid
significant noise - related residential land use impacts.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -4 Noise
(2) Residential population newly exposed to 55 Ldn or greater. A newly exposed popu-
lation consists of residents experiencing new exposure to aircraft noise as a direct
result of the alternative. In accordance with many recent studies, this category
reflects that around a new airport or an airport which previously had very few
operations, the population newly exposed is likely to exhibit a high level of
annoyance to the new aircraft noise.
(3)
Residential population exposed to aircraft noise of 65 Ldn or greater. The 65 Ldn
indicates the population that is significantly affected by aircraft noise. This is the
FAA's mitigation threshold for determining compatibility of residential land use with
aircraft noise levels.
(4) Residential population newly exposed to aircraft noise of 65 Ldn or greater. Since
population that is newly exposed to aircraft noise has been shown to exhibit higher
annoyance than a population that has had a long term exposure, this measure
indicates a significantly affected population that will most likely need special action.
(5)
Residential population exposed to single -event aircraft noise of 80 SEL or greater.
The 80 SEL single -event noise contour is an indicator of where speech interference
and sleep disturbance are expected to occur. The 80 SEL single -event contour is
thus a good indicator of where single -event disturbance is likely to result in
annoyance from aircraft operations for a segment of the population.
Noise Contour Analysis
Noise contour maps for the 55 and 65 Ldn, and 80 SEL, were generated for each of the
airport alternatives using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model. The contours are based upon
2020 operational assumptions. Noise contour maps for sixteen of the airport development
alternatives are presented in Working Paper 12A (see Appendix 1). These exhibits present
the noise contours for the highest operational assumptions for one, two and three runway
scenarios for each airport site.
The aircraft assumed to be operating into the 21st century are expected to generate similar
noise levels to those of the quietest of the new generation aircraft that are being built today.
The contour analysis assumes that by 2020 the entire air carrier fleet would be composed
of Stage III aircraft, such as the MD80, MD90, B737 -300, B757, B767, MD 11, B747 -400 as
well as other new generation aircraft. (Stage III refers to the quietest category of aircraft
as currently defined by the FAA Federal Aircraft Regulation 36 which regulates the noise
levels generated by jet aircraft. FAA certification of Stage III aircraft is based on engine
weight and noise). Given the 25 to 30 year life span for commercial aircraft, these aircraft
would be expected to still be in service by 2020. Although Stage III aircraft are significantly
quieter than many in the current fleet of aircraft, such as the B727, they still generate
noticeable noise levels. New aircraft currently under development utilize technology that
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -5 Noise
is expected to result in noise levels similar to the Stage III generation of quieter aircraft.
Any substantial future reductions in aircraft noise would require new developments in
engine technology or noise control and therefore are not anticipated by this study.
Single -event noise contours for aircraft types and procedures expected to be in operation
in2020 were also generated and mapped (see maps in Appendix 1). 'The departure noise
levels- were-used because departure noise represents the highest single -event noise level. The
aircraft selected to represent the—single-event noise level was the McDonnell- Douglas-MD82.
This aircraft is typical of the MD80 fleet, and is expected to be the loudest aircraft in
operation through the early part of the 21st century. The associated contour maps present
a composite of the single -event noise levels to all of these primary flight tracks and are
intended to reflect typical single -event noise levels in different communities.
Population Impact Analysis
The noise contour analysis was used to determine the population that would be exposed to
certain noise levels. The analysis is based upon the projected year 2000 populationleNels
The year 2000 was selected on the assumption that protective land use zoning would be
initiated by the appropriate land use decision- making authorities by that date. At that time,
proposed development could be restricted or regulated in order to promote noise and land
use compatibility between the airport and the surrounding area. The year 2020 projected
population data were not used because any new airport development would be expected to
include land use restrictions that would alter the population development around the airport.
Population data were obtained from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which
maintains a population data base by travel analysis zones (TAZs). Within the 4- county
region there are 546 TAZs; these are similar in size to census tracts and thus tend to be
smaller in urbanized areas and larger in rural areas. TAZ maps and the noise contour maps
were overlaid. The percentage area of each TAZ covered by a given contour was calculated
and multiplied by the population in the TAZ to obtain the proportionate population within
the noise contour. These proportionate population figures were then summed to obtain the
total population within each contour (see Appendix 1 for further explanation).
The VISION 2020 projected population data indicate that people will be living around
nearly all of the airport sites. The-most densely populated areas are expected -to be around
Sea -Tac and Paine Field_ Airports. = The least densely populated area would -be around' ?
Olympia /-Black_Lake_and Arlington._. Also, no private homes are located to the south of the
McChord and Fort Lewis sites because that area is part of the Fort Lewis Army Base.
3.1.2.1 Preferred Alternative
The results of the noise analysis for all the system alternatives considered are summarized
on Tables 3, 4, and 5 (see also Working Paper 12A, Tables 12 -1, 12 -3 and 12 -4 reproduced
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -6 Noise
Table 3. Population Range by Category Within 2020 Noise Contours.
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL
POPULATION YPOPULATION YPOPULATION
EX OSEDTO EX OSEDTO (1 B STS
55 LDN (000)* 55 LDN (000)* 65 LDN (000)* 65 LDN (000)* 80 SEL (000)*
EXISTING SEA -TAC AIRPORT SYSTEM
Existing Sea -Tac with maximum demand 112-119
management
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT SYSTEM
7
91-94 2**
Replacement 19-62 19-62 0.3-2.8 0.3-2.8 49-55 1
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac + Supp (1 Rwy) 116-135 0-23 7.1-8.2 0-1.2 115-143 6**
Existing Sea -Tac + Supp (2 Rwy) 117-138 0-26 7.1-8.3 0-1.3 125-153 7
Sea -Tac with new AC Rwy + Supp (1 Rwy) 133-141 0-7 13-13.5 0-0.5 128-160 9
(Mitigated Sea -Tac with New AC Rwy + (127-135) (0-7) (8-8.5) (0-0.5) (118-150) 3
Supp (1 Rwy))
Sea -Tac with new AC Rwy + Supp (2 Rwy) 133-141 0-8 13-13.5 0-1 138-167 10
(Mitigated Sea -Tac with New AC Rwy + (127-135) (0-8) (8-8.5) (0-1) (128-157) 4
Supp (2 Rwy))
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac + 2 Supp (1 Rwy) 121-132 9-20 7.1-7.9 0.1-0.9 139-175 8
Sea -Tac with new AC Rwy + 2 Supp (1 132-137 4-11. 12.6-13.1 0.1-0.6 153-189 11
Rwy) (128-133) (4-11) (8.1-8.6) (0.1-0.6) (143-149) 5
(Mitigated Sea -Tac with New AC Rwy + 2
Supp (1 Rwy))
* Population estimates based on 2000 population projection
** Denotes system alternatives that include Airport Development Alternatives that do not meet System Capacity Demands
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS 3-7 Noise
1. aVll, T. JILL, Vl 1-11-/ 11 11 Vf3L, N.,,V11LVLL1J `Jl11.1a1.. 1v111LJJ).
SEA -TAC SEA -TAC NORTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH
ALT AIRPORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AIRPORT AIRPORT AIRPORTS AIRPORTS AIRPORTS AIRPORTS
55 LDN 65 LDN 55 LDN 65 LDN 55 LDN 65 LDN
1 *Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 30.9 5.1
2 *Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 32.7 5.5
3 *Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 12.8 1.8
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 14.6. 2
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 15.7 2.2
6 *Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 12.8 1.8
7 *Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 12.8 1.8
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 17.6 2.3
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 15.1 2.3
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 15.8 2.3
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 17.6 2.4
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 17.6 2.3
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 38.3 7.1 5.5 0.7
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W 38.2 7.1 5.5 0.8
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 38.3 7.1 6.7 1
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W 38.2 7.1 5.5 0.7
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 38.3 7.1 5.5 0.7
18. Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 38.3 7.1 6.9 0.8
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 38.2 7.1 6 1
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 38.3 7.1 7 1.1
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 38.2 7.1 6.9 0.9
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 2 R/W 38.3 7.1 7 0.8
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 8.2 1.1 9.3 1.3
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 8.6 1.2 8.7 1.2
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 9.1 1.2 8.2 1.1
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 9.7 1.3 7.7 1
27 Alternate 13 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 36.9 6.8 4.3 0.6 5.5 0.7
28 Alternate 14 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 36.2 6.6 5.5 0.8 5.5 0.7
29 Alternate 13 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 38.1 7.1 4.3 0.6 3.3 0.5
30 Alternate 14 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 37.4 6.9 5.5 0.8 3.3 0.5
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W • 59.2 8.5
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W 59.4 8.6
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W 59.2 8.5
34 *Alternate 1 + Demand Management 30.9 5.1
Alternative which does not meet system capacity demand.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS 3-8 Noise
Table 5. Population Summaries Within 2020 Noise Contours.
TOTAL
ALT AIRPORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES POPULATION
55 LDN (000) *
POPULATION
NEWLY
EXPOSED TO
55 LDN (000)*
TOTAL
POPULATION
65 LDN (000)*
POPULATION
NEWLY
EXPOSED TO
65 LDN (000)*
TOTAL
POPULATION
80 SEL (000)*
1 **Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 112 7.0 91
2 **Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 119 7.0 94
3 **Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 123 11 7.7 0.7 116
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 135 23 8.2 1.2 143
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 135 7.8 138
6 **Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 123 11 7.5 0.5 123
7 **Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 116 4 7.1 0.1 115
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 127 15 7.5 0.5 127
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W 138 26 8.3 1.3 153
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 135 7.8 147
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 127 15 7.5 0.5 135
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W 117 5 . 7.1 0.1 125
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 135 4 13.1 0.1 129
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W 138 7 13.1 0.1 160
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 141 13.1 152
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W 135 4 13.5 0.5 137
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 133 2 13.0 128
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 136 5 13.0 140
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 139 8 13.1 0.1 167
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 141 13.1 161
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 136 5 13.5 0.5 149
22 - Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 2 R/W 133 2 13.0 138
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 125 13 7.9 0.9 148
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 132 20 7.6 0.6 175
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 121 9 7.5 0.5 139
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 127 15 7.1 0.1 167
27 Alternate 13 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 133 7 12.6 0.6 162
28 Alternate 14 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 137 11 12.6 0.6 189
29 Alternate 13 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 132 4 13.1 0.1 153
30 Alternate 14 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 136 8 13.1 0.1 180
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W 53 53 2.8 2.8 55
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W 19 19 0.3 0.3 49
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W 62 62 1.3 1.3 52
34 **Alternate 1 + Demand Management 112 7.0 91
* Population estimates based on 2000 population projection
** Denotes system alternatives that include Airport Development Alternatives that do not meet System Capacity Demands
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3-9 Noise
in Appendix 1). These tables show both the range of total population exposed to each of
the noise level metrics and the areas within the Ldn noise contours. The preferred
alternative is represented under "Three Airport Systems" at the bottom of Table 3 as
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY + 2 SUPP(1 RWY). The first line of data for this alternative
presents the worst case population noise exposure estimates. A "mitigated" version of this
alternative is also presented (beneath it in parentheses) which incorporates demand
management and restricted use of the new dependent runway to less noise - sensitive time
periods for arrival traffic only.
Based on these data, the following conclusions may be drawn regarding the potential
population noise exposure impacts:
The analysis of noise impacts must be based on an understanding of what is predicted for
noise exposure in the next ten years. For example, at Sea -Tac, noise will be significantly
reduced over current levels due to the Sea -T'ac Noise Budget and nighttime Stage II restric-
tions. These programs, and the national noise policy, require the airlines to replace Stage
II aircraft with the quieter Stage III. Improvements to the noise environment around Sea -
Tac will continue into the 21st Century as the airline fleets further modernize with the
quietest Stage III equVpment. Therefore, the most significant conclusion of the noise
analysis is that the future noise environinent for all -of the system alternatives_represents a 1)
significant-improvemeht over that which exists around Sea -Tac today_ _The aircraft forecast
td-lie operating in 2020 are significantly quieter, resulting in reductions in both the overall
Ldn noise levels and the single -event SEL levels. For example, under the preferred alter-
native without demand management mitigation, the area within Sea -Tac's 65 Ldn noise
contour in 2020 would be between 6.6 and 6.9 square miles. The 65 Ldn contour area for
the north airport at Paine Field would be 0.8 square miles, and from 0.5 to 0.7 square miles
for the south airport. The total population exposed to 65 Ldn noise level would be 12,600
to 13,100 without mitigation, and 8,100 to 8,600 people with mitigated runway use and
demand management mitigation, including a population newly exposed to 65 Ldn noise level
of approximately 100 to 600 residents.
No increase of capacity at Sea -Tac would result in more significant growth and noise at the
supplemental airport sites. With restricted use of a new dependent runway at Sea -Tac, a
multiple airport system would be more favorable from an overall noise management
perspective than a multiple airport system without improvements to Sea -Tac. This is
because the preferred alternative reflects a balance of some growth at Sea -Tac with limited
growth at supplemental airport sites.
3.1.2.2 Secondary Alternatives
Based on population exposure to significant noise levels greater than 65 Ldn, none of the
secondary alternatives (No. 23, 25,8, 24, 18, or 21) is markedly superior to the preferred
alternative .with- restricted use mitigation.) The range of the total population experiencing
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -10 Noise
65 Ldn noise levels under the secondary alternatives is estimated at between 7,500 and 8,500
residents (see Tables 3, 4, and 5; also see Working Paper 12A, Tables 12 -3, 12 -4, A -3, A -4
and A -5). While these noise levels are a significant improvement over the aircraft noise
levels that exist in Seattle today, it may be expected that some level of adverse community
response to aircraft noise would still be experienced_ with _any_of_the_alternatives_` The
�
-,secondary alternatives would result in similar_populations- newly exposed -to 65-Ldn asthe
preferred alternative-
3.1.2.3 Other Alternatives
Based on the estimated population subjected to noise impacts, the only markedly different
alternatives are the replacement airports. Of all the alternatives evaluated, the replacement
airport in Central Pierce (No. 31) would affect the greatest population, while the Olympia/
Black Lake replacement would affect the least. The low population impacts of the Olym-
pia/Black Lake (No. 32) and the Central Pierce /Fort Lewis (No. 33) replacement airports
are due to the location of these alternatives outside of existing urban development areas.
3.1.2.4 No- Action Alternative
By the end of the 1990's, the new Federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 will result
in reductions in noise over the next ten years as older, noisier aircraft are phased out of
service. This will occur at Sea -Tac at a faster rate due to the noise budget and nighttime
Stage II aircraft prohibitions. Assuming that the noise restrictions contained in the new law
would be in effect, the no- action alternative at Sea -Tac results in a 65 Ldn contour area of
5.1 square miles. Working Paper 12A, Table 12 -4 shows an estimated population of
approximately 7,000 within the 2020 noise contours. A more detailed 1990 census block
analysis of the neighborhoods immediately surrounding Sea -Tac conducted for the FAR Part
150 Update, estimated a resident population of 9,155 within the 1990 existing 75 Ldn noise
contour of 5.09 square miles. Thus, the actual population noise exposure of the no- action
alternative would be dependant on land use changes in the immediate vicinity surrounding
Sea -Tac.
3.1.3 Mitigation Measures
A number of additional mitigation measures could be designed to minimize the potential
noise impacts of airport development. However, the most effective noise control measures
are those which are tailored to the wishes and needs of the local communities and generally
are accomplished through a process such as the FAA's Part 150 program. Any adopted
airport system recommendation would include a noise mitigation planning process that
includes the communities', airport operators' and airlines' input.
The following is a brief list of a number of noise abatement measures that should be
considered for minimizing the noise impacts around each of the airports.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -11 Noise
• Preferential Runway Use
• Preferential Runway Direction
• Flight Track Modifications
• Special Nighttime Procedures
• Nighttime Operational Restrictions
• Aircraft Use Restrictions
• Noise Abatement Arrival and Departure Procedures
• Nighttime Ground Noise Control Measures
For example, the potential noise impacts from construction of the dependent runway at
Sea -Tac could be minimized for the long term by explicitly restricting the use of that runway
for arrivals only during less noise - sensitive time periods through a noise abatement policy.
When noise mitigation measures are included, alternative airport systems that include
Sea -Tac with a new dependent runway, would lessen the noise exposure impacts estimated.
Additional mitigation measures, such as those listed above, were not included in the noise
impact analysis for the programmatic EIS because of the complexity in applying mitigation
to a large number of new airport sites with varying layouts and operational levels. Also,
many of the potential mitigation measures restrict the operational characteristics of an
airport and it was necessary to first analyze the potential noise impacts without constraints
to the operations. Thus, unless explicitly stated otherwise, the noise exposure analysis
presents operationally comparable worst case estimates.
The noise impacts of the McChord or Fort Lewis alternatives could be reduced through a
preferential runway program that maximizes the amount of time the operations are in south
flow, as there is very little development south of these airport sites. The noise impacts at
the remaining supplemental airport sites could be minimized through the restriction of night -
,time operations, especially in a multiple airport system with Sea -Tac as the primary airport.
However, under the existing laws, it is very difficult to implement new restrictions on Stage
III aiAr:aft and ittimay= the'reforelieimp'ossiblelo- legully_iiestrict nighttime7op.erati°ons_iri_th'e
fi lturte.
The potential for mitigating the noise impacts for the supplemental airport sites was
analyzed for a number of sample alternatives. Although it was not feasible to analyze all
of the alternatives, the preliminary results from analyzing sample alternatives show that the
rpotential noise _impacts at the supplemental sites themselves ;could beredu ced by
approximately" 10% through mitigation measures. ?
It is recommended that noise control measures be included in the planning process as part
of any implementation plan. Once a system alternative, airport sites, and layouts are
determined, specific mitigation measures can be presented. For any alternative, a site -
specific EIS would require a thorough discussion of mitigation.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -12 ' Noise
Operational Management
The operational assumptions for a dependent runway at Sea -Tac include arrivals, departures
and nighttime operations. Should these assumptions be changed to arrivals only, as might
occur with anticipated use primarily during low- visibility weather conditions` arid = during less;`
noise = sensitive_ time periods,= then the noise impacts would be lessened considerably.
Operational effects of side -step maneuvering
An example of an operational mitigation procedure for restricted use of the dependent
runway utilizing a side -step maneuver, is described below. The noise effects of this
mitigation measure have been modeled and a noise contour map showing the results has
been included as an exhibit in Appendix 1 (see Map 37.4). The results of implementing a
side -step maneuver would narrow the noise contours on the western margin of Sea -Tac such
that the 2020 55 Ldn noise contour would closely approximate the existing 1990 65 Ldn
noise level.
The following technical description outlines the concept of a side -step maneuver employed
as part of the mitigation for restricted dependent runway operation, which would involve the
use of a new runway utilized only during less noise - sensitive hours by commuter aircraft and
air carrier aircraft. A side -step maneuver is an FAA authorized approach procedure in
which an aircraft is using the runway approach to a runway that is parallel to the runway
on which it will land. Pilots would commence the side -step maneuver as soon as the runway
was in sight.
For the noise model, aircraft were assumed to commence the side -step maneuver at four
nautical miles from the approach end of the landing runway at an altitude of 1,100 feet
above ground level (AGL) and conclude the maneuver at 1.6 nautical miles from the
approach end of the landing runway at an altitude of 500 feet AGL utilizing a twenty degree
heading change. A minor increase in engine thrust due to aircraft maneuvering required
by this procedure was also considered in the noise contour modeling.
Since the side -step maneuver is a visual procedure, higher landing weather minimums are
required. Considering the prevailing meteorological conditions of the Seattle area, this
procedure was modeled to be available and used by 20% of daytime air carrier arrivals. At
this level of analysis, the 4 -Post procedure was not modified, nor has the FAA had the time
to establish feasible operational procedures since this alternative surfaced so late in the
project.
3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Any of the airport system alternatives, including the no- action alternative, increase aircraft
noise impacts. However, under the preferred alternative, or any of the secondary alterna-
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -13 Noise
tives, the highest estimated population experiencing 65 Ldn in the year 2020 would be less
than the existing 1990 population experiencing noise exposure of 75 Ldn. This is a result
of the tremendous reduction in cumulative noise impacts at Sea -Tac from a 100% Stage III
aircraft fleet. It should be noted that additional cumulative and single -event noise will occur
at the supplemental airports.
3.2 AIR QUALITY
Introduction
The air quality section addresses potential impacts to air quality resulting from aircraft air
pollutant emissions and from airport- related vehicular air pollutant emissions. Other air
pollutants attributable to airport operations (such as fueling and boiler room operations in
airport buildings and other sources) comprise approximately 0.1% of total air pollutant
emissions and were not considered critical for this level of analysis. Aircraft and vehicular
traffic air pollutant levels were used to compare the impacts of each system alternative on
regional air quality.
Issues
Based on the Washington State Clean Air Act of 1991, the PSRC region, which includes
Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties, is currently in non - attainment (not meeting the appli-
cable state standards) for CO and ozone emissions (See Section 3.2.2 for a discussion of
these pollutants). Additionally, portions of Seattle, the Tacoma tide flats and the City of
Kent are in non - attainment for particulate matter. As a result, a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) required under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1977, is being developed by the Washing-
ton State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to bring the region into compliance with state
standards. The plan will detail how to meet the attainment goals for CO, ozone and parti-
culate matter and is expected to be completed in November 1992.
Under the new Washington State Clean Air Act, transportation projects will have to meet
the test of "conformity," meaning, they will have to conform with SIP standards within a
specific time period. Conformity could affect transportation projects within a non -
attainment area (due to potential impacts on air quality in an area that is not meeting
current standards) and will be subject to close scrutiny (O'Sullivan, personal communication
1991). Ecology has not yet developed the criteria to make conformity determinations.
Methodology
A description of the methodology used for determining aircraft and vehicular emissions is
presented in Working Paper No. 9.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3 -14 Air Quality
3.2.1 Affected Environment
Existing Air Quality
Three agencies have air quality jurisdiction in the Puget Sound region: the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington State Department of Ecology and the
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). Each agency has established its own
standards. Unless the state or local agency has adopted a more stringent standard, the EPA
standards apply.
Ecology and PSAPCA maintain a network of monitoring stations throughout the Puget
Sound area. In general, these stations are located where agencies believe there might be
an air quality problem. Other stations are located in more remote areas to measure
regional or background air pollution levels. These stations measure total suspended
particles (TSP), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, lead, and ozone. Of these
substances, carbon monoxide is predominantly generated by transportation sources.
Of the 6 criteria pollutants discussed below, the Puget Sound Region is in attainment with
three of them: Sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. A downward trend in the
ambient concentration of air pollutants generated by motor vehicles, especially carbon
monoxide, has been observed in the Puget Sound area over the past decade. The
replacement of older vehicles with newer cleaner ones, and vehicles meeting the
requirements of the Inspection and Maintenance (I /M) program have been the major
factors for reducing the carbon monoxide emissions. Carbon monoxide emissions have been
reduced by 13% in Seattle due to the I/M program.
Current aircraft operations at Sea -Tac Airport are a major source of air pollutant emissions
in the local area. Based on a Department of Ecology emissions inventory (May 1991), Sea -
Tac Airport contributes approximately 8% of the carbon monoxide and 5% of the nitrogen
oxide emissions in King County.
Criteria Pollutants and Health Effects
The nature of pollutants emitted from airports is the same as those emitted from other
transportation sources. Carbon monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides (SOX and NOX), and
unburned hydrocarbons are common pollutants emitted from the combustion processes. Six
criteria pollutants regulated by federal standards are ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate
and nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and hydrocarbons. These pollutants are described
below.
Ozone (03) is a colorless gas resulting from the reaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. Although ozone is the air contaminant for which
standards are set, its precursors, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, are the pollutants which
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3 -15 Air Quality
must be controlled. Ozone results in eye irritation, damage to lung tissues, and reduced
resistance to colds and pneumonia. It also aggravates heart disease, asthma, bronchitis and
emphysema.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion
of carbon - containing substances. The highest ambient concentrations of CO occur near
congested roadways and intersections during periods of low temperatures, light winds, and
stable atmospheric conditions. CO, which has been shown to interfere with oxygen transport
in the blood, produces cardiovascular disease, and decreases visual perception. CO has also
been associated with lower birth weight and increased death of infants in highly polluted
areas.
Particulate matter is classified as Total Suspended Particles (TSP) and the inhalable
subgroup of TSP, which is comprised of particles 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10).
Suspended particles aggravate chronic disease and heart and lung disease symptoms and
often transport toxic elements such as lead, arsenic, nickel, vinyl chloride, asbestos and
benzene compounds which then enter respiratory, digestive, and lymphatic systems.
Hydrocarbons result from the release of unburned fuel or incomplete combustion of fuel.
Hydrocarbons can be gases or particulate. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are gaseous
hydrocarbons which can react with oxidizing pollutants in the atmosphere to produce
photochemical smog. VOC are also precursors of ozone. Hydrocarbon particulate of
concern to human health are those with diameters ranging from 0.1 to 3 microns. Parti-
culates of this size can enter the small passageways in the lungs and deposit there.
Sulfur dioxide (S02) is a nonflammable, non- explosive, colorless gas. It reacts in the
atmosphere to form sulfur trioxides (S03) and sulfuric acid. SO2 and sulfuric acid have been
shown to produce asthma which decreases human respiratory functions both at the acute and
chronic levels. These air pollutants are commonly grouped as sulfur oxides (SOX).
Nitrogen oxides (NOX), which include nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
result from the high temperature oxidation of nitrogen in the present in the air. In the
presence of moisture, NO can form particulate by coalescing, reducing visibility and
contributing to acid deposition. NO2, like sulfur dioxide, is also a bronchoconstrictor that
can cause irritation and injury to the lungs. Nitrogen oxides are more a factor in the
generation of secondary pollutants such as ozone.
3.2.2 Significant Impacts
Aircraft Emissions
Aircraft engines emit CO, hydrocarbons, NOX, SOX, and particulates as by- products of the
combustion process. More CO and hydrocarbons are produced at low engine power settings
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3 -16 Air Quality
such as idling, or at start -up because of incomplete combustion. The amount of NOX
produces during start -up is small compared to that produced during takeoff. SO2 is a result
of the oxidation of sulfur compounds in aircraft fuel. Aircraft fuel is highly refined and
contains only about 0.1% sulfur. Particulate matter emitted from aircraft engines,
particularly turbine engines, is extremely small in diameter ranging between 0.04 and 0.12
microns.
Of all the alternatives which meet the system capacity demand, the difference between the
alternatives -- in terms of aircraft emissions -- is the amount of aircraft delays that may
occur under each scenario. Idling time for aircraft increases as delays increase; this can
significantly affect the daily tonnage of aircraft emissions.
Vehicle Emissions
Vehicle emissions are related to vehicle miles travelled and are a function of airport loca-
tion and passenger volume.
3.2.2.1 Preferred Alternative
Aircraft Emissions
Based on 2020 projections, under the preferred alternative, aircraft emissions would be the
lower of the three - airport system alternatives (Alternatives 28 and 30). This is a result of
lower overall and average operational delays at Sea -Tac due to the addition of a new
dependent runway. Total projected aircraft emissions are presented in Table 6.
Vehicular Emissions
Generally, vehicle emissions would be somewhat greater for the preferred alternative when
compared with other three - airport options. Alternative No. 29 would have the highest
overall vehicle emissions. Total projected vehicular emissions are presented in Table 6.
3.2.2.2 Secondary Alternatives
Aircraft Emissions
Under the secondary alternatives, aircraft emissions would exceed emissions projected under
the Preferred Alternative. Three of the secondary alternatives (See Section 2.2) are three -
airport systems that incorporate existing Sea -Tac without a new dependent runway. More
delays are expected under these alternatives . and consequently, more emissions. The
remaining secondary alternatives (two of which incorporate a new dependent runway at Sea -
Tac) are two airport systems which would have less efficient operations (as opposed to a
three - airport system) increasing both aircraft emissions.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3 -17 Air Quality
Table 6. Emissions Comparison for Each System Alternative.
TRAFFIC EMISSIONS
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS TOTAL EMISSIONS
CO NOX CO NOX CO NOX
(tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day)
RANKING
SEA -TAC AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac with maximum 26-37 4.2-5.9 9-10 3.6-3.9 36-46 7.8-9.5 3*
demand management
Sea -Tac with new commuter runway 10 1.9 20 7.7 30 9.6 3*
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT SYSTEM
Replacement airport 68-78 . 10.9-12.4 7 4.6 76-85 15.5-17.0 4
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac + Supp(1 rwy) 20-35 3.2-5.6 10-12 4.7 30-47 7.9-10.2 2*
Existing Sea Tac + Supp(2 r =.1) 20-38 32-6.0 11 4.7 30-48 n 10 o
✓v �v i.i-iu.0 c.
Sea -Tac with new AC rwy + 22-27 3.6-4.3 10-11 4.7-4.8 33-38 8.3-9.1 3
Supp(1 rwy)
Sea -Tac with new AC rwy + 22-27 3.6-4.3 10-11 4.7 33-38 8.3-9.1 4
Supp(2 rwy)
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac + 2 Supp(1 rwy) 18-26 2.9-4.1 10-11 4.7-4.8 29-36 7.7-8.9 2
Sea -Tac with new Air Carrier rwy + 21-25 3.3-3.9 9-10 4.5-4.7 28-35 7.8-8.6 1
2 Supp(1 rwy)
Not meeting system capacity demand
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS 3-18 Air Quality
Vehicle Emissions
Alternative No. 8 would have the overall lowest vehicle emissions of the secondary
alternatives. This is a result of lower anticipated passenger demand. Alternatives 23, 24, and
25 would result in slightly higher overall vehicle emissions due to passenger allocation and
travel distance. Alternatives 18 and 21 would have the highest overall emissions due mainly
to passenger allocation.
3.2.2.3 Other Alternatives
The results of the air quality analysis are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. This table presents
an emission inventory of selected pollutants for each of the system alternatives. These data
are presented for CO emissions relating to vehicular traffic associated with airport access
and the NOX emissions relating to aircraft operations. The CO emissions indicate the
impacts from vehicular traffic because, in the Puget Sound area, these are primarily the
result of vehicular traffic. The NOX emissions are used to indicate the impacts from
aircraft operations because aircraft operations mainly contribute to the secondary pollutants
in the area of which NOX is an important factor.
Aircraft Emissions
Generally, aircraft emissions are similar for all alternatives. This would be expected in that
the alternatives are based on the same levels of aircraft activity. The exception is that the
emissions are less for those alternatives that do not meet system capacity demand for 2020
(Alternatives 1,2,3,6,7 and 34).
All other airport options that meet system capacity demand would experience the greatest
delay and aircraft emissions. Those alternatives that do not meet projected demand would
result in somewhat fewer aircraft emissions.
Vehicle Emissions
Projections show that vehicular emissions are comparable. The least amount of emission
would be generated by the two- airport and three - airport systems. In general, these systems
have the advantage of location. Since passengers are located closer to more airports,
shorter average auto trip lengths are anticipated. Options such as Paine Field and McChord
are located closer to major population areas and would result in fewer vehicle automotive
emission impacts than options such as Arlington or Olympia /Black Lake which are located
further from major population areas.
Vehicle emissions are tied to passenger allocation. More passengers will utilize the Paine
Field or Central Pierce airports over the Arlington or Olympia /Black Lake airports.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3 -19 Air Quality
Table 7. Aircraft Emissions (Year 2020).
ALT AIRPORT
CO NOx SOx PART HC
(tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day)
1 *Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 9.4 3.6 0.3 0.1 2.8
2 *Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 9.8 3.9 0.4 0.1 2.9
3 *Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 11.8 4.7 0.4 0.2 3.5
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 10.4 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.0
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 10.4 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.0
6 *Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 11.8 4.7 0.4 0.2 3.5
7 *Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 11.8 4.7 0.4 0.2 3.5
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 10.5 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W 10.3 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.0
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 10.3 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.0
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 10.5 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W 10.5 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 10.8 4.8 0.4 0.1 3.2
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W 10.3 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.0
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 10.6 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W 10.5 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 10.6 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 10.6 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 10.3 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.0
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 10.6 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 10.5 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 2 R/W 10.6 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 10.6 4.8 0.4 0.1 3.1
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 10.4 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 10.6 4.8 0.4 0.1 3.1
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 10.4 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.1
27 Alternate 13 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 8.3 4.6 0.4 0.1 2.4
28 Alternate 14 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 7.6 4.5 0.4 0.1 2.2
29 Alternate 13 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 10.2 4.7 0.4 0.1 3.0
30 Alternate 14 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 9.0 4.6 0.4 0.1 2.7
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W 7.3 4.6_ 0.4 0.1 2.1
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W 7.3 4.6 0.4 0.1 2.1
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W 7.4 4.6 0.4 0.1 2.2
34 *Alternate 1 + Demand Management 9.4 3.6 0.3 0.1 2.8
Alternative which does not meet system capacity demand.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS 3-20 Air Quality
-
Table 8. Vehicular Traffic Emissions (Year 2020).
ALT AIRPORT
CO NOx SOx PART HC
(tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day)
1 *Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 26.2 4.2 0.5 0.6 4.6
2 *Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 28.7 4.6 0.6 0.6 5.0
3 *Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 27.2 4.4 0.5 0.6 4.8
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 19.8 3.2 0.4 0.4 3.5
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 27.2 4.3 0.5 0.6 4.8
6 *Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 26.8 4.3 0.5 0.6 4.7
7 *Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 34.9 5.6 0.7 0.8 6.1
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 28.3 4.5 0.6 0.6 5.0
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W 19.8 3.2 0.4 0.4 3.5
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 27.2 4.3 0.5 0.6 4.8
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 28.5 4.6 0.6 0.6 5.0
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W 37.7 6.0 0.7 0.8 6.6
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 23.6 3.8 0.5 0.5 4.1
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W 22.3 3.6 0.4 0.5 3.9
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 24.6 3.9 0.5 0.5 4.3
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W 24.6 3.9 0.5 0.5 4.3
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 27.1 4.3 0.5 0.6 4.8
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 23.6 3.8 0.5 0.5 4.1
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 22.3 3.6 0.4 0.5 3.9
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 24.4 3.9 0.5 0.5 4.3
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 24.6 3.9 0.5 0.5 4.3
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 2 R/W 27.1 4.3 0.5 0.6 4.8
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 21.6 3.4 0.4 0.5 3.8
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 18.3 2.9 0.4 0.4 3.2
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 25.7 4.1 0.5 0.6 4.5
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 21.7 3.5 0.4 0.5 3.8
27 Alternate 13 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 22.1 3.5 0.4 0.5 3.9
28 Alternate 14 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 20.7 3.3 0.4 0.5 3.6
29 Alternate 13 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 24.5 3.9 0.5 0.5 4.3
30 Alternate 14 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 22.8 3.6 0.4 0.5 4.0
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W 68.3 10.9 1.3 1.5 12.0
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W 77.5 12.4 1.5 1.7 13.6
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W 68.3 10.9 1.3 1.5 12.0
34 *Alternate 1 + Demand Management 36.7 5.9 0.7 0.8 6.4
* Alternative which does not meet system capacity demand.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS 3-21 Air Quality
Consequently, under several alternatives, total vehicle emissions would actually be greater
even though individual travel distance is less when compared to other alternatives.
Replacement- airport alternatives would generate the highest vehicle emissions because the
average trip length to these airports is much longer when compared with the other airport
alternatives. For example, the average trip length to Sea -Tac is 24 miles, while the average
trip length to Central Pierce and Olympia Black Lake is 45 and 52 miles, respectively.
Overall vehicle emissions are comparable to both the preferred alternative and to the
secondary alternatives.
3.2.2.4 No- Action Alternative
Total combined vehicular and aircraft emissions under this alternative are equal to those
under Alternative No. 34 (Sea -Tac with Demand Management). These alternatives have
the lowest overall air pollutant emissions of all the alternatives.
Total Combined Airport Emissions
Table 9 presents the total airport emissions levels from both aircraft and motor vehicles.
Of all the alternatives which would meet: system capacity demand, the three - airport
alternatives 27, 28, 29 and 30, and the two - airport alternatives 4, 8, and 9 would generate
the least combined emissions for CO and hydrocarbons. The major contributions of the
total emissions for these alternatives are aircraft emissions for CO.
The replacement- airport alternatives generate the highest combined emissions, due primarily
to long travel distances to the airport locations.
A preliminary analysis has determined that the projected emissions are consistent with the
VISION 2020 air quality estimates. VISION 2020 is based on the same level of aircraft
passenger demands.
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures
The most significant reductions in regional and local air pollutant emissions are attainable
through programs which reduce the vehicular travel associated with the project. Support
and compliance with the VISION 2020 plan is the most important measure to achieve this
goal. The plan includes the improvement of mass transit facilities, implementation of
vehicular usage reduction programs, and transportation demand management programs.
This plan will help reduce project trips by automobile and thus reduce overall traffic
congestion and total emissions.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3 -22 Air Quality
Table 9. Total Combined Aircraft and Vehicular Emissions (Year 2020).
ALT AIRPORT
CO NOx SOx PART HC
(tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day)
1 *Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 35.6 7.8 0.9 0.7 7.4
2 *Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 38.5 8.4 0.9 0.8 7.9
3 *Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 39.0 9.0 1.0 0.7 8.3
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 30.1 7.9 0.8 0.6 6.5
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 37.5 9.1 1.0 0.7 7.8
6 *Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 38.6 9.0 1.0 0.7 8.2
7 *Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 46.7 10.2 1.1 0.9 9.6
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 38.7 9.3 1.0 0.8 8.0
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W 30.1 7.9 0.8 0.6 6.5
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 37.5 9.1 1.0 0.7 7.8
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 39.0 9.3 1.0 0.8 8.1
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W 48.2 10.8 1.2 1.0 9.7
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 34.4 8.6 0.9 0.7 7.3
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W 32.7 8.3 0.9 0.6 7.0
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 35.2 8.7 0.9 0.7 7.4
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W 35.1 8.7 0.9 0.7 7.4
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 39.7 9.1 1.0 0.7 7.9
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 34.2 8.5 0.9 0.7 7.3
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 32.7 8.3 0.9 0.6 7.0
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 35.0 8.7 0.9 0.7 7.4
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 35.1 8.7 0.9 0.7 7.4
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 2 R/W 37.7 9.1 1.0 0.7 7.9
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 32.2 8.2 0.9 0.6 6.9
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 28.7 7.7 0.8 0.5 6.3
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 36.3 8.9 0.9 0.7 7.6
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./Blk. Lake 1 R/W 32.1 8.2 0.9 0.6 6.9
27 Alternate 13 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 30.4 8.1 0.8 0.6 6.3
28 Alternate 14 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 28.3 7.8 0.8 0.6 5.8
29 Alternate 13 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 34.8 8.6 0.9 0.7 7.3
30 Alternate 14 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 31.8 8.3 0.8 0.6 6.7
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W 75.7 15.5 1.7 1.6 14.1
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W 84.9 17.0 1.9 1.8 15.7
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W 75.7 15.5 1.8 1.6 14.1
34 *Alternate 1 + Demand Management 46.1 9.5 1.1 0.9 9.2
* Alternative which does not meet system capacity demand.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Proerammatic EIS
3-23 Air Oualitv
3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of any of the airport system alternatives will result in increased air pollutant
emissions and a decrease in overall air quality in the Puget Sound Region.
3.3 TRANSPORTATION
Introduction
The transportation section is derived from Working Papers Nos. 5 and 9, Ground
Access /Primary Market Analysis — Phase II Report, and the VISION 2020 Growth Strategy
and Transportation FEIS prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
Significant Issues
Because the Flight Plan Project is designed to provide air carrier service for the entire
Central Puget sound Region, it must be integrated into the present and future ground
transportation system to be an effective solution. Transportation problems are the
cumulative result of our region's rapid growth and their solution will pose a significant
challenge.
Under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), coordination between land
use planning and transportation planning is required. One of GMA's goals is to "encourage
efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and
coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans." Countywide and multicounty (for
King, Pierce and the Snohomish County area.) "growth policy plans" are required to address
regional and state transportation and siting needs; these are required by July of 1992.
Comprehensive plans are required by July 1993. These are to be coordinated at the
countywide level. Comprehensive plans are to include long range (at least six years) capital
facilities elements, and the provision of services "concurrent with development ".
Concurrency is defined as follows (GMA, Section 7(6)e):
"Concurrent with the development," shall mean that improvements or strategies are
in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to
complete the improvements or strategies within six years.
The Act also requires that "all transportation projects within the region that have an impact
upon regional facilities or services must be consistent with the plan" (GMA, Section 55(2)).
In addition, the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (specified in the GMA as
the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization(s), or the PSRC, for this
four - county region) must "Develop and adopt a Regional Transportation Plan that is
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -24 Transportation
consistent with county, city and town comprehensive plans and state transportation plans"
(Section 55(1)b).
3.3.1 Affected Environment
Congestion on the regional highway system has increased significantly in the past 30 years.
Many factors have contributed to this: much of the new housing and businesses have
located in the suburbs rather than in the central cities; growth patterns have become more
dispersed, creating even more dependence on the automobile; and the number of trips per
household has increased. Data from the State Department of Licensing shows that in 1988
there were 2,450,000 vehicles registered in the four - county region. This is an increase of
25% from 1980.
Primarily due to the geography of the region, especially the City of Seattle's, the region's
highway system was constructed to carry demand along north -south alignments. Addition-
ally, population and employment growth in the suburban and rural areas over the past two
decades has created a demand for travel on other major corridors and arterials in the
region. Although excess demand is a primary contributor to congestion, vehicular incidents,
accidents, or breakdowns are other key contributors to the problem.
Planned Improvements
In September, 1990, PSRC (formerly PSCOG) integrated the Regional Transportation Plan
(adopted in 1982) and the Regional Development Plan (adopted in 1979) into one plan
entitled VISION 2020. VISION 2020 will replace all existing regional transportation and
development plans and policies and will serve to guide transportation and related land use
decisions for the 1990 -2020 period.
Initially, 16 regional growth alternatives were defined under the plan. During the develop-
ment of these alternatives, concern was given to mobility, density, location of jobs and
housing, and related issues of resource management and quality of life. These alternatives
were refined to five Draft EIS transportation and land use alternatives. Following public
review, a sixth alternative (the preferred alternative) was developed.
Under the VISION 2020 Preferred Regional Growth Alternative, urbanization and new
employment growth would be concentrated into 10 to 15 urban centers located throughout
the Puget Sound Region. The centers are part of a regional design that includes a hierarchy
of central places. Areas that are not centers will be designated either as activity clusters,
small towns, pedestrian pockets, or identified as open space, resource preservation areas.
The emphasis is on creating centers that can be efficiently served by regional rapid transit
(rail, passenger ferries, or exclusive busways). The centers must either have or be
redesigned to have downtowns that can be served effectively by transit. Access to jobs by
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -25 Transportation
transit is emphasized. Higher- density residential development (apartments, townhouses,
condominiums, duplexes) is assumed and is encouraged to locate within walking distance of
regional rapid transit stations, ferry terminals or bus transfer centers that can provide transit
service to these major downtowns. In addition, connections between each center and its
surrounding neighborhoods are designed to promote walking, bicycling, and the use of
transit.
This alternative places a large share of transportation investments into rapid transit, buses,
high occupancy vehicle lanes, passenger ferries and associated stations, terminals and service
facilities. Also, it assures continued effort toward completing and maintaining the region's
extensive system of regional and local streets and highways. It also includes a major change
in local bus service in order to provide local service to each center from the surrounding
neighborhoods. In addition, support is given to major demand management programs that
encourage people to travel by transit or carpool, to adjust their travel time and avoid
congested periods, or to eliminate trips altogether. These strategies include extensive
ridesharing programs, providing preferential parking, transit pass fare subsidies, staggered
work schedules, and use of telecommunications substitutes. Other programs include
increased parking charges and charging for driving on congested roadways.
The VISION 2020 Preferred Alternative is related to Flight Plan in that it serves as a policy
guide for growth and transportation services— including airports —in the urban centers.
3.3.2 Significant Impacts
Accessibility to Airport Locations
An analysis of the accessibility of each system option to the residents of the Puget Sound
region was conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council staff (See working Paper No. 9)
to determine the relative time differences between the airport alternatives. A summary of
this analysis is given below.
Findings
• Most of the region's residents can currently reach Sea -Tac Airport in an hour or less
but worsening traffic will make access more difficult in the future.
• All replacement airport sites are much less accessible to the region's residents than
Sea -Tac Airport.
• Sea -Tac's central location makes it rnuch more accessible to the region's residents
than any of the other airport locations. This is true for trips made by automobile
and by transit. The other airport locations are less accessible because they are all
relatively distant from the region's population and employment centers.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -26 Transportation
• The multiple airport system offers best overall ground access for the region's
residents of any of the options considered with Sea -Tac and two supplemental
airports.
• Access is best where the supplemental airport is located near the population it will
serve. Selection of a more distant supplemental airports significantly reduces overall
system access.
In general, transportation impacts to the existing regional highway system will result
primarily from airport- related traffic and traffic generated by airport- induced development.
All of the airport options could increase local traffic congestion without improvements to
existing roads and transit systems. Estimated airport related traffic (in terms of annual and
daily passenger mileage) for the individual and system alternatives is presented below in
Table 10 and Table 11.
3.3.2.1 Preferred Alternative
Under this alternative, both annual passenger mileage and daily passenger mileage are
somewhat lower than other system alternatives. Alternative No. 28 (Sea -Tac plus Paine and
Central Pierce) has the lowest daily passenger mileage of the preferred alternative scenarios
with 1,536 miles (in thousands). Alternative No. 30 (Sea -Tac with dependent runway plus
Paine Field and Olympia /Black Lake) has a total daily passenger mileage of 1,689 miles.
Total daily passenger mileage under the preferred alternative options that include McChord
or Fort Lewis would be somewhat lower due to their proximity to urban centers.
3.3.2.2 Secondary Alternatives
The secondary three- airport system alternatives (Alternatives 23, 24, 25, Table 2) are
comparable to the preferred alternative in terms of overall daily and annual passenger mile-
age. Alternative No. 24 (Sea -Tac constrained with supplementary Paine Field or Central
Pierce site) would have the lowest overall daily passenger mileage (1,354 miles). Alternative
25 would have the highest overall daily passenger mileage (1,920 miles). Of the two - airport
secondary alternatives, Alternative No. 8 would have the highest daily passenger mileage
with 2,093 miles (a result of travel distance and passenger allocation).
3.3.2.3 Other Alternatives
Replacement- airport alternatives would have the highest overall annual and daily passenger
mileage (Alternatives 31 and 32, Table 11) due to extreme travel distances from major
population centers. Alternatives under the Sea -Tac constrained scenario would have
comparably higher overall passenger mileage as a result of greater passenger allocations.
Generally, overall regional congestion would be less due to the dispersed airport locations.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -27 Transportation
Table 10. Annual Passenger Mileage to Selected Airport Sites - 2020.
ALTERNATIVE
Passenger Mileage (Annual, in millions)
ALTERNATIVE SEA -TAC TOTAL
SITE
ONE AIRPORT SYSTEM
Sea -Tac, alone 708 708
Sea -Tac, with Commuter Runway 775 775
Sea -Tac with Maximum Demand Management 993 993
Replacement 1,847 -2,096 1,847 -2,096
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac plus Supplemental Airport 212 -489 323 -454 534 -943
(1 Runway)
Existing Sea -Tac plus Supplemental Airport 212 -579 323 -439 534 -1,019
(2 Runways)
Sea -Tac plus new Air Carrier Runway plus 37 -112 567 -620 604 -732
Supplemental Airport (1 Runway)
Sea -Tac plus new Air Carrier Runway plus 37 -112 567 -620 604 -732
Supplemental Airport (2 Runways)
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Existing Sea -Tac plus Supplemental Airports 182 -394 300 -317 494 -694
(1 Runway)
Sea -Tac plus New Air Carrier Runway plus 81 -88 473 -582 567 -664
Supplemental Airports (1 Runway)
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3 -28 Transportation
Table 11. Daily Passenger Mileage to Selected Airport Sites - 2020.
ALT NO. SITE
PASSENGER MILES (in thousands)
ALT.
AIRPORT
SEA -TAC TOTAL
A. Sea -Tac Constrained
1 Sea -Tac, alone 1,941 1,941
2 Sea -Tac, commuter runway 2,122 2,122
33 Sea -Tac, demand management 2,721 2,721
B. Sea -Tac Constrained (2 Airport Systems)
3 Arlington 1,000 1,014 2,014
4 Paine Field 580 884 1,464
5 McChord 809 1,204 2,013
6 Central Pierce 740 1,245 1,985
7 Olympia /Black Lake 1,339 1,245 2,584
C. Sea -Tac Constrained with 2 RWY Supplemental
Airport (2 Airport Systems)
8 Arlington 1,209 884 2,093
9 Paine Field 580 884 1,464
10 McChord 809 1,204 2,013
11 Central Pierce 908 1,204 2,112
12 Olympia /Black Lake 1,587. 1,204 2,791
D. Sea -Tac with New Dependent Runway (2 Airport
Systems)
13/18 Arlington 177 1,570 1,747
14/19 Paine Field 102 1,553 1,655
15/20 McChord 110 1,699 1,809
16/21 Central Pierce 137 1,686 1,823
- 17/22 Olympia /Black Lake 307 1,699 2,006
E. Sea -Tac Constrained (3 Airport Systems)
23 Arlington 403 869 1,596
Central Pierce 324
24 Paine Field 213 856 1,354
Central Pierce 285
25 Arlington 510 822 1,902
Olympia /Black Lake 570
26 Paine Field 260 845 1,610
Olympia /Black Lake 505
F. Sea -Tac with New Dependent Runway (3 Airport
Systems)
27 Arlington 85 1,412 1,634
Central Pierce 137
28 Paine Field 102 1,297 1,536
Central Pierce 137
29 Arlington 85 1,594 1,818
Olympia /Black Lake 139
30 Paine Field 102 1,448 1,689
Olympia /Black Lake 139
G. Replacement Airports
31 Central Pierce 5,060 5,060
32 Olympia /Black Lake 5,743 5,743
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS Page 3 -29
Transportation
3.3.2.4 No- Action Alternative
Under the no- action alternative, total passenger vehicle miles would be comparable to
Sea -Tac constrained with two- runway supplemental airport scenarios. Daily passenger
mileage would be 1,941 miles and annual passenger mileage (in millions) would 708 miles.
3.3.3 Mitigation Measures
3.3.3.1 Roadway Improvements
Regional
Based on VISION 2020, possible regional roadway improvements would include the addition
of lane capacity to regional arterials and freeways, new regional arterials and freeways, new
or revised interchanges, local street improvements, and other local and regional system
investments such as signalization and channelization.
Possible Site Vicinity Improvements
Possible actions related to highway improvements for each airport location are summarized
below. Detailed data on highway costs are provided in Working Paper No. 11.
Sea -Tac: Freeway improvements to Sea -Tac; widening along International Boulevard
(Pacific Highway South); freeway improvements to SR 518 and SR 509.
Paine Field: SR 526 (the Evergreen Speedway) would be widened, and there would be
a new interchange with SR 525. Independent widening of SR 525 is assumed.
McChord: Varied improvements under these options would include widening of
Interstate 5, new access from SR 512 and a revised interchange at SR 512 and Steele
Road. Independent widening of SR 512 is assumed.
Arlington Site: Depending upon the level of service, widening of Interstate 5, and either
enlarged capacity on 67th or on SR 530. Improved Freeway access connection. These
options assume independent improvements to 172nd (Edgecomb Road).
Central Pierce: Improvements would include widening of Interstate 5 and SR 161, and
a share in the costs of the cross -base freeway eastbound from Interstate -5. Access
improvements to 176th St. East (assumes widening of 176th St. E.).
Fort Lewis: New access would be required as no roads presently serve the area.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -30 Transportation
Olympia /Black Lake: Widening of Interstate 5, improved interchange with Interstate 5,
and access from Lathrop Road at new access road.
3.3.3.2 Rail and HCT
High Capacity Transit (HCT) and rail are other modes of transportation that may be used
to access airport locations. Generally, HCT and rail will reduce highway congestion and
lower travel times to the airports. HCT and rail can provide more reliable access to users
during poor weather conditions.
High Capacity Transit
High Capacity Transit planning was mandated in 1990 (HCT Act of 1990 and 1991, SHB
1825 and ESHB 2151, respectively). The 1990 Act created a Joint Regional Policy
Committee and empowered it to prepare and adopt a regional HCT implementation
program, including financing. These are to be consistent with the regional transportation
plan (RCW 81.104.040). The Act is consistent with the Growth Management Act and with
VISION 2020 through concurrency and consistency.
Regional plans and local comprehensive plans are to address the relationship between urban
growth and an effective HCT system plan and to provide cooperation with transit agencies.
Future airport needs and related development should be considered in the alignments of
HCT corridors, the locations of transit stations, local feeder service, and the provision of
remote baggage handling facilities (e.g., at the King Street Station site in Seattle for air
travelers residing north of Sea -Tac).
The 1990 Regional Transportation Plan (linked to the regionally adopted VISION 2020
growth strategy) will be amended to respond to the Flight Plan results:
"The Regional Air Carrier System Plan is being developed separately and will be amended
into the Growth Strategy and Transportation Plan upon completion. Any new airport and
its attendant impacts will be evaluated as part of that amendment process. The air carrier
plan will reflect the results of this regional plan update in any recommendations that are
made." (VISION 2020, Assumptions, Sec. 2 -1, September 1990).
Estimated capital and operating costs for HCT through 2020 range from $8.5 billion to $12
billion. The Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC) is required to prepare for the ballot
a plan and financing strategy. The target deadline is late 1992, and the effective statutory
deadline is 1995 (four years after completion of an interagency planning agreement between
the operating agencies). The ballot issue likely will include an HCT financing program as
part of a broader package also including funding for other modes, such as High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -31 Transportation
If the most likely rail alignment options turn out to be equally preferable, packaging of final
HCT alignment commitments with future airport locations is one possibility that could
improve any needed long -term airport siting decision process.
Rail
Airport locations that are planned to have railway facilities will require the least amount of
upgrading and capital input. Both Sea -Tac and Paine Field are proposed to have stations
on the regional light rail system.
3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of any of the airport system alternatives will result in some local increase in
traffic levels, congestions, and reduced level of service. The extent of the impact is based
on the existence and capacity of the surface transportation network.
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
This section evaluates potential environmental consequences to plants and animals from
various airport system alternatives, within the Puget Sound region, at a generalized level.
The purpose of environmental analysis at this stage is to provide a comparative evaluation
of the alternative systems. After an airport system is chosen, more detailed studies will be
conducted to fully evaluate all environmental impacts.
3.4.1 Affected Environment
Wetlands
Recently, the federal government has proposed revisions to the methodology currently used
to identify wetlands which are subject to regulation by the 404 permit program. In addition
to changes in procedures and decision matrices, the definitions of wetland vegetation and
wetland hydrology may be changed. Preliminary studies by the Washington Department of
Ecology suggest that implementation of these changes would reduce the area of juris-
dictional wetlands by 20 - 40 %. The issue has been whether the earlier definition of
wetlands is so inclusive that an imbalance exists between urban development and the
preservation of functioning wetlands.
The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
jointly administer a permit program which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The Corps considers comments solicited from
federal, state, and local groups when considering permit applications. Agencies reviewing
and commenting on pending applications may include the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Washington State Department of
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -32 Plants & Aniinals
Ecology (Ecology), and county or city planning departments. The EPA can exercise veto
powers over permit decisions made by the Corps.
Ecology regulates development in and around wetlands through the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) review process. SEPA requires documentation of anticipated envir-
onmental impacts of development actions. A SEPA analysis specifies requirements needed
to obtain permits. Governor Booth Gardner has mandated Ecology to protect wetlands
through SEPA to the "extent legally permissible" (Executive Order 90.04, April 21, 1990).
Many counties have their own wetland regulations that must be met. Wetland protection
is accomplished through grading ordinances and SEPA review in Pierce and Snohomish
Counties. In addition, a wetland protection regulation is presently before the Pierce County
Council. In King County the Sensitive Areas Ordinance protects wetlands and streams from
development by establishing buffers for various class wetlands and streams. In Thurston
County, wetland protection is accomplished through SEPA review. Further, counties are
now developing programs to protect critical areas, which include wetlands, in compliance
with the Growth Management Act.
A preliminary analysis of wetlands on the potential airport layouts has been completed using
National Wetland Inventory Maps. The preliminary estimates have not been verified by on-
site analysis and probably represent the minimum amount of wetlands present. On -site
analysis for wetlands typically results in the identification of additional small to medium -
sized wetlands not mapped by the National Wetland Inventory. Such an analysis would be
conducted in follow -on site - specific studies. In addition, activities developed adjacent to an
airport could result in additional wetland impacts.
Vegetation and Wildlife
Because of the level of analysis at this preliminary planning stage, only a general distribution
of plants and animal species information has been compiled. Plants and animals common
to the Puget Sound region would likely be found at or near all the proposed sites. More
site - specific wildlife information would be compiled during the site - specific EIS phase of the
projects.
A summary analysis of vegetation and wildlife occurring at the seven alternative sites
indicates the following:
• Some areas of deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests occur in the Sea -Tac vicinity.
Such forested habitats are generally used by small rodents, birds, and other
mammals, including shrews, moles, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons and deer.
• The predominant vegetative cover around the Arlington Airport can be described as
agricultural. This includes both agricultural cropland as well as meadows and pasture
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -33 Plants & Animals
land. Some forested areas occur just east of the airport and southwest of the airport
near Smokey Point.
Waterfowl can be found in moderately dense concentrations south and north of the
airport. Portage Creek is the nearest salmon - bearing stream in the airport vicinity.
The stream is approximately 2,000 feet north of the airport at its closest point. A
public fishing access point is located on the creek just north of the airport. Based
on conceptual airport layout drawings, the creek would not be directly impacted by
airport construction.
• A variety of natural and introduced vegetation occurs in the Paine Field area.
Generally, most of the area is characterized by natural vegetation such as dense
stands of second - growth evergreen and deciduous trees or a combination of a few
trees and substantial undergrowth. While specific data on terrestrial fauna in the
area was not available, it is expected that the area hosts a wide variety of wildlife
typical of an urban and semi -urban community in the Puget Sound region.
• Aerial photos of Central Pierce show wooded areas mixed with some open pasture
land. These areas are probably used by many animal species typically found in
similar habitats in suburban settings. No streams have been identified for this area.
• Aerial photos of the McChord Air Force Base site show most wooded areas inter-
spersed with some areas of open grasslands. As is typical with similar habitats in
Puget Sound, these areas are probably used by many animal species.
• Specific terrestrial flora and fauna data for the Olympia /Black Lake area was not
available. According to the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan (1988), special
plant and animal communities have been identified near the site. At locations just
west of the site, west of Littlerock Road and east of the site just east of Interstate 5.
Numerous other special plant and animal sites are located further out from the site.
One of the policies of the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan is to protect special
plant and animal communities.
• A variety of habitat types are present on Fort Lewis: wet and dry coniferous forest,
wet and dry broadleaf woodlands, moist and dry thickets, and dry grassland. Dry
coniferous forest dominates most of the post; dominance of this habitat type is
attributable to droughty soils and frequent fires. Prairies occur in the artillery impact
area in the eastern portion of the reservation.
A wide diversity of animals species occurs on the reservation. Several species of
mammals, and raptors, as well as upland birds and waterfowl, can be found.
Flight Plan Project
Draft. Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -34 Plants & Animals
3.4.2 Significant Impacts
Because of the large numbers and scattered distribution of wetlands in the Puget Sound
Basin, it is unlikely airport construction can totally avoid wetland impacts.
A determination was made (based on the conceptual airport layouts) of the approximate
number of linear feet of stream affected for each airport option. A data search on salmon -
bearing streams was conducted using the Washington State Department of Fisheries Catalog
of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization.
Specific impacts to vegetation and wildlife (for the airport construction alone) would vary
significantly with the option selected and on current land use. Because some of the
proposed sites such as McChord, Paine Field, Sea -Tac, and Arlington, are already
developed, the additional loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat would be comparatively
minimal. Conversely, much greater impacts to plants and animals would occur under the
Fort Lewis, Central Pierce and Olympia /Black Lake options, since these are the areas that
are generally rural or undeveloped. Indirect impacts to plants and animals in the general
area of each airport, as a result of induced growth, are more difficult to assess.
3.4.2.1 Preferred Alternative
Wetlands
The existing Sea -Tac airport with a new dependent runway would not affect any wetlands.
Airfield improvements at Paine Field, if required, would affect approximately 13 acres of
shrub /emergent and 22 acres of emergent /open water wetland, for a total of 35 acres of
wetland.
Constructing two runways at Fort Lewis would not affect any wetlands and only one acre
of forested and one acre of emergent wetland on the McChord Base. The greatest wetland
impact would occur if the Olympia /Black Lake site were planned for construction of an
additional two runways. A total of 36 acres of wetlands — including 9 acres of forested, 7
acres of shrub, 15 acres of shrub /emergent, and 5 acres of emergent — would be impacted.
Streams
Based on the Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization (1975), chum and coho
salmon are present in both Miller and Des Moines Creeks, which flow through the study
area. However, jet fuel spills in November 1985 and April 1986 killed nearly all aquatic life
in Des Moines Creek. According to the SeaTac Area Update, fish and aquatic life are
returning to the stream, but pollutants from urban runoff are making recovery slow. Miller
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -35 Plants & Animals
Creek does support some salmon, in part due to a citizen group's salmon enhancement
project. No direct impacts to the streams are expected based on the preliminary layouts.
A tributary of Swamp Creek is located approximately 2,000 feet south and east of the
existing main runway at Paine Field. Based on the 1983 Paine Field Comprehensive Plan,
Swamp Creek was identified as a salmon bearing stream. According to the plan, salmon
spawns have declined dramatically and even curtailed on some of the tributaries. The plan
recognizes that this may have been a direct result of urban development. Swamp Creek
would not be directly impacted by airport construction.
The streams and lakes on Fort Lewis, along with the Nisqually River, support a wide variety
of native, stocked, and anadromous fish. Muck Creek and South Creek are located on the
site. Muck Creek has been identified as an important salmon - producing stream. According
to the Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, South Creek also supports
salmon populations. The replacement airport layout would impact approximately 4,000 feet
of stream.
If a new runway at McChord Air Force Base is required, it would impact 2,750 feet of
stream. According to the Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, these
streams do not support salmon fisheries.
Three streams flow across the proposed Olympia /Black Lake site: Salmon Creek, Bloom's
Ditch, and Allen Creek. All three streams support populations of Coho Salmon. A fish
passage facility has been constructed on Bloom's Ditch near Littlerock Road. The two
runway layout would impact 7,000 feet of stream. Loss of these streams could significantly
impact salmon resources and would be very difficult to mitigate.
Vegetation
An endangered plant is likely to occur on the Fort Lewis base. A subspecies of the Alaska
Rein - orchid, which is found in dry woods, gravelly streambanks and open mountainsides,
may occur on the site. None have actually been observed (Army, 1979). The Washington
State Department of Natural Resources has identified two areas next to Lake Mondress
near the northern boundary of the base, as possibly containing the plant known as Aster
curtus. A field visit conducted by Parametrix for another project confirmed the locations.
The plant is listed by the state as a sensitive species and by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) as a candidate for listing as a threatened or endangered species.
No known endangered or threatened plant species exist on the Sea -Tac or Paine Field sites.
Wildlife
Two vertebrate species with endangered or threatened status that might be expected to
occur on or near Fort Lewis are the Northern Bald Eagle and the American Peregrine
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -36 Plants & Animals
Falcon. Reported sitings of Peregrine Falcons on the post are unconfirmed; most are
probably the unlisted Peale's subspecies. The Northern Bald Eagle has been placed on the
list of Rare and Endangered Species by the Department of the Interior. A sizeable
wintering population of eagles use the post while feeding on spawned out salmon on the
Nisqually River and Muck Creek (Muck Creek flows across the southern portion of the
proposed Fort Lewis site). No known endangered or threatened animal species exist on the
Sea -Tac, Paine Field, McChord AFB or Olympia /Black Lake sites.
3.4.2.2 Secondary Alternatives
Wetlands
Under alternatives 8, 18, 23 and 25, no wetlands would be impacted. Due to the forested
wetland located in the Central Pierce site, No. 21 would impact 3 acres of wetland. The
alternative that would impact the greatest amount of wetland would be No. 24 which would
impact a total of 35 acres of wetland located in the Paine Field site, 13 of which are
shrub /emergent with 22 acres emergent /open water.
Streams
The only alternative which would have any impact on a stream or streams is No. 25.
Because the alternative includes development in the Olympia /Black Lake site, 2000 feet of
Salmon Creek, Bloom's Ditch, and Allen Creek would be impacted by the construction and
operation of one runway.
Vegetation and Wildlife
There would be no significant impacts to plants or animals under any of the secondary
alternatives.
3.4.2.3 Other Alternatives
Wetlands
A preliminary analysis of wetlands on the potential airport layouts has been completed from
using National Wetland Inventory Maps. Table 12 shows the identified wetland impacts by
airport location alternative. As stated earlier in Section 3.4.1, these preliminary estimates
have not been verified by on -site analysis and probably represent the minimum amount of
wetlands present.
In general, the layouts evaluated have relatively fewer wetland acres than are typically found
on similar -sized land parcels. In all cases the wetlands identified are a small percentage of
the total airport area. The Olympia /Black Lake option has considerably more wetlands and
streams than other sites.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -37 Plants & Animals
Table 12. Wetland Impacts and Potential Mitigation by Airport Location.
Acres of Wetland Affected
Potential
Shrub/ Emergent/ Open Mitigation
Location Runways Forested Shrub Emergent Emergent Open Water Water Total Area
SeaTac Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SeaTac Commuter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SeaTac Dependent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arlington New 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Extension
Arlington New Runway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paine Field Existing 0 0 13 0 22 0 35 53
Paine Field New Runway 0 0 13 0 22 0 35 53
McChord AFB Existing 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 5
McChord AFB New Runway 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 5
Central Pierce One 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Pierce Two 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 9
Central Pierce Three 28 0 0 0 0 0 28 84
Olympia /Black Lake One 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Olympia /Black Lake Two 9 7 15 5 0 0 36 71
Olympia /Black Lake Three 26 9 31 15 0 1 81 164
Fort Lewis Three 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mitigation area based on replacement ratios recommended by the Department of Ecology
Wetland impacts based on National Wetland Inventory maps. Actual - wetland determination will require field investigation
and would likely be greater.
Streams
Development of the McChord Air Force Base, Fort Lewis, and Olympia /Black Lake options
would directly impact the streams in those areas. These streams would have to be relocated
or buried beneath the airport. Under the Olympia /Black Lake option, approximately 2,000
feet would be affected based on the one runway concept; 7,000 feet based on the two -
runway concept; and approximately 22,000 feet under the three- runway concept.
Approximately 4,000 feet would be affected under the Fort Lewis three - runway concept.
Under the McChord new runway option, approximately 2,750 feet would be affected by
development (this stream does not support salmon).
Vegetation and Wildlife
Endangered, threatened and sensitive plant and animal species on the Fort Lewis site are
discussed in Section 3.4.2.1.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -38 Plants & Animals
3.4.2.4 No- Action
If improvements to the existing airport system do not take place, plants and animals in the
Puget Sound region would not be significantly affected. Areas that would have been
considered for airport development would be available for other projects.
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures
Wetlands
Some of the wetlands potentially affected may be somewhat higher quality wetland. Higher
quality wetlands typically have shrub or forested vegetation present, or mixtures of open
water and emergent vegetation which provide a variety of wildlife habitats. On -site analysis
is required to determine the level of wetland quality and the feasibility and design objectives
of wetland mitigation. However, the large amount of land required by airports, the runoff
generated from paved surfaces, and the large amounts of earth work required for
construction will tend to make substantial and effective wetland mitigation necessary but
feasible. In general, wetland mitigation should be located as close to the affected area as
possible to minimize impacts to animal species dependent on the original wetland area.
However, wetland mitigation too close to the airport may attract birds and, potentially,
create a safety hazard. The location chosen for wetland mitigation should consider what
other wetland areas that are available in the general area to try to support an even
distribution of wetlands throughout the Puget Sound region.
Ecology recommends avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands, and protecting wetlands
with buffers ranging from 25 to 300 feet depending upon the quality of the wetlands. If a
project cannot avoid wetland impacts, Ecology recommends preparation of a mitigation plan
which seeks to replace the wetland functions and values that will be impacted by the project.
In the case of severely degraded wetland, however, Ecology recommends that enhancement
of wetland function be an objective. Wetland replacement plans are expected to use the
following mitigation ratios of replacement to impacted areas:
Forested wetlands 3.0 : 1
Shrub wetlands 2.0 : 1
Emergent marsh 1.5 : 1
Open water 1.0 : 1
Streams
Mitigation of the streams on the Olympia /Black Lake site may be possible by creating or
enhancing sufficient stream habitat in the general area to replace what is lost. Such stream
mitigation is expensive, but may be possible if streams in the area are suitable.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -39 Plants & Animals
Vegetation and Wildlife
Revegetating any sites used for new airports, runways or extensions of runways, after
construction, would reduce the impacts to plant and animal communities. The significance
of any impacts to plants and animals would be determined on a case -by -case basis.
Avoiding areas with wetlands would serve to ensure no disturbance in valuable areas.
3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
A significant unavoidable adverse impact of constructing the proposed runways would be the
removal of some plant and animal habitat at any of the sites chosen. Specific impacts would
depend on the characteristics of the chosen sites.
3.5 EARTH
Soils data in conjunction with other environmental conditions, provides an important
information base for determinations of what land areas are suitable for certain uses. It also
suggests some of the physical constraints and limitations which would be placed on
development occurring in the planning area. Five of the proposed airport locations were
examined in terms of overall soils suitability using the Soil Conservation Service's Soils
Survey Maps. Soils information for the McChord and Fort Lewis locations was derived from
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Fort Lewis Military Installation.
3.5.1 Affected Environment
Typically, each layout and the area around the layout consists of one or more soils types or
series (referred to as an association). The predominant soils for each area have been
identified. The following is a brief description of the soils found on one or more of the
alternative sites:
• Alderwood- Everett Association soils typically develop on glacial till material. These
soils are generally characterized as moderately well drained, having seasonal ground-
water tables well below the surface with a low -to- moderate erosion hazard.
Normally, the surface layer and upper part of the subsoil are gravelly sandy loam.
The lower part of the subsoil is very gravelly sandy loam. These soils have the
natural ability to support heavy loads. The main limitation of the Alderwood-
Everett Association soils, on urban development is seasonal soil wetness, depth to
hardpan, and steepness of slope.
• Norma - Lynnwood - Custer soils tend to be poorly drained and found on outwash
plains. The main limitations to urban development are soil wetness and ponding.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -40 Earth
• Mukilteo Series soils tend to be very poorly drained and may present development
limitations due to ponding.
Grading and . excavations would be required to varying degrees for each of the options
available. Fill, excavation, and site grading would change the local topography. Preliminary
estimates on the amount of fill required for the various alternatives are discussed in the
impacts section.
3.5.2 Significant Impacts
3.5.2.1 Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative would involve constructing a new dependent runway at Sea -Tac
and one runway at Paine Field, as well as planning for two runways at either McChord, Fort
Lewis, or Olympia /Black Lake. Soils in the Sea -Tac area are primarily within the
Alderwood - Everett Association and are suitable for development. Approximately 13,682,000
cubic yards of fill would be moved on the Sea -Tac site in order to build the new dependent
runway.
The proposed McChord AFB and Fort Lewis airport runways are located above the Clover
Chamber's Creek aquifer, an important groundwater resource for south and east Pierce
County. A petition has been filed with the EPA for designation as a Sole Source Aquifer,
which is expected to be granted within a year. This designation does not preclude
development, but does establish a process whereby the EPA reviews all federally assisted
projects. These reviews are to ensure that proper design, construction, and operational
controls are used to protect the aquifer from contamination which could cause significant
adverse affects on the public health.
The McChord Base area has a thick blanket of partially consolidated glacial deposits consist-
ing mainly of sand and gravel. The soils tend to be excessively drained, gravelly sandy loams
and suitable for construction. In order to build two runways at the McChord Air Force Base
site, approximately 800 acres would require light grading.
Soils at the Fort Lewis location are similar to those described above for the McChord site.
Approximately 36,000,000 cubic yards of fill would be needed at this site to construct two
runways.
The Olympia /Black Lake site soils generally belong to the Alderwood- Everett Association.
Development on the site would require approximately 19,280,000 cubic yards of fill in order
to build two runways.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -41 Earth
3.5.2.2 Secondary Alternatives
Alternative No. 23 would not have any impacts on the Sea -Tac site, since a new runway
would not be built. The Central Pierce site soils also belong to the Alderwood- Everett
Association. In addition, construction of a replacement airport at this location would
require removing and disposing of material contained in the Hidden Valley Landfill. On
the other hand, soils at the Arlington location belong to the Norma - Lynnwood- Custer asso-
ciation and would be more difficult to develop. The Arlington airport is located on the
Tulalip Sole Source Aquifers as designated by the EPA. See Section 3.5.2.1 for discussion
of the review process. Approximately 100 acres of land would be graded in order to extend
the runway at the Arlington site.
The impacts of Alternative No. 25 would be similar to those described above for No. 23 with
the exception of one runway at Olympia /Black Lake replacing the Central Pierce option.
Since No. 23 provides one runway, only 6,400,000 cubic yards of fill would be moved on the
Olympia /Black Lake site.
If one runway was extended and another built at the Arlington site, as would be done under
Alternative No. 8, a total of 500 acres of land would need to be graded. The Sea -Tac site
would not be altered.
Under Alternative No. 24, the design of the Sea -Tac site would not be altered. Paine Field
would have one runway which would involve depositing 400,000 cubic yards of fill on the
site. Soils in and around the Paine Field location generally belong to the Alderwood-
Everett Association. In addition, some soils are from the Mukilteo Series. Alternative
No. 24 also involves constructing a one runway airport at Central Pierce. Approximately
9,120,000 cubic yards of fill would be moved on this site.
Secondary Alternatives No. 18 and 21 both involve building a new dependent runway at the
Sea -Tac site similar to the preferred alternative. Alternative No. 18 would construct a new
runway at the Arlington site for a total of two runways. This option would involve grading
500 acres of land. Alternative No. 21 would construct two runways at the Central Pierce site
involving approximately 17,000,000 cubic yards of fill.
3.5.2.3 Other Alternatives
In general, most of the locations evaluated tended to have suitable soils for development.
The exception is the Arlington location, which has poorly drained soils (south of 172nd
Street) that may impose some limitations on construction (soils would have to be removed
or extensive drainage systems constructed). All of the potential locations appear to have
soils that would allow for airport construction. Additional soils analysis for each location
will need to be conducted to determine specific soil types, suitability and potential impacts.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -42 Earth
Replacement airports would require the largest quantities of fill materials. The
Supplemental airport option would require significantly less.
All soil surfaces are subject to natural forces of chemical physical weathering that result in
erosion. The susceptibility to erosion is dependent on the physical characteristics of the soil,
vegetative cover, topography (slope), and the intensity and duration of storms. Stormwater
runoff is the greatest single factor affecting erosion in the Puget Sound Region. Removal
of the vegetative cover increases the erosion rate. Erosion would be minimal on most loca-
tions due primarily to the low gradient.
Grading and excavations would be required to varying degrees on each of the options
available. Fill, excavation, and site grading would change the local topography. Preliminary
estimates on the amount of fill required for the various alternatives are listed in Table 13
below:
Table 13. Grading and Excavation Quantities.
Sea -Tac (new runway)
Arlington with runway extension
New runway
Paine Field with existing airport
New runway
Central Pierce replacement airport
Two- runway airport
One - runway airport
McChord with existing airfield
New runway
Olympia /Black Lake replacement airport
Two - runway airport
One - runway airport
Fort Lewis replacement airport
13,682,000 yd3
100 acres light grading
500 acres light grading
400,000 yd3
750,000 yd3
36,000,000 yd3
17,000,000 yd3
9,120,000 yd3
745 acres light grading
800 acres Light grading
32,160,000 yd3
19,280,000 yd3
6,400,000 yd3
36,000,000 yd3
3.5.2.4 No- Action
If improvements to the existing airport system do not take place, earth resources in the
Puget Sound region would not be significantly affected. Areas that would have been
considered for airport development would be available for other projects.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -43 Earth
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures
Avoiding all sensitive areas with potential geologic hazards would eliminate significant
impacts to earth resources. Modern construction practices and minimizing earth movement
during rainy seasons should control most earth impacts.
3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to earth resources would be expected.
3.6 LAND USE
This programmatic EIS evaluates the environmental consequences of different airport
system alternatives at a generalized level, without detailed evaluation of individual sites or
specific impacts. The purpose of the environmental analysis at this stage is to provide a
comparative evaluation of the alternative airport systems. After an airport system plan is
chosen, much more detailed studies will be conducted to fully evaluate all environmental
impacts of each system component.
3.6.1 Affected Evironment
3.6.1.1 Significant Issues
Adjacent land uses should be compatible and are regulated by local jurisdictions using local,
regional, state, and federal guidelines, policies, and regulations. The recent passage of the
Washington State GMA (in March 1990) and RSHB 1025, commonly known as GMA II,
one year later has provided significant guidance to planning policies. However, it did not
address all of the necessary procedures and processes to implement those policies. Working
Paper No. 10 discusses institutional and jurisdictional issues and relationships.
GMA I and GMA II affect the region's future air carrier system. Each jurisdiction required
to plan under this legislation must adopt five- element comprehensive plans, and all five
elements are to be consistent with each other. Local plans must also be consistent with
regional plans. The five elements to be included are Land Use, Transportation, Capital
Facilities, Utilities, and Housing. Significant issues will be the level of service for roads
each municipality must adopt by July 1, 1993, the concurrency requirement for new
construction, and the remediation required to improve existing roads to meet those
standards. Both regional and county -wide comprehensive plans must be adopted by July 1,
1993.
Internal and external consistency would be difficult to accomplish if municipalities did not
consider and adopt the GMA policies into their existing planning process. Therefore, the
assumption is made that GMA policies would apply to this project. GMA II requires that
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -44 Land Use
comprehensive plans include a process for identifying and siting of essential public facilities.
This process is now being reviewed by cities and counties and should be in place by July 1,
1992.
Regional airports are associated with major activities centers and meet the transportation
and economic needs of the area. Intermodal transportation facilities are necessary and
integrated in regional transportation plans to insure effective and efficient community
development. The area serviced by a regional facility involves many communities and
agencies; therefore, community concerns and impacts need to be evaluated and
incorporated into regional plans.
The proposed expansion of existing airport facilities would be subject to review by several
governmental agencies. Since each jurisdiction has its own regulations, land use standards
vary as do the respective jurisdictional zoning codes. The rules and regulations governing
this project would establish where precedence prevails and cooperation is needed for
approval of the project (See Working Paper No. 10).
For this study, each jurisdiction was contacted and provided comprehensive plans and zoning
maps. The maps were reviewed for existing conditions. GMA policies were used as a basis
for land use analysis.
3.6.1.2 Existing Conditions
Sea -Tac
Location. These alternatives are situated on Sea -Tac International Airport property. Each
runway alternative considered for the Sea -Tac option would utilize airport property west of
Runway 34L and east of 12th Avenue South. This portion of the airport is currently
undeveloped, except for the Weyerhauser corporate aviation facility.
Location Vicinity. Sea -Tac International Airport is surrounded by the four municipalities
of Sea -Tac, Normandy Park, Des Moines, and Tukwila, and the communities of Burien and
Angle Lake. Sea -Tac is located roughly in the center of these communities, and has fos-
tered the development of industrial areas to the north and southwest. Airport- related
commercial development along SR 99 dominates the east and southeast portions of the area.
Land uses around Sea -Tac reflect the general range of land uses expected in an urban envir-
onment, such as commercial, industrial, and residential development. Land immediately to
the north and south of the airport, however, is mainly open space as a result of the acquisi-
tions under the Port of Seattle's Noise Acquisition Program. Natural areas with steep topo-
graphy, creeks, and small lakes can also be found around the airport. Tub Lake and Lake
Reba, both tributaries of Miller Creek, are located to the north and Des Moines Creek is
located to the south. Further from the airport are single - family and multi - family residential
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -45 Land Use
areas. Trailer park developments are prominent in the southeastern portion of the study
area west of 28th Avenue South.
Arlington
Location. This alternative is situated on 1:he existing Arlington Municipal Airport. The
proposed layouts also include some agricultural land south of 172nd Street NE just south
of the airport boundary. The airport is located in the southwest portion of the Arlington
City Limits. The Airport provides general aviation activities such as recreational flying, pilot
training, charter and air taxi services, and corporate operations. The airport currently
contains approximately 1,160 acres.
Location Vicinity. Land use in the Arlington area varies from commercial activities, in
Arlington's city center, to more mixed land uses around the city center particularly in the
airport vicinity. The overall character, at present, may be described as agricultural and
rural- residential.
Land uses contiguous to the airport consist of agricultural, residential, and industrial uses.
The south and northwest portions of the airport are dominated by agricultural uses.
Undeveloped property can be found on all sides. The highest concentration of residential
development is found .25 mile from the airport's southwest boundary. Other residential
developments include Prospect Point north of the airport and Shoultes Green Acres south
of the airport. Both of these developments are located just west of the extended centerline
of the north -south runway.
Industrial land use is the dominant land use east of the airport. Boat building, logging and
cement /concrete products are the major uses within this industrial area. A 40 -acre
industrial park occupies the airport's northwest corner. The closest commercial uses are
located .75 mile to the west at Smokey Point.
Paine Field
Location. Most of the proposed facility layouts are situated on existing Paine Field Airport
property located in Snohomish County just south of the Everett City Limits. Under the new
runway option, some of the airport could extend into residential properties near 121st SW.
Besides the main runway and terminal, the Paine Field Airport also includes U.S. Navy
Housing and National Guard facilities. Activities on the airport include major aircraft
maintenance facilities operated by TRAMCO, which could be partially displaced by
development of a new runway.
Location Vicinity. The study area around the Paine Field option includes part of the City
of Mukilteo, southwest Everett, northwest Lynnwood and Edmonds as well as the Paine
Field community. Land use in the area is mixed urban uses, with predominantly single-
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -46 Land Use
family residential on moderate -sized lots. A few master - planned communities in the study
area include Harbor Pointe west of the airport, and Kennilworth Hills north of the airport
in Southwest Everett. Other major concentrations of new, single - family residential units are
located south of Mukilteo in the vicinity of 84th Street Southwest and the Mukilteo
Speedway, the Lake Serene area, and along Holly Drive between 112th and 100th Streets
Southwest. Mobile homes and multiple - family units are scattered throughout the study area.
Other major land uses include industrial, commercial, recreational /open space activities and
are more concentrated within the study area. Industrial uses adjoin the Boeing 747
Assembly Plant and can also be found along the Mukilteo speedway as part of the Harbour
Pointe master - planned community. Another area of significant industrial use is along
Highway 99.
Retail and commercial land use in the area is limited mainly to the Highway 99 corridor,
a few small centers at major intersections, and two major centers at Mukilteo and
Alderwood Mall. There is a considerable amount of park and recreational space in the
Paine Field area.
Land uses contiguous to, and in the vicinity of, the airport are varied. To the north of the
airport property are industrial uses; to the west and south land use is primarily residential;
to the west is also residential with mixed open space and park land.
Central Pierce
Location. The option is located a few miles east of the Fort Lewis Military reservation in
the vicinity of the 152nd Street East /Highway 161 intersection. Depending on the
alternative, the layout would encompass a large residential subdivision and park- and -ride
west of Highway 161, the Paul Bunyan Rifle and Sportsmans Club, several residences along
Highway 161, and Thun Field, a small recreational air field located on the east side of
Highway 161. Hidden Valley landfill is located east of SR 161 south of Thun Field and is
within the area for the replacement airport option.
Location Vicinity. Land use in the vicinity of this alternative is characterized by rural, semi -
rural, and suburban residential development with scattered commercial, home businesses,
agricultural, and manufacturing uses. Much of the area is developed with housing tracts.
In general, like much of Central Pierce County, the vicinity is an area in transition from
rural or semi -rural to medium - density residential, commercial, and industrial.
Residential development predominates in the area directly north and northeast of the
option. A surface gravel operation is located off 94th Avenue East near its intersection with
152nd Street East. Scattered single - family residences occur south of the option along
Highway 161. Further south is the community of Graham.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -47 Land Use
The vicinity becomes more densely developed to the north and northwest. The Meridian
Street corridor, a few miles east of the option is the largest and densest concentration of
commercial uses in the area.
A major residential development, Rainier Terrace, is in its first stages of development on
1,467 acre site approximately 2 miles south of the proposed airport location. At completion,
this planned community' will accommodate 3,225 single - family residences and 585 to 975
multi - family residences. A manufacturing and business park will be part of the
development.
The Hidden Valley Landfill is within the area of the replacement airport option. The
facility is significant because FAA regulations generally prohibit landfills within 10,000 feet
of a major airport. The owner of the landfill has proposed an expansion that would allow
operations to continue through 1997 or beyond. Partial approval could be granted to allow
operation through 1993. Without expansion, the landfill will probably close in 1992.
The Hidden Valley Landfill is especially important for development of a replacement airport
at this location. Previously disposed waste would probably have to be removed, with the
developing authority becoming responsible for its safe disposal at a potentially substantial
cost.
McChord Air Force Base
Location. These alternatives are situated on the existing McChord Air Force Base. The
new runway option would utilize the eastern portion of the base, east of the main runway.
This area includes a fire training area and lies within the clear zone for hazardous cargo
loading and unloading areas.
Location Vicinity. The vicinity can be generally characterized as suburban with the density
and facilities to be considered an, urban center. The area includes a portion of the
Lakewood Community in unincorporated Pierce County, South Tacoma, McChord Air Force
Base and Fort Lewis Military Reservation, and the Parkland - Spanaway area east of the Air
Force base. Pacific Lutheran University is located just east of the base.
Growth in many communities around the base has seen the subdivision of many large
properties and extensive redevelopment and expansion of commercial centers. Increasing
multiple - family construction has caused a shift in housing development away from single -
family, owner - occupied residential development.
Most commercial development is located along a strip on Pacific Avenue with major
concentration points at 112th Street, 136th street, Military Road, and 176th Street. The area
is bisected by two major transportation corridors. Pacific Avenue, or State Route 7, is the
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -48 Land Use
main north -south thoroughfare linking Tacoma and Mt. Rainier National Park. State Route
512 serves as the area's major east -west link connecting Lakewood.
In general, the vicinity lies in a growth sector of Pierce County. For example, Spanaway is
now experiencing suburbanization and residential development in a southeasterly direction.
Development in Parkland is limited to filling in the skipped -over land parcels and more
intensive developments along Pacific Avenue.
Olympia /Black Lake
Location. The options are located a few miles southeast of Tumwater and are generally
bounded by Interstate 5 on the east, Little Rock Road on the west, Lathrop Road on the
north and Aldrich Road on the south. Most of the layout is undeveloped farmland and
forested land. There a few scattered residences on the area particularly along 104th and
107th Avenue Southwest. Blooms Ditch, Allen Creek and Salmon Creek flow across the
site, primarily from east to west.
Location Vicinity. The option vicinity can be characterized by rural residential development
with scattered commercial, home businesses, agricultural, and manufacturing uses. Similar
to the layout, the vicinity is primarily undeveloped, forested land.
Southeast of the option, near Scott Lake, is a moderately dense residential development.
Further east is Millersyvania State Park. A few miles northeast of the site is the Olympia
Municipal Airport.
Fort Lewis
Location. Most of the option falls within the southeastern boundary of the Fort Lewis
Military Reservation just south and east of the community of Elk Plain. Part of the option
falls outside of the military reservation, south of Elk Plain in unincorporated Pierce County.
The layout encompasses training areas 11, 14, and 15 on the military reservation. These
areas are considered heavy -use areas by the military, particularly area 14 which includes the
Thirteenth Division Prairie used for mechanized battalion and tank battalion operations.
Rural and semi -rural residential best describes that part of the layout in unincorporated
Pierce County. An underground pipeline and overhead power transmission line also
traverses the layout.
Location Vicinity. Other military training areas including areas 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13; these
are located north, northwest, and west of the layout. These are also considered heavy
training areas by the military. Significant marshlands can also be found west of the layout.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -49 Land Use
Single - family rural and semi -rural residential development can be found south of the option.
The area east and northeast of the option near Loveland, Fredrickson, and South Spanaway,
is rapidly growing with new and proposed residential developments.
3.6.1.3 Induced Land Use
In developing a regional airport system, the opportunity is present to plan for the resulting
increased levels of activity and related land uses. Comprehensive plans and zoning
regulations can (and under the Growth Management Act must) be revised to accommodate
new or expanded airport facilities. These regulatory mechanisms can control the type,
location, density, and character of land use around a new or expanded airport to meet both
local and regional needs. Hence, the estimates given here for induced land use represent
only one possible scenario for future development based on the projection of office space
and hotel rooms given in Working Paper No. 8, Table V -10. These estimates are based on
(a) a forecasted level of air passenger volumes in 2020 (total of 45 million annual
passengers, with travel at Sea -Tac "constrained" as described in Working Paper No. 5, Level
of Service), and (b) a set of assumptions these airport passenger volumes to land use
demands and densities for all alternatives. The preferred alternative has less induced land
use impact at Paine since the amount of passenger activity ois lower. In practice, the level
of passenger volumes might be achieved on a date other than 2020, and comprehensive
plans and zoning regulations will uniquely direct the pattern of land use around any airport.
Studies by P & D Aviation of airports on the west coast find the area directly influenced by
an airport ranges from 1.5 to 3 miles from the facility. These studies also find a direct
association between airport passenger volumes and office space and hotel rooms in the influ-
ence area (see Working Paper No. 8). To estimate induced land use activity, projected
office space and hotel rooms have been used to develop acreage estimates by type of activ-
ity. The acreage estimates are based in part on a detailed study of existing land use
surrounding Sea -Tac airport prepared as part of the FAA Part 150 Noise Contour Study.
This study found that of the developed area centered on Sea -Tac approximately 3 miles
wide and 16 miles long, 75% was residential, 10% office, 8% manufacturing, and 1% hotels
and motels. Because this area is substantially larger than the expected airport influence
area, this information was not directly used to estimate induced land use.
Three types of land use are estimated; office, light industrial, and hotel. Retail and other
commercial activities are included within each of these categories, but are not calculated
separately. Because of concerns with noise, new residential use is expected to be controlled
near the airport and is not directly estimated as an induced land use activity within the
influence area. However, as an employment center, an airport would be expected to create
demand for some residential use in the general area.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -50 Land Use
Induced land use was estimated as follows for office, light industrial, and hotel uses:
Office: Office acreage is based on an average 3 -story height with 50% lot coverage to
provide for parking and landscaping. This density is representative of many office
developments in the Puget Sound area, although considerable variation can be found.
Light Industrial: Light industrial use (including manufacturing and warehousing) is
calculated as 2.5 times the office acreage. Nationally this use is approximately twice
office space, while in the Sea -Tac vicinity it is almost four times office space. It should
be noted that the study of west coast airports by P &D Aviation did not find a significant
association between airports and industrial use, and hence it could be inferred that this
activity may not be necessary for a successful airport operation. This type of land use
is included here given the potential for airport- related manufacturing (Working Paper
No. 8) and the existing pattern observed at Sea -Tac.
Hotel: Hotel land use is calculated at 200 rooms per acre. This is lower density than
presently found around Sea -Tac (approximately 300 rooms per acre) where hotels use
appears to have been constrained by limited local circulation patterns.
Opportunities for development and land use change vary considerably between airport loca-
tions. In areas with existing development, it is likely that activities already in the area and
not dependent on an airport would be displaced to other locations in the region while air-
port- related activities would remain and potentially expand. Sea -Tac, Paine Field, McChord,
and Central Pierce are locations where relatively little undeveloped area remains. The
Central Pierce area has significant development in place and substantially more is antici-
pated. Arlington and Olympia /Black Lake are locations where new development could
occur: Development around Fort Lewis may be considerably constrained by surrounding
army activities.
Table 14 shows the 1990 population and employment, with density, for the general area
around each potential airport location. The figures given are by Forecast Analysis Zones
(FAZ's) developed by the PSRC based on census tracts and used for regional planning and
forecasting purposes. Because the FAZ's are different sizes and are not centered on the
airport locations, the figures given should not be interpreted as definitive. However, clear
distinctions between the airport locations are evident. Overall, Sea -Tac and Paine Field are
the most densely developed locations, and Arlington and Olympia /Black Lake appear the
least developed. Sea -Tac has substantially higher employment developed than any other
FAZ, followed by the Paine Field area. All other locations show relatively similar low
employment densities. Paine Field has the highest household density, followed by Sea -Tac.
Arlington shows much lower household density than any other area.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -51 Land Use
Table 14. 1990 Households and Employment and 1990 Density.
Total 1990
Developable 1990 1990 1990 Household Employment
Airport Location FAZ Acreage) Households(2) Employment Density per acre Density per acre
Sea -Tac 3700 6,293 40,454 37,076 5.00 30.03
Arlington 8500 7,197 7,362 5,818 2.14 3.39
Paine Field 7530 5,083 26,082 12,943 6.82 17.37
Central Pierce 500 14,057 20,053 2,220 4.01 2.21
McChord 2930 15,748 27,750 43,625 4.87 5.35
Fort Lewis 2930 15,748 27,750 43,625 4.87 5.35
Olym. Blk. Lake 17(3) N/A 6,800(pop.) 2,900 N/A N/A
1 Developable area from Table A2, "Land Use and Neighborhood Character, Supplementary Report,
Second Edition ", October 1990, PSRC, and includes both residential and employment land.
2 1990 households and employment from "Interim Population and Employment Estimates, 1990 and
2010 ", September 1991, PSRC.
3 Not included in PSRC reports. 1990 population and employment from "The Profile ", March 1991,
Thurston Regional Planning Council.
3.6.2 Significant Impacts
3.6.2.1 Preferred Alternative
Sea -Tac. Construction of a dependent runway on the western property boundary at Sea -
Tac International Airport would require the acquisition of approximately 110 acres
containing 230 homes between 9th and 12 Avenues South and between South 176th Street
and State Route 518.
The new approach and takeoff areas would have to be reviewed for any obstructions within
the Runway Protection Zone for all sites.
Paine Field. While commercial service would initially require only minor facility
improvements, new facilities would eventually have to be constructed on the field with
approximately 140 acres of parkland, commercial, and industrial uses being induced.
Fort Lewis, McChord, and Olympia /Black. Without adequate precautions, land use specula-
tion could precede actual plans for a new airport facility. The GMA calls for urban growth
to occur within urban growth boundaries to prevent sprawl. Urban services are to be pro-
vided by cities, not by counties. Urban growth boundaries are now being established and
the siting of airport facilities will be accomplished using the GMA guidelines.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -52 Land Use
The impacts to Central Pierce would involve property acquisition, road relocation and
improvements, and the military operations at Fort Lewis and McChord AFB. Depending
on site location, the impacts to military operations may impair or prevent the Army and the
Air Force from completing their missions as presently defined at these locations.
The Air Force recently changed its command structure to better fulfill its global
responsibilities. The Army, in a synergetic operation with the Air Force, is also responsible
for new global operations. Fort Lewis and McChord AFB are expanding by receiving
additional military personnel from other base closures and assuming new operational
requirements.
Civilian airport land uses and facilities are not easily compatible with the military training
and operational missions of the bases. The bases contain hazardous cargo loading areas,
munitions storage areas, superfund sites, and numerous functional requirements that are not
compatible with public use. Hazardous cargo loading and munitions areas are located close
to runways to allow for rapid deployment and logistical support for Army and Air Force
missions. Safety and security requirements would not allow a civilian terminal and
associated support facilities to be in the same location without adequate separation.
The acreage affected by induced land uses from Table 15 are 242 acres for Sea -Tac, 39
acres for Paine Field, and up to 60 acres at the Fort Lewis or McChord AFB sites or 80
acres for Central Pierce or Olympia /Black Lake areas.
Impacts to Olympia /Black Lake area include the acquisition of 800 acres containing 50
homes and 550 vacant acres. Road improvements to I -5 would also be required and new
roads constructed.
3.6.2.2 Secondary Alternatives
The impacts on the secondary alternatives are generally the same as for the preferred
alternative with the provision that impacts will vary depending on present and potential land
uses which would be developed or redeveloped as described in the previous section.
Additional property would be needed to support runway expansions or new facilities.
Outlying sites are more rural with more open space and are generally designated as rural,
suburban, or a resource area. Induced development will tend to occur more rapidly at
outlying sites without controlling plans or regulations.
The acreage affected by induced land uses from Table 15 are 242 acres for Sea -Tac, 127
acres for Arlington, up to 260 acres at Central Pierce, and up to 127 acres at Olympia /Black
Lake.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -53 Land Use
Table 15. Induced Land Use Estimates.
Acres in Airport Influence Area (1.5 to 3 miles)
2020
Alternative Location MAPa) Office (2) Light Industrial (3) Hotel (4) Total
27,29 Arlington 2 6 15 5 26
13,18 Arlington 3 9 22 6 37
23 Arlington 6 16 41 10 67
25 Arlington 7 19 48 11 79
3 Arlington 11 26 66 15 107
8 Arlington 13 31 78 18 127
16,21,27,28 Cen. Pierce 3 9 23 7 38
6,11 Cen. Pierce 5 14 36 9 59
24 Cen. Pierce 7 18 45 11 73
23 Cen. Pierce 7 20 49 11 80
31 Cen. Pierce 45 62 155 43 260
33 Fort Lewis 45 62 155 43 60
15,20 McChord 3 9 22 6 37
5,10 McChord 13 31 78 18 127
29,30 Olym. Blk. Lake 1 4 9 3 16
17,22 Olym. Blk. Lake 3 9 22 6 37
26 Olym. Blk. Lake 5 15 37 9 61
25 Olym. Blk. Lake 6 17 41 10 68
7 Olym. Blk. Lake 11 26 66 15 107
12 Olym. Blk. Lake 13 31 78 18 127
32 Olym. Blk. Lake 45 62 155 43 260
14,19,28,30 Paine Field 3 9 23 7 39(5)
24 Paine Field 7 18 45 11 73
26 Paine Field 8 21 52 12 85
4,9 Paine Field 13 31 78 18 127
1,23,24,25,26 Sea Tac 32 44 110 33 188
2,29 Sea Tac 35 48 120 36 204
28,34 Sea Tac 38 53 132 38 223
27 Sea Tac 40 54 136 39 229
30 Sea Tac 40 56 139 39 234(5)
13,14,15,16,17, Sea Tac 42 58 144 41 242
18,19,20,21,22
1 - Constrained allocation of million annual passengers from Working Paper No. 5.
2 - Office space from Working Paper No. 8. Assumes 50% lot coverage with 3 -story buildings
3 Includes warehousing and manufacturing. Assumes 2.5 times office space, higher density than
at present around Sea Tac.
4 Hotel rooms from Working Paper No. 8. Assumes approximately 200 rooms per acre, slightly
lower density than at present around SeaTac.
5 Preferred Alternative.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
3 -54 Land Use
Arlington. The impacts to Arlington are caused by the acquisition of approximately 100 to
675 acres containing 20 -95 homes, commercial and industrial uses including Bayliner
Industries and a major commercial nursery, and pasture and wooded areas.
Road relocation and improvements would be required. Roads would be subject to the level
of service and the design and construction standards of the respective jurisdictions.
Land use changes surrounding the airport would occur. The change in real estate values
may cause a desire to urbanize and change land uses from rural and suburban to those
associated with airport activities. The GMA allows for comprehensive plans to be changed
once a year.
Central Pierce. The impacts to the military bases were discussed under the preferred
alternative. The site located east of Fort Lewis west of SR 161 would be a new facility. It
requires the acquisition of 1,140 acres containing 594 homes, 75 commercial acres, 620
vacant acres, and a 134 -unit condominium complex. Development would significantly impact
existing land uses. Surrounding rural and suburban property will become urbanized. Road
improvements would be required to SR 161.
3.6.2.3 Other Alternatives
The other alternatives will impact the same environmental elements as the other sites. The
degree of impact will vary with each alternative. If the combined operational and acreage
needs of Ft. Lewis and McChord Air Force Base do not change (possibly releasing land for
alternate uses), or if the Olympia /Black Lake site is not feasible, other alternatives would
be reviewed using the GMA guidelines. Displaced businesses on a site would either relo-
cate or go out of business.
Land use impacts due to airport expansion or new facilities will involve the development of
unused and vacant land, property improvements, and redevelopment from existing land uses
to new land uses associated with airport activity. Commercial land uses that are associated
with airport activities now exist in varying degrees at Sea -Tac, Paine Field, and Arlington.
They do not exist at McChord AFB, Fort Lewis, Central Pierce, or Olympia /Black Lake.
Total induced acreage at a single location ranges from 16 acres for the supplemental airport
option at Olympia /Black Lake (alternatives 29 and 30) to 260 acres for a replacement
airport at Central Pierce, Fort Lewis, or Olympia /Black Lake. By system alternative,
induced land use change is:
Existing Sea -Tac (No- Action) 188 to 204 acres
Replacement Airport 260 acres
Two - Airport System 279 to 315 acres
Three- Airport System 282 to 334 acres
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS Page 3 -55
Land Use
Table 15 shows estimates of induced land use changes by type at each airport location in
the order of increasing area. The distribution of induced land use estimates between coun-
ties is determined largely by the forecast allocation of passengers, as described above.
Figure 1 shows the estimated total induced land use by county and alternative. The lowest
total induced acreage (without unsatisfied airport demand, and discounting environmental,
ownership, or other constraints) is found with a replacement airport at the Central Pierce,
Olympia /Black Lake, or Fort Lewis locations. The highest total induced acreage is found
with a 3- airport system without a dependent runway at Sea -Tac. The difference in induced
land use (by county) illustrates how similar levels of activity may be distributed in the Puget
Sound region. A regional decision on how to distribute the economic activity and related
land use resulting from an airport is a very important aspect of selecting an airport system
alternative.
3.6.2.4 No- Action
Under the no- action alternative no additional facilities would be developed at any location.
Demand management would be used to the maximum extent possible at Sea -Tac, but
regional demand for air travel would not be satisfied. Lack of an adequate air trans-
portation system would indirectly affect regional land use by constraining economic growth
and development.
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for each type of impact are discussed by categories: housing and
development /redevelopment.
Housing. The mitigation measure for housing is necessary due to the impacts of displace-
ment caused by acquisition. Housing availability and affordability are also a factor.
Housing relocation assistance, as necessary, would be available to those who are eligible.
Relocation and acquisition programs would probably be managed by the airport operating
authority, the Department of Transportation, and local jurisdictions. -
New housing is generally available in the Puget Sound region. A recent capacity analysis
accomplished in King County indicates there is available land with urbanized communities
to accommodate new housing for the next 20 :years. Real estate agencies and vacancy rates
indicate sufficient existing housing availability for the next three years.
Affordable housing is currently in short supply in the more urbanized areas. Renters
moving to housing with similar standards may have to travel several miles taking families
away from familiar neighborhoods and inducing transportation impacts from trips generated
to and from work. Displaced home owners will either buy existing homes available in their
area or build new homes. New housing is more expensive due to new building code
requirements, new development regulations, and new impact fees.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -56 Land Use
In accordance with the GMA, approximately $2,000 is available for low- income relocation
assistance; one -half to be provided by the developer and the other half to be provided by
the jurisdiction.
Development /Redevelopment. Local jurisdictions are responsible for land use decisions and
will control what is allowed with the area of the facility and when it would be permitted.
Decisions will be necessary for open space, recreation, commercial and industrial activities,
public facilities, and all the required elements of comprehensive planning listed in the
Growth Management Act.
Relationship to GMA. The consistency requirement of GMA I applies to planning for new
facilities such as airports. To be in compliance with the acts at the time the comprehensive
plans are adopted, the elements of housing, land use, transportation, capital facilities, and
utilities must be consistent. City and county plans must be coordinated and consistent with
each other.
The multi- county policies (Snohomish, King, and Pierce), as well as the individual policies
for planning public facilities should be adopted by Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston
Counties by July 1, 1992. This project would be subject to review by the affected agency.
The GMA calls for planning to be accomplished for three time frames; 20 years for land use
planning, 10 years for transportation planning, and 6 years for capital improvement planning.
Land capacity analyses are in progress to help determine urban growth boundaries, urban
densities, and levels of service for public facilities. Transportation plans establish levels of
service for roads. Provisions for bringing existing roads up to standards and concurrency
requirements for new roads will be addressed. Capital improvement plans include new and
old facilities, cost, and sources of funding.
3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Redevelopment to airport facilities and access will displace homes, businesses, and other
land uses in the acquisition areas. Such unavoidable impacts may be reduced if protective
zoning and land use planning is implemented before the year 2000.
3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
3.7.1 Affected Environment
Public and urban governmental services are defined in the GMA and include fire, police,
health, schools, recreation, environmental, governmental (administrative support facilities),
storm and sanitary sewer systems, water systems, street cleaning, and public transit. Sewer
and water district comprehensive plans, special district plans, and services areas that have
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -57 Public Services & Utilities
their own comprehensive plans must be incorporated into jurisdictional comprehensive
plans.
The local demand for public services (including fire, police, water, and sewer service) would
increase for each of the alternatives, even the no- action alternative. The actual net demand
for public services and utilities will depend upon specific types, densities and locations of
commercial, light industrial, office space and other land uses. Because of the GMA concur -
rency requirement, adequate services must be provided (either developed or substantially
planned for) before a new facility is developed. A study of public service costs prepared for
the VISION 2020 Plan found that at a very general level overall per capita costs remain
virtually unchanged with increases in population and density. This is because demand for
public services increases with density of development, thus offsetting apparent cost savings.
Results in specific cases would vary. The total cost of public services and utilities will be
lower (generally) where there is existing infrastructure and where fewer new facilities are
required.
In general, the Sea -Tac and Paine Field locations have the most developed public service
and utility infrastructure and would require fewer additional services. Arlington, McChord,
and the Central Pierce locations have somewhat limited infrastructures and would require
substantial improvements. Fort Lewis and Olympia /Black. Lake have very limited services,
if any, and would require building entirely new infrastructure systems.
Sea -Tac
Existing Services. Four fire districts provide fire protection and emergency medical services
in the Sea -Tac area. All four districts are members of the King County Interlocal Mutual
Aid Program, which allows each district to call on any other County district for assistance.
In addition, each has first -alarm agreements with neighboring districts. This means that in
the event of a major alarm, neighboring districts are notified at the same time as the
jurisdictional district is notified.
The Port of Seattle Aviation Division has responsibility for fire fighting at Sea -Tac
International Airport. The Port of Seattle has entered into mutual -aid agreements and may
back -up arrangements with King County and with local districts.
The Port of Seattle provides police services for Sea -Tac International Airport. The King
County Police Department provides police protection to the neighborhoods surrounding the
Sea -Tac area. The King County Police Department does not have a mutual agreement with
the Port, but there is informal cooperation with other local jurisdictions on an incident -by-
incident basis.
Three water districts currently supply potable water in the Sea -Tac Airport area. All
districts receive their water supply from the City of Seattle; each district has mutual
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -58 Public Services & Utilities
agreements with adjacent districts to share water in emergencies such as heavy fire flow
demands or water shortages.
The Sea -Tac study area is currently served by four sewer sewer districts, each with a
comprehensive plan to aid them in future planning and coordination with other service
districts and regulatory agencies.
Currently, sewer trunk lines in the Sea -Tac Planning Area (as previously defined by King
County) are reported to be adequate for conveying existing waste water flows. All the sewer
districts have capital improvement programs that are updated annually to accommodate
changes in the capital facilities required.
Arlington
Existing Services. Fire and police services for the airport and vicinity are provided by the
City of Arlington. Police operations are centered in the central business district. Two fire
stations, one near the downtown core and one on airport property, would respond to emer-
gency assistance calls depending on the nature of the call. Sewer and water service are
provided at the airport and neighboring vicinity. Some sewer service near the airport is
piped to Marysville for treatment. Both the Arlington and Marysville wastewater treatment
systems have limited capacity.
Paine Field
Existing Services. Several fire protection districts, including Fire Districts 1, 2, and 11 along
with the cities of Everett, Mukilteo, Lynnwood and Edmonds, provide fire protection for the
Paine Field area. A total of nine fire stations are located in the Paine field area. In
addition, both Snohomish County and the Boeing Company maintain well - equipped and
professionally manned fire stations at Paine field to provide fire protection for all property
under their respective ownerships. Both of these stations have special equipment for
handling aircraft crashes and petroleum fires. In addition, the airport has a backup
agreement with the City of Everett.
Police protection in the area is provided by the Cities of Everett, Mukilteo, Edmonds and
Lynnwood. Police protection within the unincorporated portion of the study area, as well
as to Paine Field, is provided by the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office.
Public water service is provided to most all of the Paine Field area by the Mukilteo Water
District, the Alderwood Water District, and the cities of Everett, Edmonds and Lynnwood.
Nearly all of the water provided by these suppliers is purchased from the City of Everett and
originates from its Spada Lake Reservoir system located in the Sultan Basin watershed.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -59 Public Services & Utilities
Public sewer service is provided in the area by the cities of Everett, Lynnwood and
Edmonds, Olympus Terrace Sewer District. The airport is directly served by Olympus
Terrace Sewer District.
McChord Air Force Base
Existing Services. McChord Air Force Base maintains its own fire and police units. One
fire station near the flight line serves the entire base. Its primary purpose is to respond to
aircraft fire emergencies. The fire department also provides backup for Fort Lewis and the
residential community of American Lake Gardens just south of the base. On base Security
Police provide the police services. Military prisoners are brought to Fort Lewis for holding
and sentencing.
The base maintains its own sewer system. Sewage is carried to Fort Lewis Military Reser-
vation where it is treated. Approximately 10 wells provide water for the base. No public
water mains are on base. The Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) for Pierce County
anticipates development of groundwater systems in conjunction with an expanded trans-
mission and distribution grid that will allow districts to share their resources.
Central Pierce
Existing Services. Fire protection is provided by Fire District #9 and Fire District #21.
Fire District #9 maintains a station at 172nd Street East and 110th Avenue East
immediately east of Thun Air Field. Fire District #21 maintains a station at 188th Street
East and 78th Avenue East and another station just south of the Paul Bunyan Rifle Range
near 188th Street East and Highway 161. All three stations are within the airport layout
boundaries. Police protection is provided by the Pierce County Sheriffs Department.
Pierce County provides sewer service in the area. The County maintains a 24 -inch sewer
interceptor that extends south from 176th Street East south down Meridian Avenue (High-
way 161). Firgrove Water Company provides water service in the area. The company main-
tains a 12 -inch main along Meridian Avenue past the site. Both Firgrove and Pierce County
provide Thun Airfield with water and sewer service.
Olympia /Black Lake
Existing Services. Fire service in the area is provided by District #11. The district is
primarily volunteer. The nearest fire station is located at approximately 93rd Avenue and
Lathrop Road. Police services are provided by Thurston County Sheriff's Department. The
City of Tumwater may occasionally provide mutual -aid assistance.
No sewer systems or sewer mains are located near the site. There is a 12 -inch water main
along Lathrop Road that is operated by a private water company in the area.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -60 Public Services & Utilities
Fort Lewis
Existing Services. Because most of the site is in a remote area of the Fort Lewis Military
reservation, fire and police services are not readily available. The southeast portion of the
site, located in unincorporated Pierce County would be served by local fire districts in the
area. Police protection would be provided by the Pierce County Sheriff.
Water service is not provided on the military portion of the site. On the portion of the site
south of the reservation, water is provided by well systems. East of the site, east of the
National Park Highway (Mountain Highway), water is supplied by the Richardson Water
Company which maintains a 12 -inch main along the highway.
3.7.2 Significant Impacts
3.6.2.1 Preferred Alternative
There are no significant impacts to public services at Sea -Tac or the Paine Field areas.
Required improvements can likely be accommodated in capital improvement plans and
accounted for in the Capital Facilities Element, and Public Utilities and Facilities elements
of comprehensive plans.
Impacts on school enrollment in surrounding communities will be affected by airport
development. A disincentive for residential development will occur because of noise
impacts and adjacent commercial and industrial development. However, because the GMA
calls for reduced sprawl, and in general, urban densities that support urban services, urban
densities could be increased by including multiple -unit housing units close to urban centers.
A jurisdiction may decide to zone for multi - family housing with increased densities closer
to airports to comply with the GMA; this would impact schools. In this case, new construc-
tion and soundproofing methods would be used. School capital improvement plans are to
be integrated into comprehensive plans of the local jurisdictions.
Sea -Tac. All public services would require some expansion to accommodate direct and
induced levels of activity at Sea -Tac airport under the no- action and all action alternatives.
The existing level and range of services available would minimize the additions required
compared to less developed airport options.
Paine Field. All public services would require some expansion to accommodate direct and
induced levels of increased activity at Paine Field. The existing level and range of services
would minimize the additions required, compared to less developed airport options.
McChord AFB. Any substantial growth in the McChord area would require additions to the
fire and police services with more stations and equipment. Services to duplicate the base's
own fire and police would be necessary. Both a new public water supply and sewage
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -61 Public Services & Utilities
treatment would be required to serve the airport. Activities in the airport vicinity could be
served to some extent by existing supply and treatment systems.
Fort Lewis. As part of the Fort Lewis Military reservation, the area is outside any
anticipated service area for public services. Development of an airport would require
substantial development of new or greatly expanded infrastructure systems.
Olympia /Black Lake. The area identified is located - outside of Thurston County's long -
range Urban Growth Management Area boundary and only limited public services area are
expected to be provided. Development of an airport would require substantial development
of new or greatly expanded infrastructure systems.
Planning for two runways at Fort Lewis, McChord AFB, or Olympia /Black Lake area would
require substantial public service improvements. The GMA requires that urban services be
provided by cities and be within urban growth boundaries. New airport facilities would
comply with GMA concurrency and consistency requirements, both internal and external.
3.7.2.2 Secondary Alternatives
Secondary alternative impacts are the same categorically as for the preferred alternative
with the addition of Arlington. Arlington impacts for public services are more substantial
than for Sea -Tac or Paine Field due to the lack of improved facilities. Provisions for
adequate water and sewer services would have to be accounted for in the water and sewer
comprehensive plans.
Arlington. Any substantial growth in the Arlington area, as the result of an expanded
airport, would require additions to the fire and police services with more stations and
equipment. Groundwater supplies in northern Snohomish County are limited and would
probably not be sufficient to serve an airport and surrounding activities. The North
Snohomish Coordinated Water Supply Plans (CWSP) anticipate a water transmission line
to the Arlington area to tie into the City of Everett system and the Sultan River supply.
Substantial improvement and expansion would be required to provide adequate sewage
treatment capacity.
Central Pierce. All public services would probably require expansion to accommodate direct
and induced levels of activity at the Central Pierce location, especially for a replacement
airport. A full range of services is available, however, and could provide some of the
capacity needed for a small airport.
Based on conceptual drawings, the one runway option would displace the fire station at
188th Street and Highway 161 maintained by Fire District #21. The two runway option
would displace both of the stations maintained by Fire District #21. Under the replacement
airport option, all three fire stations would be displaced.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -62 Public Services & Utilities
3.7.2.3 Other Alternatives
The other alternatives will impact the same public service and utilities elements as the other
sites. The degree of impact will vary with each alternative. If Fort Lewis, McChord AFB,
or Olympia /Black Lake sites are not feasible, other alternatives would be reviewed using
the guidelines of the GMA.
3.7.2.4 No- Action
Under the no- action alternative no additional public services and utilities would be required
at any airport location.
3.7.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation procedures for public services for all sites would be the same. A level of service
would be established for fire, police, and other public services in the local jurisdiction.
Special district, water and sewer comprehensive plans, and regional plans would be incor-
porated in the jurisdictional comprehensive plan. The jurisdictional comprehensive plan
would be coordinated and made consistent with county and regional plans.
Mitigation measures will vary proportionally with the impacts and will depend on adopted
levels of service and design and construction standards.
3.7.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no unavoidable adverse impacts to public services.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page 3 -63 Public Services & Utilities
REFERENCES
Department of the Army, Headquarters 9th Infantry Division and fort Lewis. 1979. Final
Environmental Fort Lewis Military Installation.
King County Planning and Community Development Division. 1988. Sea -Tac Area Update
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
King County Planning and Community Development Division. 1989. Sea -Tac Area Update.
King County Planning and Community Development Division. 1989. Sea -Tac Area Update
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
P & D Technologies. 1988. Port of Seattle, Sea -Tac International Airport. Comprehensive
Planning Review Working Papers.
Pierce County Department of Planning and Land Services. 1991. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. Lakewood Community Plan.
Pierce County Department of Planning and Land Services. 1991. Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Boeing- Pierce County Fredrickson Site Master Plan.
Reid, Middleton, & Associates, Inc. 1981. Paine Field Snohomish County Airport Master
Plan.
Reid, Middleton, & Associates, Inc. 1988. Arlington Municipal Airport, Master Plan
Update.
Snohomish County Department of Planning and Community Development, Planning
Division. 1985. City of Arlington. Final Comprehensive Plan.
Snohomish County Office of Community Planning. 1982. Marysville Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Snohomish County Planning Department. 1977. Arlington Area Comprehensive Plan.
Snohomish County Planning Department. 1983. Paine Field Area Comprehensive Plan.
Thurston County Planning Department. 1988. Thurston County Comprehensive Plan.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS Page R -1 References
Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1990. Shoreline Master Program.
Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1991. The Profile.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration and Snohomish County.
1983. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Snohomish County Airport.
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey of
Snohomish County Area Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey of
Thurston County, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Soil Survey of
Pierce County Area, Washington.
LIST OF MAPS
United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey. 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle
Maps.
U.S. Department of the Interior. National Wetlands inventory maps.
State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. Orthophoto Maps. 1983.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page R -2 References
GLOSSARY
Airport systems
Multiple commercial airports serving the same region. There are two predominant
system types. One system has two or more airports with similar capacity levels and
service (such as New York's systems). The other system type contains a primary
airport supported by one or more supplemental airports (such as San Francisco and
Los Angeles area airport systems).
Capacity
Refers to the capability of an airport, or its components, to process air traffic over
a period of time. For this project, the focus is airfield capacity, which is measured
by the number of aircraft operations (i.e., either takeoff or landing) that can be
accommodated within a specific time period without substantial delay. Capacity can
be exceeded, but the result in longer delays.
Concurrency
One of the main requirements of the Growth Management Act which mandates that
adequate infrastructure be in place or scheduled to be provided in order for
development to occur.
Consistency
One of the main requirements of the Growth Management Act mandating that
development regulations (zoning, subdivision, and other controls) be consistent with
the comprehensive plans for an area. Both city and county comprehensive plans
must also be coordinated.
Delay
When the hourly or daily capacity of an airport is exceeded delay occurs. This
increases the time that an aircraft takes to move from its origin to destination.
Commercial aviation delays increase costs and lower efficiency and convenience for
the air traveler.
Demand management
Using an existing airport facility to handle demand through efficiency measures.
These measures may include flying larger aircraft, requiring higher occupancy levels
on flights, and travelling during non -peak hours to reduce delays.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page G -1 Glossary
Dependent runway
A runway which is not physically separated by enough distance from another runway
for traffic on either runway to be independent of each other. A 7,000 -foot dependent
runway, to be sited along the western boundary of Sea -Tac, is a component of the
preferred alternative.
FAA Federal Aviation Administration; the branch of the U.S. Department of
Transportation responsible for regulating all commercial and private aviation.
GMA Growth Management Act of 1990 (also called 2929). The Act requires all cities and
counties in the state to do some planning and calls for the fastest growing counties
to plan extensively in accordance with state goals. Supplemented in 1991 by the
State Legislature.
HCT High Capacity Transit; the general term used to describe modes of ground
transportation capable of carrying substantially more passenger volumes than private
automobiles. HCT includes light and heavy rail and bus systems.
IFR Instrument Flight Rules; navigation method implemented when weather decreases
visibility to the point where pilots must rely on instruments to maneuver. IFR
conditions require greater separation between aircraft on arrival and significantly
lower an airport's capacity.
Induced Land Use
Increased levels of growth and activity as a result of a specific project or
development. The hotel and commercial area near Sea -Tac Airport is a good
example of induced airport- related land use.
Infrastructure
A general term used to describe many types of public facilities including water and
sewer systems, roads and freeways, and schools. Infrastructure systems are usually
expensive to build and operate, and are funded by taxes or use fees.
Ldn A cumulative Day /Night Noise Level measurement which combines the loudness of
each overflight, the duration of these events, the total number of overflights and the
time of day the events occur into one single scale -- with a 10- decibel weight added
to nighttime noise levels.
MAP Millions of Annual Passengers; commonly used to measure demand for air
transportation.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page G -2 Glossary
Non - attainment
Areas that do not meet state or federal air quality standards for specific air
pollutants. Non - attainment classification can limit approval for new sources of air
pollutant emissions and require plans be implemented to achieve compliance.
Operations
Refers to aircraft activity at an airport. A takeoff or landing is a single operation.
PSAPCA
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency; authorized by Ecology and the EPA to
enforce air pollution regulations for King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties.
PSAPCA also issues some of its own standards that are stricter than the underlying
state or federal requirements.
PSATC
Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee; a thirty-nine member steering group
comprised of citizens, local and elected officials, members of the business community,
and other interested citizens charged with developing a plan for the central Puget
Sound air transportation system.
PSRC
Puget Sound Regional Council, replaces the Puget Sound Council of Governments.
An intergovernmental agency established pursuant to state and federal regulations
and covering King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties as well as most of their
municipalities. PSRC is responsible for regional transportation planning and has
additional authority under the Growth Management Act. PSRC also provides
regional land use planning and analysis.
Remote Airport
Includes the coordination of service at Sea -Tac Airport and another airport
connected to Sea -Tac by high -speed ground transportation. The PSATC
recommended the elimination of this option because of the extremely high cost of
developing the site and the transit connection as well as other factors.
Replacement airport
An airport that would completely replace Sea -Tac capable of providing full domestic
and international service. The capacity of the replacement airport would be
sufficient to accommodate future passenger and air cargo traffic well beyond the year
2020.
SEL Single Event Sound Exposure Level; used to describe the maximum noise level
occurring at any one time.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page G -3 Glossary
Sole- Source Aquifer
An area designated by the EPA as having an aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent
of the drinking water supply with no economically feasible alternative available.
Designation as a sole- source aquifer requires EPA review and approval of all
federally financed projects.
Stage II or III
Refers to aircraft noise characteristics which are regulated by FAA Federal Aircraft
Regulation 36. Stage II aircraft (like the Boeing 727) are older and produce
considerably more noise than newer Stage III aircraft (like the Boeing 767). The
FAA has mandated that all Stage II aircraft be phased out of service by about 2000.
Supplemental Airport
An additional one- or two - runway airport designed to relieve demand at Sea -Tac
Airport. The supplemental airport could be an existing airport or a new site.
VFR Visual Flight Rules; navigation method used when weather and visibility do not effect
the pilot's ability to see. During VFR conditions less separation is required between
aircraft approaching an airport.
Flight Plan Project
Draft Programmatic EIS
Page G -4 Glossary
APPENDIX 1
Working Paper 12A, Noise Assessment Study
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASg III
UGE -T- SOUND- A117 -- TRANSPORTATION COINk1ET -TEG
DATE: November 6, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Transportation Committee
FROM: Mestre Greve Associates/P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 12A - NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the analysis of the potential noise impacts associated with
each of the airport system alternatives under consideration. To effectively evaluate and explain
potential noise impacts well into the future, this study utilized methods and criteria that consider
noise impacts much farther from the airport sites than is usual for traditional airport noise studies.
The methods and data assumptions were selected to be conceptually uncomplicated and capable
of treating all systems alternatives as equally as possible.
The study utilized standard industry-wide methods of computer modeling and noise assessment
analysis such as the use of the 65 Ldn criteria. Supplemental noise assessment criteria were also
included so that the potential noise impacts could be more thoroughly evaluated. The analysis
identified the population that would be exposed to a less significant level of aircraft noise (55
Ldn) and to a level of single event noise (80 SEL). Populations that would be newly exposed to
noise (55 and 65 Ldn) were also evaluated.
The criteria used in the analysis were applied to the total populations contained within the noise
contours developed for each of the various noise assessment criteria. The noise contours are
based upon 2020 operational assumptions -'The population analysis was based upon 2000
population projections on the assumption that protective land use zoning around the seT cted
airport site(s) would go into effect by that date.
This report is divided into the following sections:
• Summary of Results
• Background Information
• Evaluation Criteria
• Noise Contour Analysis
• Population Impacts
• Comparative Analysis
• Mitigation Alternatives
Appendix A contains more detailed information on the study. This includes background
information on the descriptions of noise, noise metrics, assessment guidelines, aircraft
operational assumptions, and the results of the noise contours and population projections.
R&D Aviation
Page 1
A Division of Pd 0 Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUG DT- SOUND,4IR TRAM rPORTATION- OOMM1 -T-Td
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The noise analysis compared the total population that would be exposed to various noise
assessment criteria for each of the airport system alternatives. The noise assessment criteria used
in the analysis included: (1) population exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 55 Ldn,
(2) population that would be newly exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 55 Ldn, (3)
population exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 65 Ldn, (4) population that would be
newly exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 65 Ldn, and (5) population that would be
exposed to single event SEL noise levels in excess of 80 SEL. The Ldn noise metric, used by
the FAA and EPA, is the most prominent noise metric used in the assessment of aircraft noise
impacts.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 12 -1 for each of the system alternatives.
This table shows both the range of total population exposed to noise per each criteria and a
ranking based upon the consultant's recommendation.
In assessing the relative difference in noise impacts between the system alternatives, it is
important to point out the inherent difference between the community response to noise
associated with an airport that has existed for many years and the response to noise that will
occur at a new airport. It is very difficult to compare the relative noise impacts between these
two different environments and the criteria used in this analysis attempts to account for the
difference.
Each of the noise assessment criteria is important in the evaluation of an airport alternative. The
rating of the preference of alternatives depends upon which criteria is considered most important
and weighted accordingly. A description of the methodology used by the consultant in weighting
each of these factors that was used in the ranking of the alternatives is presented on Page 10.
Based upon these weightings, a number of important conclusions can be drawn:
The most important conclusion from the noise analysis is that the future noise
environment for all of the system alternatives represents a significant improvement over
that which exists around Sea -Tac today. The aircraft that are forecast to be operating at
these airports in 2020 are significantly quieter and will result in reductions in both the
overall Ldn noise levels as well as the single event SEL levels. A comparison of existing
and future noise contours for Sea -Tac are presented in the Appendix. For example,
approximately 70,000 people currently reside in Sea -Tac's existing 65 Ldn noise contour.
By 2020, the population within Sea. -Tac's 65 Ldn noise contour for the worst case
scenario is projected to be less than 13,000 people.
• The ranking of the system alternatives is dependent upon the actual airport sites. The
rating of the system alternatives can vary when different airport sites are considered and
the ranking in the table reflects a mid -range of impacts.
• The alternative that is rated the most favorable is the replacement airport alternative. This
would only be true for a new airport site such as Olympia/Black Lake where the
population around the proposed site is projected to be minimal. For sites with a
significant population near the airport site, such as Central Pierce, this alternative is not
considered favorable.
P&D Aviation
Page 2
A Division of Pa D Technologies
Table 12-1
Population Range by Category within 2020 Noise Contours
System Alternatives
Total
Population
55 LDN
(000)'
Population
Newly Exposed
to 55 LDN
(000)
Total
Population
65 LDN
(000)'
Population
Newly Exposed
to 65 LDN
(000)'
Total Rank
Population
80 SEL
(000)' (1 Best)
EXISTING SEA -TAC AIRPORT SYSTEM
EXISTING SEA -TAC WITH MAXIMUM DEMAND MANAGEMENT 112-119
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC + SUPP(1 RWY)
EXISTING SEA -TAC + SUPP(2 RWY)
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY+SUPP(1 RWY)
(Mitigated Sea -Tac with New AC Rwy + Supp (1 Rwy)
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY+SUPP(2RWY)
(Mitigated Sea -Tac with New AC Rwy + Supp (2 Rwy)
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC + 2 SUPP(1 RWY)
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY + 2 SUPP(1 RWY)
(Mitigated Sea -Tac with New AC Rwy + 2 Supp (1 Rwy)
19-62
116-135
117-138
133-141
(127-135)
133-141
(127-135)
121-132
132-137
(128-133)
19-62
0-23
0-26
0-7
(0-7)
0-8
(0-8)
9-20
4-11
(4-11)
7
0.3-2.8
7.1-8.2
7.1-8.3
13-13.5
(8-8.5)
13-13.5
(8-8.5)
7.1-7.9
12.6-13.1
(8.1-8.6)
0.3-2.8
0-1.2
0-1.3
0-0.5
(0-0.5)
0-1
(0-1)
0.1-0.9
0.1-0.6
(0.1-0.6)
91-94
49-55
115-143
125-153
128-160
(118-150)
138-167
(128-157)
139-175
153-189
(143-149)
2"
1
6-
7
9
3
10
4
8
11
5
• Population Estimates Based on 2000 Population Projection
" Denotes System Alternatives that include Airport Development Alternatives that do not meet System Capacity Demands
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
— PUGC-T- SOUND - ANT -TRA NSPOFFTATION- COMMITT[C
The ranking of System Alternatives that include the dependent runway at Sea -Tac are
considered less favorable (rated 9, 10, and 11). If measures such as restricting use of the
runway to daytime use and for arrival traffic only are imposed, then the potential noise
impacts from this alternative are reduced. With restricted use of the new runway, a
multiple airport system that involves a new air carrier runway at Sea -Tac is rated more
favorably (rated 3, 4 and 5) than a multiple airport system without improvements to Sea -
Tac (rated 6, 7 and 8). This is because it reflects a balance of some growth at Sea -Tac
with limited growth at supplemental airport sites. No increase of capacity at Sea -Tac
would result in more significant increase in growth and noise at the supplemental airport
sites.
None of the alternatives stand out as far superior to any of the others in terms of noise
impacts. Each of the airport system alternatives result in similar level of noise impacts.
While these noise levels are a significant improvement over the aircraft noise levels that
exist in Seattle today, it is expected that some level of adverse community response to
aircraft noise would still be experienced with any of the alternatives.
P&D Aviation A Division of P& D Technologies
Page 3
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following presents background information on the methodology and criteria used in the
assessment of aircraft noise impacts for each system alternative. A more detailed description of
background information on noise and noise assessment criteria are also presented in the
Appendix.
The description, analysis, and reporting of community sound levels from aircraft are made
difficult by the complexity of human response to sound and the myriad of sound - rating scales
and metrics that have been developed for describing acoustic effects. For example, community
noise is generally not constant but varies with time. Therefore, some type of statistical metric is
necessary to mathematically express a varying noise level that can be correlated to community
response. As a result of the complexity of describing noise, several noise metrics have been
developed to account for characteristics of noise such as loudness, duration, time of day, and
cumulative effects of multiple noise events.
Noise is known to have several adverse effects on health and does cause disruption in human
activities. The identified adverse effects of noise on people include hearing loss (not a factor
with community airport noise), communication interference, sleep interference, physiological
responses and annoyance.
Many factors influence how a sound is perceived and whether or not it is considered annoying to
the listener. This includes not only physical characteristics of the sound but also secondary
influences such as sociological and external factors. Factors that describe human response to
sound in terms of both acoustic and non - acoustic factors are presented in Table 12 -1 and rating
scales have been developed to account for the factors that affect human response to sound.
Based upon these identified adverse effects of noise and the factors that influence annoyance,
noise metrics and criteria have been established to help protect the public health and safety and
prevent disruption of certain human activities.
P&D Aviation A Dlvlsion of P6 D Technologies
F'age 4
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGCT-SOUND AIR - TRANSPORTATION COMMIT-TEE-
TABLE 12 -2
Factors that Affect Individual Annoyance to Noise
Primary Acoustic Factors
Sound Level
Frequency
Duration
Secondary Acoustic Factors
Spectral Complexity
Fluctuations in Sound Level
Fluctuations in Frequency
Rise -time of the Noise
Localization of Noise Source
Background Noise Levels
Non - acoustic Factors
Physiology
Adaptation and Past Experience
How the Listener's Activity Affects Annoyance
Predictability of When a Noise will Occur
Is the Noise Necessary?
Individual Differences and Personality
Source: C. Harris, 1979
ND Aviation
Page 5
u�•(� u J•
A Division of Pa D Technologies
PUGET- SOUND- A!R -TP4 ;PORTATION- EOMMITTE-
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT ]PHASE III
A number of different noise criteria were examined in this study of the noise environment at each
of the alternative sites. It was desirable to utilize nationally accepted metrics that would best
predict the potential community response to aircraft noise in the neighborhoods surrounding the
airport sites and were defensible in their application to the aircraft noise issues in the Puget
Sound area.
Ldn Noise Metric. The cumulative noise metric, Day Night Noise Level (Ldn), was the
primary noise metric selected to assess the noise impacts from aircraft operations. The Ldn
metric is useful because it combines the loudness of each aircraft overflight, the duration of these
events, the total number of overflights and the time of day these events occur into one single
number rating scale. The Ldn scale is specified by most government agencies, including the
FAA and the EPA, for the assessment of the noise impacts around airports.
Extensive research using the Ldn index has been conducted on human responses to exposure of
different levels of aircraft noise. Community noise standards are derived from tradeoffs between
the impacts expressed in community response surveys and economic considerations for
achieving these levels. Examples of the results of these surveys are expressed in Exhibit 12 -1 in
terms of community reaction versus Ldn noise level. These charts are derived from case
histories involving aircraft noise problems at civilian and military airports and the resultant
community response.
The Ldn noise level can be used as an indicator for when significant impacts from noise and
when annoyance from aircraft noise is likely to occur. The EPA has identified 55 Ldn as the
highest noise level requisite to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of
safety. This includes both residential land use with outdoor use areas and recreational areas.
This criteria does not constitute EPA regulations or standards. Rather, it is intended to identify a
goal of safe levels of environmental noise exposure without consideration for economic cost for
achieving these levels.
The consultant recommends that 55 Ldn be an important criteria for the evaluation of the potential
noise impacts around new airport development sites and,while it is not technology feasible as a
mitigation in developed areas, it be considered in evaluating the noise impacts around existing
airport sites for comparative purposes. 55 Ldn best reflects a noise environment that is indicative
of a desired goal for the noise environment within the communities of Puget Sound.
The Federal Aviation Administration and most government agencies throughout the country
utilize 65 Ldn as the criteria to indicate compatibility of aircraft noise with residential land use.
This level reflects a balance between a desired sound environment and the economic costs for
meeting this level. Note that when examining Exhibit 12 -1, adverse community reaction still
occurs at 65 Ldn. A population exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 Ldn would be
considered significantly impacted by noise. Therefore, this criteria is important in the evaluation
of noise impacts from all of the airport sites.
P&D ANatlon
Page 6
A Division of P& D Technologies
The Flight Plan Project Phase III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY
REACTION
VIGOROUS
COMMUNITY
ACTION
SEVERAL
THREATS OF
LEGAL ACTION,
OR STRONG
APPEALS TO
LOCAL
OFFICIALS TO
STOP NOISE
WIDESPREAD
COMPLAINTS OR
SINGLE THREAT
OF LEGAL ACTION
SPORADIC
COMPLAINTS
NO REACTION,
ALTHOUGH NOISE IS
GENERALLY
NOTICEABLE
Exhibit
12 -1
ENVELOPE OF
90% OF DATA
45
50
DATA
NORMALIZED TO
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
AMBIENT NOISE
- SONIE PRIOR EXPOSURE
• - WINDOWS PARTIALLY OPEN
NO PURE TONE OR
IMPULSES
1 1 1 1 1
65 70 75
55
60
80
DAY NIGHT LEVEL IN dB
85
90
Example of Community Reaction to Aircraft Noise
The Flight Plan Project Phase 111
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
UGL-- T- SOUND -A I R -TRA NSPOR- TATION- COMMFrTcc- - - - -
SEL Noise Metric, While it has been demonstrated that cumulative noise metrics correspond
well with overall community ratings of the noise environment, they will not always accurately
predict community response. A number of airport studies have shown community response to
noise is not always completely predicted through one descriptor such as Ldn. In such cases,
single event metrics can be used to supplement the analysis. Single event noise analysis is often
a predictor of when annoyance from aircraft noise is likely to occur.
While the total noise exposure as described by the cumulative noise metric serves as the basis for-
a person's judgment of the noise environment, it is often a single event interference with some
activity that people will use to express their immediate concern over noise.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is a "single event" descriptor of an individual overflight and is
often used to supplement the Ldn analysis. An SEL level of 80 dBA corresponds to the level at
which sleep disturbance and speech interference start to occur in the general population. A single
event SEL of 80 dBA was thus selected as one of the evaluation criteria for this study.
The results from community response information obtained from studies around Sea -Tac were
used as supplemental information. Experience at Sea -Tac showed that the 55 Ldn and 80 SEL
are good indicators of the overall cumulative noise level at which complaints and annoyance from
aircraft start to occur.
P&D Aviation A Division of Pa D Technologies
Page 7
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
-UGET- SOUND- AIli- TRANSPORTATION- COhih ?l -T-TE
EVALUATION CRITERIA
As stated in previous sections, the evaluation of the potential noise impacts for each of the airport
system alternative sites involved the use of various noise assessment criteria. These criteria were
presented in previous sections and they are further explained below.
•
Residential population exposed to aircraft noise of 55 Ldn or greater. A noise level of 55
Ldn and greater indicates the population to which the aircraft noise will be noticeable and
some degree of annoyance or adverse community response would be expected to occur.
The EPA has identified 55 Ldn as the requisite noise level for residential land use. It is
the level below which social surveys have shown that most residences consider the noise
environment to be acceptable. Experience at Sea -Tac showed most areas (but not
all),where noise complaints occurred were exposed to Ldn levels of 55 or greater.
For a new airport site the 55 Ldn is the most important criteria. This level represents that
area in which future residential land use development may require the start of some level
of land use protection. This is not to say that no homes should be located within the 55
Ldn noise contour, but that the desired goal should be to minimize the number.
There are a number of reasons why the 55 Ldn is an important criteria. First, we know
from studies at other airports and experience at Sea -Tac that a degree of annoyance or
adverse community response can be expected to occur at the 55 Ldn. (The EPA
identified 55 Ldn as a goal for residential areas, without consideration for technical or
economic feasibility.) Generally, in a densely populated urban environment, it is not
economically feasible to insulate every home within the 55 Ldn contour nor is it desirable
from a neighborhood integrity standpoint to buy homes on such a large scale. At a new
airport site, however, it may indeed be possible to consider early zoning and other land
use control measures to avoid significant residential land use impacts.
Residential population newly exposed to 55 Ldn or greater. A newly exposed population
consists of those people experiencing new exposure to aircraft noise as a direct result of
the alternative. Studies have shown that people newly exposed to aircraft noise initially
experience a much stronger adverse reaction than those who have had a long term
exposure to the same level. This fact, coupled with the information provided on the use
of the 55 Ldn criteria, provides a basis for using this as an important evaluation criteria.
This category reflects the population around a new airport or an airport that previous had
very few operations and is therefore likely to notice the addition of new aircraft noise and
exhibit a higher level of annoyance.
Residential population exposed to aircraft noise of 65 Ldn or greater. The 65 Ldn
indicates the population that is significantly impacted by aircraft noise. The FAA noise
assessment criteria is 65 Ldn for the compatibility of residential land use with aircraft
noise levels. It is likely that for a new airport site, existing homes will need to be either
purchased or insulated within the 65 Ldn contour.
P&D Aviation
i®
Page 8
A Division of P& 0 Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGGT-SOUND -All -I TRANSPOIT TATION- COMMITTEE- - - - -•
Residential population newly exposed to aircraft noise of 65 Ldn or greater. A population
that is newly exposed to aircraft noise has been shown to show higher annoyance to
aircraft noise than a population that has had a long term exposure to the noise. This
criteria will indicate the most highly noise impacted population. This area will most likely
need special action, such as buy -out or insulation.
Residential population exposed to single event aircraft noise of 80 SEL or greater. The
80 SEL single event noise contour is an indicator for when speech interference and sleep
disturbance start to occur. The 80 SEL single event contour is therefore a good indicator
of where single event disturbance is likely to result in annoyance from aircraft operations
for a segment of the population. Experience at Sea -Tac has shown that most noise
complaints occur in areas where the SEL noise level exceeds 80 dBA.
P &D Aviation 0 A Division of P& D Technologies
Page 9
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGC -T SOUND AIR-TRANSPOR TATION COMMITTED - - - - --
NOISE CONTOUR ANALYSIS
ISBN.......
Noise contours, both Ldn and SEL, for each of the airport alternatives were generated using the
FAA's Integrated Noise Model described in the Appendix. These contours were developed for
both the cumulative Ldn noise level and the single event SEL noise levels. The contours are
based upon 2020 operational assumptions derived from the Flight Plan operational analysis
updated in Phase III by P &D Technologies. More detailed information on the operational
assumptions can be found in the Appendix.
The aircraft that are assumed to be operating into the 21st century are expected to generate similar
noise levels as those of the quietest of the new generation aircraft that are being built today. The
contour analysis assumes all Stage III aircraft such as the MD80, MD90, B737 -300, B757,
B767, MD -11, B747 -400 as well as other new generation aircraft. (Stage 111 refers to the
quietest category of aircraft as defined by the FAA Federal Aircraft Regulation 36 which
regulates the noise levels generated by jet aircraft. FAA certification of Stage 111 aircraft is based
on engine weight and noise.). Given the 25 to 30 year life span for commercial aircraft, these
aircraft would be expected to still be in service by 2020.
Although these aircraft are significantly quieter than many of the current fleet of aircraft such as
the B727, they still generate noticeable levels of noise. Aircraft that are currently under
development utilize similar technology that is expected to result in noise levels that are also
similar to the current generation of quieter aircraft. Any significant future reductions in noise will
require new developments in engine technology or noise control that are not currently available.
The Ldn noise levels were determined for each of the airport development alternatives. The 55
and 65 Ldn noise contours for fifteen of the airport development alternatives are presented in the
Appendix. These exhibits present the noise contours for the highest operational assumptions for
one, two and three runway scenarios for each airport site. The amount of land in terms of square
miles that is within each noise contour for each alternative is presented in Table 12 -3.
Single event noise contours for aircraft types and procedures expected to be in operation in 2020
were also generated. The departure noise levels were used because departure noise represent the
highest single event noise level. The aircraft selected to represent the single event noise levels is
the McDonnell Douglas MD -82. This aircraft is typical of the MD80 fleet, which is expected to
be the loudest aircraft in operation through the early part of the 21st century.
The 80 SEL noise contours for MD82 departures are also presented for the same fifteen
alternative airport development scenarios. These contours are presented in the Appendix. These
single event contours were developed in terms of the departure noise levels along the many
different primary flight tracks around the airport. These contour maps present a composite of the
single event noise levels of all of these primary flight tracks and are intended to reflect typical
single event noise levels in different communities.
P&D Aviation A Division of Pa D Technologies
Page 10
Table 12-3
Size of LDN Noise Contours (Square Miles)
Seatac Seatac North North South South
Alt. Airport System Alternatives Airport Airport Airports Airports Airports Airports
55 LDN 65 LDN 55 LDN 65 LDN 55 LDN 65 LDN
1 ' Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 30.9 5.1
2 ' Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 32.7 5.5
3 ' Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 12.8 1.8
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 14.6 2
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 15.7 2.2
6 ' Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 12.8 1.8
7 • Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 12.8 1.8
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 17.6 2.3
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 15.1 2.3
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 15.8 2.3
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 17.6 2.4
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W 30.9 5.1 17.6 2.3
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 38.3 7.1 5.5 0.7
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Palne 1 R/W 38.2 7.1 5.5 0.8
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 38.3 7.1 6.7 1
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1-R/W 38.2 7.1 5.5 0.7
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W 38.3 7.1 5.5 0.7
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 38.3 7.1 6.9 0.8
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 38.2 7.1 6 1
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 38.3 7.1 7 1.1
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 38.2 7.1 6.9 0.9
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik.Lake 2 R/W 38.3 7.1 7 0.8
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 8.2 1.1 9.3 1.3
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 8.6 1.2 8.7 1.2
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 9.1 1.2 8.2 1.1
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W 30.9 5.1 9.7 1.3 7.7 1
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W 36.9 6.8 4.3 0.6 5.5 0.7
28 Alternate 14+Central Pierce 1 R/W 36.2 6.6 5.5 0.8 5.5 0.7
29 Alternate 13+Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 38.1 7.1 4.3 0.6 3.3 0.5
30 Alternate 14+O1ympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 37.4 6.9 5.5 0.8 3.3 0.5
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W 59.2 8.5
32 Olympla/Black Lake 3 R/W 59.4 8.6
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W 59.2 8.5
34 Alternate 1 + Demand Management 30.9 5.1
• Alternative which does not meet system capacity demand.
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
UGIT-SOUND- A1R- Tl7ANSPO(I- TATJON -COMMITTCC
The contour analysis does not assume any special noise abatement measures. The operational
assumptions for a dependent runway at Sea -Tac include both arrivals and departures and
nighttime operations. Should these assumptions be changed to daytime arrivals only, as might
occur with the anticipated use, then the noise impacts would be considerably lessened.
It is important to note that the Ldn and SEL noise contours presented in this report for the
existing airports of Sea -Tac and McChord are significantly smaller than the current noise
contours for these airports (For Paine Field, the SEL noise contours are also much smaller in the
future). This is a result of the widespread use of quieter aircraft that will be in use by the year
2020. These aircraft are significantly quieter than the majority of the current aircraft that are
operating at these airports.
POPULATION IMPACTS
The noise contour analysis was used to determine the population that would be exposed to
certain noise levels. The analysis is based upon the year 2000 population levels. The year 2000
was selected on the assumption that protective land use zoning would go into effect by that date.
At that time, any future development may be restricted or regulated in order to promote noise and
land use compatibility between the airport and the surrounding area. The year 2020 population
data was not used because any new airport development would include land use restrictions that
would alter the population development around the airport.
Population data were obtained from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) which maintains
a population data base by travel analysis zones (TAZs). There are 546 TAZs within the 4- county
region. TAZs are similar in size to census tracts and tend to be smaller in urbanized areas and
larger in rural areas. TAZ maps and the noise contour maps were overlaid. The area of each of
the TAZs in the various airport vicinities was calculated. Then the percentage area of each TAZ
covered by a given contour was calculated. This percentage was then multiplied by the
population of the TAZ to obtain the population of that TAZ within the noise contour. The
population figures for each of the TAZs were added to obtain the total population within each
contour.
P&G' Aviation A Division of Pa 0 Technologies
Page 11
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
— PUGET- SOUND AIR- TRANSPORTATION •COhM9IT -TE 1—
It is important to note that the size of the TA Zs is more detailed in the urbanized area. The
population counts for airports in the urban area (Sea -Tac, McChord &Paine) tend to be larger
than those in rural areas (Arlington & Olympia/Black Lake). Central Pierce and Fort Lewis are
between these extremes since they are located on the edge of the urban area and have TAZs of
both small and large size in their vicinities. To further refine the population counts, it was
assumed that anyone living within the land area that would be acquired for an airport site for any
of the options would no longer be impacted by noise. This displaced populations was therefore
subtracted from the total counts for each contour.
The results of the population impact analysis for each airport development alternative are
summarized in Table 12 -4. The detailed data for each airport is presented in the Appendix.
These tables present the number of people within the 55 and 65 Ldn and within the 80 SEL noise
contours. These contours are based upon the 2020 operational levels.
The population data show that people will be living around nearly all of the airport sites. The
most densely populated areas will be around Sea -Tac and Paine Field Airports. The least
densely populated area will be around Olympia/Black Lake and Arlington. It is also important to
note that there are no homes to the south of the McChord and Fort Lewis sites because all of the
land is part of the Fort Lewis Army Base.
It is important to note that the population within the noise contours are also significantly less than
the number of people at Sea -Tac that are currently exposed to similar noise levels. For
comparative purposes, the population within the existing Sea -Tac 65 Ldn noise contour is
approximately 70,000. This reduction in impacted population is as a result of the noise control
measures at the airport as well as the shift to quiet Stage III aircraft.
P&D Aviation
Page 12
A Division of P& D Technologies
Table 12-4
Population Summaries within 2020 Noise Contours
Alt
Airport System Alternatives
Total
Population
55 LDN
(000).
Population
Newly Exposed
to 55 LDN
(000)'
Total
Population
65 LDN
(000)'
Population
Newly Exposed
to 65 LDN
(000)'
Total
Population
80 SEL
(000).
1 " Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
2 " Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
3 " Altemate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
4 Altemate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
5 Altemate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
6 " Altemate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 " Altemate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Altemate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
9 Altemate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
10 Altemate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
11 Altemate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Altemate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik.Lake 2 R/W
23 Altemate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
24 Altemate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Altemate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
26 Altemate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W
27 Altemate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W
28 Altemate 14+Central Pierce 1 R/W
29 Altemate 13+Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Altemate 14+Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W
34 " Alternate 1 + Demand Management
112 7.0 91
119 7.0 94
123 11 7.7 0.7 116
135 23 8.2 1.2 143
135 7.8 138
123 11 7.5 0.5 123
116 4 7.1 0.1 115
127 15 7.5 0.5 127
138 26 8.3 1.3 153
135 7.8 147
127 15 7.5 0.5 135
117 5 7.1 0.1 125
135 DbO 4 13.090 0.1 129
138' 7 13.1. 0.1 160
141 13.1 152
135 4 13.5 0.5 137
133 2 13.0 128
136 5 13.0 140
139 8 13.1 0.1 167
141 13.1 161
136 5 13.5 0.5 149
133 2 13.0 138
125 13 7.9 0.9 148
132 20 7.6 0.6 175
121 9 7.5 0.5 139
127 15 7.1 0.1 167
133 7 12.6 0.6 162
137 11 12.6 0.6 189
132 4 13.1 0.1 153
136 8 13.1 0.1 180
53 53 2.8 2.8 55
19 19 0.3 0.3 49
62 62 1.3 1.3 52
112 7.0 91
• Population Estimates Based on 2000 Population Projection
• Denotes System Alternatives that include Airport Development Alternatives that do not meet System Capacity Demands
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
34UNO-- AJR-Tf 4N PO . . 0 ► CO
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The airport systems alternatives were analyzed in terms of the potential noise impacts based upon
the five previously presented criteria. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 12 -1 for
each of the system alternatives. Table 12 -1 shows the range of total population exposed to noise
per each criteria and presents the number of residents in the year 2000 that we estimate will be
within the noise contours for each of the five above presented alternatives. The table also ranks
each alternative based upon the consultant's recommendation. In examining the results in Table
12 -1, different alternatives could be considered more favorable than others depending upon the
criteria that is used. The consultant's recommendation is based upon a methodology that
accounts for each of these factors by weighting their importance in predicting the overall noise
impacts for each airport system alternative.
These weightings of the importance of each of these criteria is based upon acoustic research in
the prediction of adverse community response to aircraft noise, experience from other airports
and Sea -Tac. Important factors in the development of this weightings and in the development of
the rating of the alternatives are listed below:
A population newly exposed to aircraft noise will show a higher level of adverse
response to aircraft noise than a population that has a history of long -term exposure
to that noise. This has been shown in acoustic research and in cases throughout the
country. It is important to not just compare the total population within a noise
contour. Simply reducing the total population within a noise contour by shifting
some of the noise to another airport does not necessarily mean that the adverse
community response will be reduced.
A airport that has been in existence for many years is evaluated differently than a
completely new airport. A population that is living around that airport will respond
differently as a result of adaptation and past experience. This is the case for Sea -Tac
and McChord and to a lessor extent Paine Field. This is not to say that adverse
community response would not be expected if increased air carrier activity occurred at
these airports, but that airports that have operated for some time will have a higher
threshold of adverse community response then a new airport site.
The 55 Ldn noise level was considered the most important criteria level when
evaluating the noise impacts at a new airport site. In evaluating a new airport site, a
criteria such as 55 Ldn is recommended in that it best reflects a noise environment
that is indicative of a desired environment within the communities.
ND Aviation
Page 13
A Division of P& D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
UGC -T 6OUND- Ain-- Ti4NSPOFi-TATION- COMMITTEL - - -- - --
A commercial airport that is developed at an existing airport site, such as McChord or
Paine Field, would likely elicit a lower overall adverse community response to
aircraft noise than a completely new airport that would expose a population to "new"
noise.
The single event noise environment is a good indicator of where aircraft noise is
likely to be noticeable, and where some level of annoyance from the aircraft
operations is likely to occur. Although this criteria is not judged to be as critical as
the Ldn data, the single event noise impacts must be considered, especially when
evaluating the noise impacts between the single airport system and the multiple airport
system.
For weightings that consider minimizing the total population within the Ldn noise contours as the
most important factor, then the most favorable alternative is the replacement airport alternative
and the multiple airport system is less favorable. For weightings that consider minimizing newly
exposed population within the Ldn noise contours, then the multiple airport system alternatives
that include the new runway at Sea -Tac are considered the most favorable and the Replacement
airport system is rated the least favorable. The consultant considers it very important that both of
these criteria be considered and for this study have weighted them equally.
In order to rank each of the system alternatives a weighing value was applied to noise assessment
criteria. One hundred points was divided among each of the five criteria. The alternative with
the lowest overall point total was rated the best. In order to account for the difference in total
population number between the different criteria, the population numbers were scaled. For the
ranking presented in this report the points were allocated as follows:
• 25 Points - Population exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 55 Ldn.
• 25 Points - Population that would be newly exposed to cumulative noise levels in
excess of 55 Ldn.
• 20 Points - Population exposed to cumulative noise levels in excess of 65 Ldn.
• 20 Points - Population that would be newly exposed to cumulative noise levels in
excess of 65 Ldn.
• 10 Points - Population that would be exposed to single event SEL noise levels in excess
of 80 SEL.
Based upon the consultants recommendations each of the system alternatives were ranked
relative to each other. The ranking of the system alternatives is dependent upon the actual airport
sites. The rating of the system alternatives can vary when different airport sites are considered
and the ranking in the table reflects a mid -range of impacts.
The replacement airport system ranked as the most favorable alternative. This is as a result of the
assumed lower population around the airport sites. However, this was only true for a new
airport site such as Olympia/Black Lake where the population around the proposed site is
currently predicted to be minimal. An airport site such as Central Pierce was not considered as
favorably because there is a significant population around the airport site.
P&D Aviation
wirer-
Page 14
A Division of P6 D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
UGCT SOUND- AI(-TfTANCPOf-TATION -COMMr nC-
The alternative that ranked second was that which included Sea -Tac only. However, it is
important to note that in comparing this alternative to other alternatives, it can be misleading.
Because forecasted passenger demand is not met by these alternatives, there are less aircraft
operations and thus the noise contours are smaller.
The ranking of System Alternatives that include the dependent runway at Sea -Tac are considered
the least favorable (rated 9, 10, and 11). However, the operational assumptions for a dependent
runway at Sea -Tac include both arrivals and departures and nighttime operations. Should these
assumptions be changed to daytime arrivals only, as might occur with the anticipated use, then
the noise impacts would be considerably lessened.
With restricted use of the new runway, a multiple airport system that involves a new air carrier
runway at Sea -Tac is rated more favorably (rated 3, 4 and 5) than a multiple airport system
without improvements to Sea -Tac (rated 6, 7 and 8). This is because it reflects a balance of some
growth at Sea -Tac with limited growth at supplemental airport sites. No increase of capacity at
Sea -Tac would result in more significant increase in growth and noise at the supplemental airport
sites.
It is important to note that no one alternative was rated significantly better than any of the others
in terms of population impacts and it is safe to say that all alternatives are likely to result in some
level of adverse community response to aircraft noise. All of the alternatives that are based upon
these sites have a significant population that will be exposed to aircraft noise in the future.
P &D Aviation A Division of P& D Technologies
Page 15
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET„O UND -A I n- TRANSPORTATION -COMMI TTEd-
MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
Mitigation specific to each alternative could affect the preliminary ranking presented in this study
but the analysis does not take into consideration any special mitigation measures to minimize the
potential noise impacts. A number of measures could be considered to minimize the potential
noise impacts from the airport development alternatives. Some of these measures are presented
below. The most effective noise control measures are those that are tailored to the wishes and
needs of the local communities and generally this is done through a process such as the FAA part
150 program. Any airport system alternative recommendation should include a noise mitigation
planning process that would include the communities, airport operators' and airlines' input. The
new Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 will result in reductions in noise over the next ten years as
the older noisier aircraft are phased out of service. It is assumed that the current restrictions in
development of noise programs that are contained in the new law will be in effect.
The following are a brief list of a number of the noise abatement measures that should be
considered for minimizing the noise impacts around each of the airports.
• Preferential Runway Use
• Preferential Runway Direction
• Flight Track Modifications
• Special Nighttime Procedures
• Nighttime Operational Restrictions
• Aircraft Use Restrictions
• Noise Abatement Arrival and Departure Procedures
• Alternative Runway Development Plans
• Nighttime Ground Noise Control Measures
For example, the potential noise impacts from construction of the dependent runway at Sea -Tac
could be minimized for the long -term by forrnalizing the daytime and arrivals only use of that
runway into a noise abatement policy. The potential eefects of this mitigation measure was
presented previously. When noise abatement measures are included, airport development
systems that include the Sea -Tac with the dependent runway alternatives can be considered more
favorable then when mitigation is not included.
Applying mitigation measures to each supplemental airport site might also affect that ranking.
Mitigation to the supplemental sites was not included in the preliminary analysis because of the
complexity in applying mitigation to a large number of new airport sites with varying layouts and
operational levels. In addition, many of the potential mitigation measures restrict the operational
characteristics at an airport, and, it was therefore necessary to first analyze the potential noise
impacts without constraints to the operations.
A number of measures could be considered to minimize the potential noise impacts at the
supplemental airport sites. The most effective noise control measures are those that are tailored
to the characteristics of each airport and the needs of the local community.
PED Aviation A Division of P& D Technologies
Page 16
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE TTI
OOET-SOUND- AIR -TRANSPORTATION- COA4411�TC
The noise impacts at the McChord or Fort Lewis alternatives could be reduced through a
preferential runway program to maximize the amount of time the operations are in south flow.
For both of these airport sites, there is very little development south of the airport. The noise
impacts at the remaining supplemental airport sites could be minimize through the restriction of
nighttime operations. In a multiple airport system with Sea -Tac as the primary airport, it may be
possible to constrain nighttime operations at the supplemental sites. However, it is very
important to note that under the existing laws it is very difficult to implement new restrictions on
Stage 3 aircraft, therefore, it may not be possible to legally restrict nighttime operations in the
future.
The potential for mitigating the noise impacts for the supplemental airport sites was analyzed for
a number of sample alternatives. Although it was not feasible to analysis all of the alternatives,
the preliminary results of analyzing sample alternatives show that the potential noise impacts at
the supplemental sites themselves could be reduced by approximately 10 percent through
mitigation measures.
The ranking of the different system alternatives is not significantly altered by including mitigation
at the supplemental airport sites. The primary affect is that the difference between the potential
noise impacts of each of the multiple airport system alternatives is lessened. (Mitigation
measures at Sea -Tac tend to show a greater effect because of the higher population.)
It is recommended that noise control measures be included in the planning process as part of any
implementation plan. Once a specific system alternative and specific airport sites and layouts is
developed, more specific mitigation measures can be presented. For any alternative, a site
specific EIS would require a thorough discussion of mitigation.
P&D Aviation 0 A Division of Pd D Technologies
Page 17
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASIIu
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION C0111M1TTEE
Appendix A
NOISE ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
The Appendix summarizes background information on a number of important issues relating to
the assessment of the noise environment at each of the alternative airport development sites. This
is intended to give the reader a greater understanding of noise, of criteria used to assess potential
impacts from aircraft noise, and in the assumptions used in quantifying the noise environment at
each of the airport sites. This section is divided into the following subsections:
• Description of Noise
• Noise Metrics
• Noise Assessment Guidelines
• Methodology in Determining the Noise Environment
• Aircraft Operational Assumptions
• Noise Contour Results
P&D Aviation
Page 1
A Division of Pa D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASF ;III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE'
DESCRIPTION OF NOISE
Decibels. The purpose of this subsection is to present properties of sound that are important
for technically describing sound in the airport: setting. Sound can be technically described in
terms of the sound pressure (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (similar to pitch) of the
sound. The sound pressure is a direct measure of the magnitude of a sound without
consideration for other factors that may influence its perception.
A standard unit of measurement of sound is the decibel (dB). The range of sound pressures that
occur in the environment is so large that it is convenient to express these pressures as sound
pressure levels on a logarithmic scale. The sound pressure level in decibels is the pressure of a
sound relative to a reference pressure. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound
pressures to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale for
earthquakes. For example, a sound level of 70 dB has 10 times as much acoustic energy as a
level of 60 dB while a sound level of 80 has 100 times as much acoustic energy as 60 dB.
The frequency of a sound is expressed as Hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. The normal audible
frequency for young adults is 20 Hz to 16,000 Hz. The prominent frequency range for aircraft
noise is between 50 Hz and 5,000 Hz. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies
with some frequencies judged to be louder for a given signal than another. As a result of this,
various methods of frequency weighting have been developed, with the A- weighting (dBA) scale
the most prominent of these scales.
The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA), widely used in community noise analyses, performs this
compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of
the human ear. Many research studies reveal that when individuals make relative judgments of
the "loudness" or "annoyance" of a noise, their judgments correlate reasonably well with the A-
weighted sound levels of these noises. The advantages of the A- weighted decibel are that it is
widely accepted, has shown good correlation with community response, and is easily measured.
Most community noise metrics are based upon the dBA scale.
In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice
as loud; and 20 dBA higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range
from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various noise levels in the dBA
scale in different environments are shown in Exhibit A -1.
P&D Aviation A Division 01 P& 0 Technologies
Page 2
The Flight Plan Project Phase III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS
(A -Scale Weighted Sound Levels)
dB(A)
OVER-ALL LEVEL
Sound Pressure
Level
Approx. 0.0002
Microbar
COMMUNITY
(Outdoor)
HOME OR INDUSTRY
LOUDNESS
Human Judgement
of Different Sound
Levels
130
UNCOMFORTABLY
Mil. Jet Aircraft Take -Off with Alter- burner
From Aircraft Carrier @ 50 Ft. (130)
Oxygen Torch (121)
120 dB(A) 32 Times as Loud
120
110
LCUO
Turbo -Fan Aircraft @ Take Off Power
@ 200 Ft. (90)
Riveling Machine (110)
Rock -N -Roll Band (108 -114)
110 dB(A) 16 Times as Loud
VERY
Jet Flyover @ 1000 Ft. (103)
Boeing 707. DC -8 @ 6080 Ft.
Before Landing (106)
Bell J -2A Helicopter @ 100 Ft. (100)
100 dB(A) 8 Times as Loud
90
LOCO
Power Mower (96)
Boeinc 737, DC-9 Cory 6080 Ft.
Landing 1971
Motorcycle @25 Ft. (90)
-
er Press (97) Newspaper
90 d8(A) 4 Times as Loud
80
Car Wash @ 20 Ft. (89)
Prop. Airplane Flyover @ 1000 Ft. (88)
Diesel Truck, 40 MPH @ 50 Ft. (84)
Diesel Train, 45 MPH @ 100 Ft. (83)
Food Blender (88)
Milling Machine (85)
Garbage Disposal (80)
80 dB(A) 2 Times as Loud
70
MODERATELY
LCLO
High Urban Ambient Sound (80)
Passenger Car, 65 MPH @ 25 Ft. (77)
Freeway @ 50 Ft. From Pavement
Edge. 10:00 AM (76 +or- 6)
Living Room Music (76)
TV- Audio, Vacuum Cleaner
70 dB(A)
60
Air Conditioning Unit @ 100 Ft. (60)
Cash Register 0 10 Ft. (65 -70)
Electric Typewriter @ 10 Ft. (64)
Dishwasher (Rinse) 0 10 Ft. (60)
Conversation (60)
60 dB(A) 1/2 as Loud
50
OUET
Large Transformers @ 100 Ft. (50)
50 dB(A) 1/4 as Loud
40
Bird Calls (44)
Lower Limit Urban Ambient Sound (40)
40 d6(A) 1/8 as Loud
JUST AUDIBLE
(dB[A] Scale Interrupted)
10
THRESHOLD
OF HEARING
SOURCE: Reproduced from Melville C. Branch and R. Dale BelandOutdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment,
Published by the City of Los Angeles, 1970. p.2.
Exhibit
A -1
Examples of Typical Sound Levels
The Flight Plan Project Phase 111
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASII
•-PUGET SOUND Ain TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE •
NOISE METRICS
elm smite
■■■■■
v7 j/. ■■
Lo
u■ • U
Many factors influence how a sound is perceived and whether or not it is considered annoying to
a listener. This includes not only physical characteristics of the sound (i.e., loudness, frequency
& duration) but also nonacoustic factors (i.e., activity interference & listener expectation).
Sound rating scales (noise metrics) are developed to attempt to account for these factors that
affect human response to sound.
Community noise is generally not constant and varies with time. Under conditions of non -
constant noise, some type of statistical metric is necessary to mathematically express a varying
noise level in order to correlate to community response. As a result, several noise metrics have
been developed for the analysis of adverse effects of community noise on people.
Noise metrics can be divided into two general categories: "cumulative" and "single event ".
Cumulative metrics average the total combined noise over a specific time period (which is
typically 24 -hours for airport noise). These metrics are useful because they combine the total
noise throughout the day into a single number rating system. They are the primary methods used
in the assessment of aircraft noise in relationship to most noise/land use compatibility criteria.
Single event metrics describe the loudness of a single flyover regardless of the time of day or the
number of such events. Single event levels are very useful supplemental predictors when
assessing community response to aircraft noise. They can be used in describing the noise levels
associated with interference with activities such as speech or sleep. The following paragraphs
present summary descriptions of the most prominent noise metrics used to describe aircraft
noise.
Single Event Noise Metrics. As an aircraft approaches, the sound of the aircraft begins to
rise above ambient noise levels. The closer the aircraft gets the louder it is until the aircraft is at
its loudest point. Then as the aircraft passes, the noise level decreases until the sound level again
settles to ambient levels. Such a flyover history is plotted in the top half of Exhibit A -2. The
highest noise level reached during the flyover is, not surprisingly, called the "Maximum Noise
Level," or Lmax. It is to this noise level that people instantaneously respond when an aircraft
flyover occurs.
Another metric that is reported for aircraft flyovers is the Sound Exposure Level (SEL).
Referring again to Exhibit A -2, the shaded area or the area within 10 dBA of the maximum noise
level is the area from which the SEL is computed. The SEL is mathematically equivalent to the
noise level if the total noise energy from the event was compressed into one second. This metric
takes into account both the maximum noise level of the event as well as the duration of the event.
The SEL is important because it can be used to compare with such health effects of noise such as
sleep disturbance and speech interference.
P&D Aviation A Division of P& 0 Technologies
Page 3
The Flight Plan Project Phase III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITITEE
100
d 90
J
80
J
c 70
60
Single Event Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
Maximum Sound (area under curve)
SEL
90-
Duration
Background Noise
60
TIME (Seconds)
R0 120
One Hour of Events (Hourly LEQ)
Aircraft Flyovers
LEQ Noise Level
50
CO:CO C015 00:30 00:45
Time (One Hour)
(Time Axis not drawn to scale. Aircraft Events are much shorter than shown here)
80
70 -
a�
J 60 -
b
50
40
24 -Hour Noise Level (LDN)
DNL Noise Level
Hourly/ LEQ
01:CO
10 dB Nighttime
Penalty
i
2
Exhibit
A-2
4 i 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 i 8
A.M. One Day 24 -Hour Time Period P.M.
10 12
SEL, LEQ and LDN Illustrations
The Flight Pion Project Phase 111
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASIIY
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTED
Cumulative Noise Metrics, Cumulative noise metrics have been developed to account for
the identified health effects of noise and the community response to that noise. They are useful
because these scales attempt to combine the loudness of each event, the duration of these events,
the total number of events and the time of day these events occur into one single number rating
scale. Many cumulative metrics are based on the observation that the potential for a noise to
impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. The two
predominate scales, Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Day Night Noise Level (LDN) are
based on this observation. These scales are described in the following paragraphs.
LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a constant sound level containing the same total energy
as a time - varying signal over a given sample period. This is graphically illustrated in the center
of Exhibit A -2. LEQ is the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample.
LEQ can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. This is also
referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL). LEQ can also be expressed as the energy sum of
all the noise events that occur during a specific time period divided by duration of that time
period.
LDN is a 24 -hour, time - weighted annual average noise level. It is a measure of the overall noise
experienced during an entire day. The time - weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs
during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. In the LDN scale,
those events that take place during the night (10 pm to 7 am) are penalized by adding 10 dB to
nighttime events. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased human sensitivity
to noise during the quieter evening hours, when people are most likely to be at home, and sleep
is the most probable activity.
Referring again to Exhibit A -2, the bottom of the exhibit illustrates how hourly LEQs are
summed and weighted to compute the daily LDN level. The LDN is the energy average of the
weighted hourly LEQs. The LDN scale is specified by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the assessment of noise and land use
compatibility conflicts around airports.
P&D Aviation
Page 4
A Division of Pa D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHAS a,II
PUGET SOUND Ain TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
NOIS ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
MMMMM IMO
1U•S vamooses* -
1211./
1211111.10'.0 .
saw- 1.10
1111.
Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects on
people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the
public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. This criteria is based
on such known effects of noise on people as hearing loss (not a factor with community noise),
communication interference, sleep interference, physiological responses and annoyance.
The public reaction to different noise levels varies from community to community. Extensive
research has been conducted on human responses to exposure of different levels of aircraft noise.
Community noise standards are derived from tradeoffs between community response surveys
and economic considerations for achieving these levels. From these surveys governmental
agencies have developed noise assessment criteria.
The purpose of this sub - section is to present criteria regarding the compatibility of various land
uses with environmental noise. Noise/Land Use guidelines have been produced by a number of
agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
A number of these guidelines are summarized below.
Federal Aviation Administration, As a means of implementing the Aviation Safety and
Noise Abatement Act of 1979, the FAA adopted Regulations on Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Programs. As part of the FAA sponsored Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150
Noise Control program, the FAA published noise and land use compatibility guidelines to be
used for land use planning with respect to aircraft noise. These guidelines represent
recommendations to local authorities for determining acceptability and permissibility of land
uses. The guidelines specify maximum amount of noise exposure (in terms of the cumulative
noise metric LDN) that will be considered acceptable to or compatible for to people in living and
working areas. These noise levels are derived from case histories involving aircraft noise
problems at civilian and military airports and the resultant community response. Residential land
use is deemed acceptable for noise exposures up to 65 LDN.
The FAA has also developed guidelines (Order 5050.4) for the environmental analysis of
airports. Federal requirements dictate that increases in noise levels over 1.5 LDN in noise
sensitive land uses within the 65 LDN contour are considered significant and require further
environmental analysis (1050.1 Directive 12.21.83).
Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
developed compatibility guidelines for the assessment of noise compatibility and land uses
planning. The 55 LDN is described as the requisite level with an adequate margin of safety for
areas with outdoor uses, this includes residences, and recreational areas. The EPA guideline
does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation but identifies safe levels of
environmental noise exposure without consideration for economic cost for achieving these levels.
P&D Aviation
Page 5
A Division of P& 0 Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASLIE._
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COM1IM1IITTEC
Single Event Guidelines, Single event analysis refers to the noise levels associated with
single overflights of an aircraft. There are no noise and land use compatibility standards in terms
of single event noise levels, however, disturbances from aircraft noise (i.e., speech and sleep
interference) can be related to a single event noise level. Single event noise levels are often a
good supplemental predictor of annoyance from aircraft noise. When annoyance occurs can
generally be predicted from speech interference and sleep disturbance data.
An 80 SEL represents a level at which communication interference starts to occur in the outdoor
environment and complaints start to become more acute. This is particularly true for summer
time, when the weather is mild and people are more likely to be outdoors. Indoor noise levels
are reduced by about 10 dBA relative to outdoor noise levels with windows and doors open.
With windows closed, typical construction reduces the indoor noise levels by 20 dBA. Sleep
interference criteria shows that, with windows closed, sleep disturbances typically start to occur
with an outdoor SEL of 80 dBA.
This has generally been found to be the case with the majority of the noise complaint areas
around Sea -Tac. Most residential communities around Sea -Tac voicing complaints experience
typical peak SEL noise levels of 80 or greater. Peak single event noise levels of 80 SEL will be
used as the single event criteria for this study.
P&D Aviation
Page 6
A Division of P& D Technologies
THE_ FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASg,II,
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE'
METHODOLOGY IN DETERMINING THE NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The foundation to an airport site review noise study is the accurate prediction of airport noise
levels. The noise environment at each of the airport sites was determined through the
employment of an airport noise computer model.
The noise environment is commonly depicted in terms of lines of equal noise levels, or noise
contours. Generating accurate noise contours is largely dependent on the use of a reliable,
validated, and updated noise model. Testing the reasonableness of the computer model results
using on -site noise measurements is one of the most effective methods of ensuring valid noise
contours. In essence, noise measurements "fine tune" the noise model to the conditions and
characteristics specific to the conditions in the Puget Sound area. The following paragraphs detail
the methodology used in the computer modeling of these results into noise contours.
Computer Modeling. Contour modeling is a very key element of the noise study. Generating
accurate noise contours is largely dependent on the use of a reliable, validated, and updated noise
model. It is imperative that these contours be accurate for the meaningful planning and
implementation of a noise control program. There are several noise contour computer models in
use. The FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM) is most commonly used to model commercial
airports and was used for this study.
The airport noise contours were generated using the INM Version 3.9. The original version was
released in 1977, and the present Version 3.9 was released in May 1987 with an updated aircraft
data base. (FAA- EE- 81 -17). The INM is a large computer program developed to plot noise
contours for airports. The program is provided with standard aircraft noise and performance data
for over 80 aircraft types that can be tailored to the characteristics of the airport in question.
One of the most important factors in generating accurate noise contours is the collection of
precise data. The INM program requires the input of the physical and operational characteristics
of the airport. Physical characteristics include runway coordinates, airport altitude, and
temperature. Operational characteristics include various types of aircraft data. This includes not
only the aircraft types and flight tracks, but also departure procedures, arrival procedures and
load factors that are specific to the operations at the airport. Aircraft data needed to generate
noise contours include:
• Number of aircraft operations
• Types of aircraft
• Daylnight time distribution
• Flight tracks
• Flight profiles
• Typical operational procedures
• Noise abatement departure & arrival procedures, if any
P&D Aviation A Division of P& D Technologies
Page 7
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PititualL
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Testing the reasonableness of the computer model results using existing field noise measurements
is one of the most effective methods of ensuring valid noise contours. The noise model used in
the study has been calibrated from the noise measurement data from Sea -Tac. This calibrated
computer model can then be used to predict the noise environment as a result of any of the
alternative options under consideration.
It is important to note that the FAA conducted field testing for the latest version of the noise
model at Sea -Tac ( "FAA Integrated Noise Model Validation: Analysis of Carrier Flyovers at
Seattle- Tacoma Airport ", FAA Office of Environment and Energy, FAA- EE- 82 -19, November
1982). Therefore, the model has been found, to very closely matches the characteristics of
operations and meteorological effects that are present in the Puget Sound area. Very little
adjustments to the model assumptions were necessary.
PdD Aviation
Page 8
A DNtslon of P& 0 Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHAS,II..
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS
The noise environment for each airport was analyzed for the year 2020 operational conditions. A
number of different operational information is necessary in order to model the noise environment
around the airports. This data includes the following summary information:
• Aircraft Activity Levels
• Fleet Mix
• Time of Day
• Runway Use
• Flight Path Utilization
Aircraft Activity Levels, The analysis is based upon 2020 operational conditions. The
aircraft operational levels were derived directly from the Flight Plan Study. The operations are
based on 45 millions of Annual Passengers (MAP). The 2020 aircraft operations for each
airport are summarized in Table A -1. These operations consist of air carriers and commuter
aircraft, with some general aviation and military aircraft.
Fleet Mix, The aircraft that are projected to operate at these airports include most types of
commercial and commuter aircraft that operate within the United States. These range in size from
the Boeing 747 aircraft used for long haul international flights to small single engine Cessna
planes used for local commuter flights. The types of aircraft that operate at these airports are
dictated by the Puget Sound's aviation demands and are designed to match those needs.
The fleet mix distribution for aircraft operating at these airports is presented in Table A -2. This
table presents the different types of air carrier, commuter, general aviation and military aircraft
that operate at the airport. The analysis assumes an all Stage III fleet mix, and a fleet mix that is
primarily composed of the quieter Stage III aircraft. This would be expected for the 2020 time
frame.
Stage III refers to the FAA's Federal Aircraft Regulations 36 that categorizes jet aircraft based
upon noise levels. Stage III refers to the newer generation quieter aircraft. Stage II refers to the
older louder aircraft. Recently, the FAA has mandated the phase out of Stage II aircraft by
approximately 2000.
Time of Day. In the LDN metric, any operations that occur after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m.
are considered more intrusive and are weighted by 10 dBA. Therefore, the number of nighttime
operations is very critical in determining the LDN noise environment. The number of nighttime
operations per aircraft type was assumed to be the same as is currently operating at Sea -Tac.
The analysis assumes that 15 percent of the air carrier operations occur during the nighttime hour
and that 8 percent of the commuter operations occur during the nighttime hour.
PAD Aviation
Page 9
A Division of P& D Technologies
Table A-1
ANNUAL COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS (Air Carrier & Commuter)
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
Alt. Airport System Alternatives OPERATIONS (X1000)
Seatac Paine Arling Pierce McCord OBL TOTAL
1 Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 356
2 Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 386
3 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 356 112
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 356 133
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 356
6 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 356 112
7 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 356
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 356 133
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W 356 133
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 356
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 356
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W 356
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 456 33
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W 454 35
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 456
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W 455
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W 456
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 456 33
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 454 35
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 456
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 455 34
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik.Lake 2 R/W 456
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 356 60 73
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 356 67 67
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W 356 72
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W 356 78
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W 430 23 34
28 Alternate 14+Central Pierce 1 R/W 416 35 34
29 Alternate 13+Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 453 23
30 Alternate 14+Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W 439 35
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W 500
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W 500
34 Alternate 1 + Demand Management 356
133
356
386
468
489
133 489
468
112 468
489
489
133 489
489
133 489
489
489
33 489
489
33 489
489
489
33 489
489
33 489
489
489
61 489
55 489
486
484
13 488
13 487
500
500 500
500
356.
Source: P & D Technologies
SUPPLEMENTAL AIRPORT AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX
PRIMARY AIRPORT AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX
PERCENT OF PERCENT OF
CATEGORY
of �pp
N u7
`O O
ae
ae ae ae ae
N co cV h '0
O
g
Q 0 0. ^ N. vs-
cr, Z CO m m
CO
Medium Jet
Jumbo Jet
Source: P & D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHA ,
PUGET SOUND Ain TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Runway Use An additional important consideration in developing the noise contours is the
percent of time each runway is utilized. The runway direction that is utilized by an aircraft is
dictated by the speed and direction of the wired. From a safety and stability stand point, it is
desirable, and usually necessary, to arrive and depart an aircraft into the wind. When the wind
direction changes, the operations are shifted to the runway that favors the new wind direction.
The Puget Sound region generally has two types of weather patterns that result in wind directions
from either the south or from the north. South flow refers to aircraft arriving and departing to the
south. North flow refers to aircraft arriving and departing to the north.
Sea -Tac ATC maintains hourly records in terns of south flow versus north flow runway use.
For the year of 1989 the airport utilized the south flow runways 63% of the hours of the day.
For modeling purposes, the 63% figure was used for all of the airport sites under study.
Flight. Path Utilization, Air traffic control. (FAA) has established paths for aircraft arriving
and departing the Sea -Tac, Paine Field and McChord airspace. These paths have been developed
from ATC procedure requirements and specific noise abatement procedures that have evolved
over a number of years. These paths are not precisely defined ground tracks, but represent a
broad area over which the aircraft will generally fly. These paths will also be used for this study.
New airport sites assume straight arrival and departure paths.
P&D Aviation
Page 10
A Division of P3 D Technologies
THE FLIGHT PLAN PROJECT PHASE III
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
NOISE CONTOUR RESULTS
The total populations located within each of the airport development alternatives was determined.
The methodology was presented in the main text of this document. The total number of
residences located within each noise contour for the 2000 population projects is presented in
Tables A -3 through A -5 for Sea -Tac, North Airports and South Airports respectively.
Noise contour were generated for each of the airport development alternatives. These contours
were generated in terms of the cumulative LDN and SEL noise levels. These contours are
presented in back of the Appendix for a number of airport alternatives. These contours are
presented for the largest MAP assumed for each airport development scenario (i.e., 1 runway, 2
runway or 3 runways) and for other MAP levels that are typical of the remaining alternatives.
These contours present the 55 and 65 LDN as well as the 80 SEL contour. These contours are
based upon the assumptions presented previous. The noise contours are presented in Exhibits
labeled: SE for Sea -Tac, AR for Arlington, PF for Paine Field, MC for McChord, OB for
Olympia/Black Lake, and CP for Central Pierce Alternatives.
In order to illustrate the change in noise levels that will occur in the future, the 1990 noise
contours for Sea -Tac are also presented. The 80 SEL noise contours for the B- 727 -200, MD -83
and B737 -300 for Sea -Tac are presented. This graph presents the SEL noise contours for an
older Stage 2 aircraft (B727 -200), a Stage 3 aircraft (MD -83) and a quieter Stage 3 (B737 -300).
This is presented in Exhibit E -1. The change in LDN noise levels is also presented. Exhibit E -2
presents the 65 LDN noise contours for existing 1990 conditions at Sea -Tac and the 2020 noise
contours for with and without the dependent runway. The results show significantly smaller
noise contours in the future.
P&D Aviation
Page 11
A Division of Pa D Technologies
Table A-3
Population Estimates for Sea -Tac
All Airport System Alternatives
Total
Population
55 LDN
(000)
Population
Newly Exposed
to 55 LDN
(000)
Total
Population
65 LDN
(000)
Population
.Newly Exposed
to 65 LDN
(000)
Total
Population
80 SEL
(000)
1 Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
2 Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
3 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
6 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 RAW
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik.Lake 2 R/W
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W
28 Alternate 14+Central Pierce 1 R/W
29 Alternate 13+Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Alternate 14+Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Plerce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W
34 Alternate 1 + Demand Management
112
119
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
112
112
112
112
122
122
124
124
112
7
7
7
7
7
-7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
7
91
94
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
91
91
91
91
95
95
95
95
91
' Population Estimates Based on 2000 Population Projections
Table A-4
Population Estimates for North Airports
Alt AlrpoA System Alternatives
• Total
Population
55 LDN
(000)
Population
Newly Exposed
1o55LDN
(000)
Total
Population
65 LDN
(000)
Population
Newly Exposed
to 65 LDN
(000)
Total
Population
80 SEL
(000)
1 Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
2 Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
3 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
6 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 Alternate 1 + Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W •
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik.Lake 2 R/W
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W
28 Alternate 14+Central Pierce 1 R/W
29 Alternate 13+Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Alternate 14+Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W
32 Olympla/Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W
34 Alternate 1 + Demand Management
11
23
15
26
4
7
5
8
6
13
7
13
3
7
3
7
11
23
15
26
4
7
5
8
6
13
7
13
3
7
3
7
0.7
1.2
0.5
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
1.2
0.5
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
24
52
35
62
24
55
35
62
24
52
24
52
24
52
24
52
' Population Estimates Based on 2000 Population Projections
Table A-5
Population Estimates for South Airports
Alt
Airport System Alternatives
Total
Population
55 LDN
(000)
Population
Newly Exposed
to55LDN
(000)
Total
Population
65 LDN
(000)
Population
Newly Exposed
1o65LDN
(000)
Total
Population
80 SEL
(000)
1 Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
2 Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
3 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
6 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 + Palne 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik.Lake 2 R/W
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce'l R/W
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W
.28 Alternate 14+Central Pierce 1 R/W
-29 Alternate 13+Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Alternate 14+Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
31 Central Plerce 3 R/W
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W
34 Alternate 1 + Demand Management
23
11
4
23
15
5
10
4
2
10
5
7
7
3
2
4 ,
4
1
1
53
19
62
11
4
15
5
4
2
5
2
7
3
2
4
4
1
1
53
19
62
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
'0.5
2.8
0.3
1.3
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.8
0.3
1.3
47
32
23
56
44
33
47
32
23
56
44
33
32
23
23
32
32
23
23
55
49
52
�r}
• Population Estimates Based on 2000 Population Projections
•UGF SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITT a
,C)
point
Beall
Dow:Joni.
ileAd
• ' • 1.
. 1 '
,
.1
Gra. P
Col.” 1 \
1i'
\
1' (.
8
wan /1. • •
Re ....
eoloo.on
c,
Ellis-port
Ingchwa
/. • -• • ' '
, 1 • : • •
1•) Burt'- '1 2
Sealtuss1 1:
C.)
•:
)11' 11111.1,•;11
Secoma Busch - 1111,
11
11i• .11'4 '•-,
\
Normandy Vi
0
N •
cr)
•011.11.
_ Des MIn ,
as;ct •
• -• • .. .....
• Fao.lief !It
\'
1 .1. Robins.
%
s`'
Zen'
t'ON
Lakota qAde ,
/ 1
tn...., • " •,...1
onsiiroinr •
STMT •
• OnAlt
uodmon
idmdotoo • I
-.• .
/
•
Wombs
, • i
\ • •
'pm
\ '
r •
'!•• lloothenst s 11
,1 1 ,• '
1■111....• •
1I
.t"
111PU
1'Il E'.•��
C6 EN 7,
elle
• • ,• _ . i• .S••. • •N COM
11''4
nu,u
/Po,nl
4,,k„; 1
)Point
int'
W,Ibam.
Poo/Pi
South Pl• . r •r
Runny lal
Cullom., I\
Brice PI
•.It POOL y'
' IIa.WH•• /s
row..
Inyelsea
! dl '•
/•ij 1' II Buri
Seahursl' ; Ij.i;
iI
l'ij1
Norm ndy Par
O(�I� \I
Dam
I.un.. Beach Q
,.1. Robinson
•
I /"
Dash Pan,
\ OnSIIIntNr
STFTF.
NU
P
i (IF
lakolari" l /IA d.lel.lo 1I,,
I' L..I ..I
PO/NEI
Ill' 11('/'1)11'111
NnnkeN I I 1
,Ean.4g Suit/ `
ll1111111I
6
Sl.d,I
'1 II
N
siltbmAs
I .31 POWEI?!.1
Chtlx■ pher •
I
I
"
irn !!iiiqt.I11.. 1
a
• T • _ • TRA T • • - A ION COM ITTE
• 4 ;;;;-
------
• _ _ ._ •
A/ki
Point!'
:18
Island
l/phin p
Mahal.
; eeint Hey.,
'• ERIsport
OtovatnisA
Head
• V• • 5
Nene, Pi
e
1
• rgrt
er. Cflon
e'' 1 ! 1,s
1 nut/I
„, •. 1 I no you town.,
I , 1 1 •k ' \ ill;
_. ' •-' 'ell
nm• 'Mercer,
1 .',:■"" ,
Bailer '1 . :
1 :11! '11;
PenensInt . - .
1. . i' ■ 1:IJ ' 1
1, ' 1 I ■••,Z40' . 4
, , !■ .„. P.
' South Pt '••• 1
1 ( Kronya.1
A Coleman Pd
■ '4, ‘11.111j1,
A i'i'.1,111
,
t,‘, 1..;..
1: ,
;..• • ,c,t," 1 ---,- Bryn Ma
, .
All i Skyiu ,
! 1
i'...1111 . ...• •
. i • : :,
r•1
wags
Penn ',
•
c.)
cr‘
fll
Pogo
Seahurs
ir But' en
•.1 •
.•110
Normandy P" 1111;
'x t.
• .1 ■14 o"
(:/4 fern Ilealli
•-• Bush
1 ii4nte
•
.17
Dos Moln
P
POWEF
111E
,
r
,•"\k.
'TAT"' ,/,'•
PARK
•
Dean
- f
• • 4. 1
,•
• • •,.,11:•A
nencement
; :
/..l.
1,1unit
/ A
•
. I
on tlion.1 • , I
y
1:
• Dependent Air Carrier R/W used only for arrivals & only during daylight hours
The Flight Plan Project Phase III ■■ ■ ■■■.
uIL v■■II
■
�■`v-
PUGfI SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 1 ■ ■■
- `� frte �"i' �y ` \ -', _ 'i ' 1� ,[
NrIP4o, 7_
. c
/ 1
' / _ / _�.__ \j i i~ ice.
� •41
C� \
a
Z - W. .:
lk
/:\, �\ - --R. -- ' I I I. _ TM- 1 . I l- 1 ,1 1 _ ? __`
— is�-2' V• ' ( _'� < \ 1 is, i ' M...._ I:J i I f\ _ _ -Oar, .. _
s a !"—� 1 ■
(-1 _: d �, 1 l i I..l I �- - _ ' R.V(RO
___. ? ♦ _— - L ��+ `_ . - 80 SEL • 1 . \ / •: // TT ti^ A
..,1 t- - `,,.-..t..:', d./,, —_ _ ERN •••• - r - / '��� • ,�
�'„'1`t�J1J ,ty,. (�p .ri ''rC - .•�•! ter.. _ c •�'• 1 -\ `�'`,�/ 1 - I I _ yr /� — s_......::-- ��.
• -.I `Y1J f. ,fE P"y '-�� __.•. —___ f \l1 - -� . _ _ i �0- ��e 55Ldn- I> /! •, ' •�'si'
.�i , _ _.�_ _ 1__ — -'_^!, �'� 1 I ( - . \ I - .:';•_ :. • j ' _ —
ri �^ /n ' _ 1 I 1 �_ 65 Ldn \LI �� / r — � i Ji �'
r 55 Ldp
ro r. i .J�i�- ^ t
° �� - _. --- �— r... amt z `••.• •,:•• `\ ... _ wry •� -- 1 . - . �' ..::
' +•e •} ::....�. .. � \'•. 80 SEL.••... ~? !! _
.' oONIERIINE. -- l..__- I 1 - - -, /--!�
j._-. -, \ ' -) I/ Imo- �� i I / I :.'.f-7---.. \ f\ - .-�� _ i- ��- -.! •
t 11 �- _J L_ _G . - •OWER(IN S I 1. .. - 2 �,� � -yJ\ . �•� \✓ / f� - .3.._ •� i1 % ��_", fT `_ •
r�r'� % -- -' ` n I _tom % - , -. —�� S /' +-- `� .
_/ n App' y1 :� ° L �^ )�
c. .. ..\A„,...:, 1' Ntl3N1tlON .�_ ..>,J - ` �— :'/ / ; - = ` . r �� l
7
an N
�~ �a �__�' / .' �� NIltl3MOA I -_. ... ._ i \ _ _ .I `- - .._%! , .�� /.I. 1
•
x
Exhibit 2020 Arlington Supplemental 9 PP Airport l R/W - 2.2 MAP
AR -i ,
Alternatives 27 & 29
The Flight Plan Project Phase 111
a)
in
0
L
a
0
a1
O
a`
c
0
a
a1
L
H
r• U SOUND AIR TRANS • • • A I • N COMMI
The flight Pion Project Phase 111
. ■•. ■■ ■■
The Flight Plan Project Phase III ...xi.
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE IME�
--�- </' - - r _-- ,31 — - / -- "--.- _ \ pcd. — £ i/ _� J j 1' ---- -- •
- _ ' ...� -. i' r� ¢r/ gym` - - �__ .��_ - /.
a
`t: ■
y_ -_ . 1 .
.__ i .
_-`B — _fit•_ - -- - _ `' ... . ' - i ... ...,, • �..► �=`�"'� d t:"..
al SEL / yJ
:_�.� '� �R.W(j0 . ' _ 1 'r,;._ - "1 I _ _ — • /'-' ` 5 L - '�' _ •�• _ _ - �i
'-- �'°`^`- ,.r' ^ _- -mss - - s.-z 65 Ldn 5 do - . _ /% _
`j% -. __ : 65 Ldn , - = 1 }•�• ^/ •
_� • %: �y-,. _ _ 55 Ldn �' , - 'a
:y'
-y -=---7.- �: - dam•
�• __ __ _ / �~ ��� -'� a �l Ip., T:'' I._ -moo - .- -
i• —' .-- �3.I:lo 3NAd .,.. ._ C -�•= :
Exhibit 2020 Arlington Supplemental Airport 2 R/W - 13.0 MAP
AI Alternative 8
the Flight Plan Project Phase 111
.c
0
0
a.
0
6
c
0
0
.c
r. SOUND AIR TRANS • • : A • I COMM a
I
■ ■■■ ■■
The Flight Plan Project Phase III
■ ■. • ■ ■■ PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
■ ■ ■■
. ■1''`\
•-��' -'
Nom .'. _I .. - s .. I f�.�� `� .. •�'_ 2 -_
-
•
`.; - _ _ _.. .. ._ _ - - -. • s - — _ /� _ -'�OSi - �e
-- ._...., - 7211.- L.2,_.. ..15; _ - - ` \ Stl\`
•�s i _/ -� ! 6 f ,R',ry I ` J\ss�
I—. . iO/ .e.
_ i
n— ?8� -.. =i a �� is -"- r i n
--± Q- _ 55 Ldn • �. '0 ,III.
_r _ Rm•'' r:.. —_ 65 Ldn _— _3 �` ,.�,, t-4
o F
z o. `0 : a ` ` 55 Ldn—
I _ -X' - 1 '?ry — 3> is " X12...•.•.......•...• .............................•• I /.
/ 'r:----......... � t j - :�'
��` -- c j . Z - ' '`∎ - i - . .... +r • _rte ` i it i tt _.. •
_ 1 - 1 �''
1 •1 _
, • J� -- A: – =,1•`° __- -'i -. 1 %= i2 1— ,. 4._.7_" _
-^-f`i, - 1_ = _— . —_ k ��•\i-.
= • ` _
, ' � \-e-6.r. ' ( J Sa[.. •am • cI _ _ -
_ ---1..----, i•n ^f _. -- - g ` ``
/ — ^
� I ,� . . _ _ `y_ = *� -9 _ -
_ - i_ wLNES 1• -
! - /•� i
- - �- � /.,..• Scale 1:100000
Exhibit 2020 Paine Supplemental Airport 1 R/W - 13.0 MAP
PF -2
Alternative 4
s
m
tt.t.tott
Srs
0
0
0
r. SOUND AIR 1RANSP• 10 • t, 11 4
Hrr
Q.
•
SIL It V, A I I .1 II
) ) ■ •
Pg.(
--3 -7/ . ••, ', • - -
O. MIssInii • ' ■ ',
..,
0 a • \ • ■ 1,16
tP Beach ... t
: .•
1. . . '■'• I '• 's ..-
.. .
A `• ,,,
si
0 .
ME
1,7s
N
. o
. •
_ ,• ,
is possession (
I
Picni, PI
; raltmon
•
NOM.
Beach •- ••••• ,
• I . • , :
Gide),
jm 1441104
I : • .
:. •
(At
I
1:••• ,
• .
Richmond
.Beach •.
• ! : !
.; ••••
1.4 •
i 1194 •
4 II ir1.11111. 111111
11
1 .!..111,!. 11
' 1110!
2020 Paine Supplemental Airport 2 R/W - 13.0 MAP
The Flight Plan Project Phase 11!
5.1mon
' floahot
Don.. •-
,omiS •
Ns.
Plan Project Phase III
rlyaiw 4
(atm. is
• '!'*; . ; ,N.
\
• I •
obson
Point fosthck
Oerl:
Islo.d I • ' is
/ •
Fo. P.., Universit
I lace 1
•
ray Paior
Gh•cle.
5.ach
Sunfet
Besch/ .
Fircrest.
:1-yaranis
WIT 1105P ,
S •',1i ;hi ..1 ,
., .
;
/ ••)1.:`..- . —. \ C . 't.
—..1___. s . :: . ,. 'i I' •,.; \ ,-•,. Clove:
L... ,..0.,. . . hie laken •
. I 1'4.. . ; 1 f; ,„ .S.---'• • .: ;...
)
• • , I 1..1,, i •• • • . . „::"
I..ke tily, • : . \ • !' . /
--•if -- 11 ''
....•-••'/ PcUlet*-. •
Mils • •
Mil-
•V rrrrr rts •1 \ !4•"
Hon, • • •
J1111curi. / fs
Rem.
t.e.d
• •
kvia An'
Gen
ire.d
1
rtlewis •
Gtar •
F•041
0.
fasts!. Mil,
-
!‘°••, J. 4' • •• 1
! •
is
•
• •
‘1'
• Kicks/
Chys
•
John
Coro
2020 McChord Supplemental Airport 1 R/W - 13.0 MAP
Lc)
a.-
; .• ; CI.
I I \
&awns
ro.fi •
,pe
Salrnon
Ue.A
Com HI e a c cm e ti I ' • • i ..1 i ..i 1 ,,,1 ,.
. ', 1
•• , .1
. / 1
-. ,. ... ..,,, -.
I
NntilwaIN '.'
0
0.
Plan Projec
Poen Fo,thch
''. • •
Ts nana
• : / I•ircrest.
ty iiuersity
.;. or Pueri
. •
I lace
Sonst1
itoren Brach/.
!an/
•nv.kle
(Mach
•
•
or.l'ie
!ill:
Pi.
„.111 ;0111111)j I •
• 1 11 I 114 tr.'
. 1! 1
• .111
• !Snot!,
011..11'111i
(;■ '
.--• .410
• 1 II r
11 111 • .1..;.. 1 1
1 w •
mo
1111,1`.,r..,1,..: ,. NI I ,
:iI II
II
• •
• •rt, ,1
:
I ylela
1.1'3
. I.,!; . •
SIAIC IVYR
Center i . ,
:
Slilio■ ,',I,, ii • l'i
...,,c-,1,--•\ 1 tq.... I
,1.
• ; .
• I ke..kif
, ,
,--, 1, • ,-,
hken •
•
1
AIR E
.ehl
0
.ki.idy an'
• G.,' I
' I !
Kennede Werra+ • '
11111hkro
1.1.. Bleed Wood,
11.11.
AIR
•
.. Chyto
Kicker
e I 1 t.:41'''' 11.1*
. ! . i . • ...- - ' ,,./..:'
0,!--, .' • — * .
„"\s '• ...,=Ip...Y\ ,-, ” .
J/41 L RCS V ,
0-..-
.?■1;,z/N
• ..11.-jj'N.
•
Coro*
2020 McChord Supplemental Airpor 2 R/W - 13.0 MAP
X
0
The Flight Plan Project Phase III „���w
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE I��` -
f
I
-7-7's ..:7'.'7,': 1 : -------4 1 : Hi I I y;'
E _ : - ' -•_ .._- • .
•
:,-;-=.-.i'" / - ., .7... I. _ __ ..
• ...... ...: f........ l',N.-:".--N._—_- ' "- .„,.\. ,.. . ...--:- .
• \-'-'-'■, _..,.._ 1 1—.-.' 7.. :.... — . - . ..
i
_ • - : • r .; - ,/,' 1. \ ....}.--", \......-:: ,....,;.
, j ! _ • . ...:474, .. ._- _ y: -- ._ -7.-- -_ 4.4 -- _ _. :., -- ••-..... . _
'� •' ^tr• ` ..�t�:- Y - 1,'''',--:--&--\ ' S w80 SEL.: .�1 —•��• _��'`.: — -- `�f I .e-7-.-7•77'; �
�•i S
si
1� i _ •
_
,^�-- - --� r L_ a /MO. .�� _ j 1..� —._ ` Mi ■
•
. C s�
•
./ - /- J•^ . \\ -
• ,,\ i-� -� ,i�^ `- a —�
-----•-
`_;• -- -.-- - :'-1 7.-----::-'=;7. -` - ].c' ir' i • ,.
z�� —_f�
2020 Central Pierce Supplemental Airport 1 R/W - 3.3 MAP
a
U
The Right Plan Protect Phase 111
•
■•r ■■■I
the Flight Plan Project Phase III , ■ ■� .,.
■ ■■■
•UGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SPIV
a
T� 3 11' a._ y
Ii �° - S .. ... •' jam— //y /•rte
_ _ 1 ! I } .e , . ! w _ -- I '
.
i . . •
.. ' 1 ' 1 - ,- - In +d is- • } ( - _ _ — _ j ,/� i• - - • - - ti° - -t -.. - -- is;
r
- _ • t _ _ - — — - - -'
- —
1 — 80SEL�`- • •. 55 ;,..,-T.,,...........-_-..--
Ldn \ • 55 Ldn .---__L—=-.2.'-7 ,::80SEL ."7-1.1•----____.: �:._.
-- —= T \ 05 Ldn — : = _ _ r —:;1 -- ----- .2.2-._ -
r srJr: 3 .... .......................••�•_ tit \:._....., .I-7 ( 7- _ / -__�"
, ,`' -• - — - _ _FC ( 1:--.7. _ i
_ � X O I � � _ - UNIO lA F l y
{ , ,� 1 j _ - , . I _ _ y j =;�.. �, -- --
• C—
- eC _�� L'IK! `' AND' I --- __ �� • _• ---f� ,- -� - -_ .. -- — `'y0/fV — __ _ -' {�_ —_ - \ ' ✓� _ _- , ,, .
-tea '. 1`i.—�`. __ -%- - - • ' - .- - -- - _ c �o _. _ �,_i n . -�_. - it
\ \mac'! �_`i•.\ ��_ Rive.. 6� - �.' r I _ - I� G3 r - ' - •
� ^�� . .�_ \_ �\ \ we • .P . \ � l �- C.' r'.. ° e �-r -. — ,?'/ lO�- -.: ' ..... Seale LI00.100
Exhibit 2020 Central Pierce Supplemental Airport 1 R/W - 10.9 MAP
CP-2 Alternative 6
The Flight Plan Project Phase 111
feu •1111•13
The Flight Plan Project Phase III ��L
`
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE :::�
P.N. voilkli
•
'i ' — _ B' ; At ; ;"
1
i i ` —' S
_ ` 3 ! - c f --. - r, ,F
\I _ 1
r
-. - . _ . .. - .1 ". - : 7. ',.,/ / ,, 1—• .. ./. ..,
.
• _ _ - .f — - o _.. — -- —_ — L. - _ _ _
°
_ 1 - z zT —
- -- —
.. i _ — ....
Ldn' •. 65 •Ld` ---: 55 Ldn _ 0 .
Y1-.-•.`� 1 _ .
� .- — :1,---- =".. -IC— = %� -II '; _ -' -- =• f. _ :v `: r , �;. _ - _ _ _- _ -_ te _ •,�' ' •?• L Vi � • ` I — = _ ° - r _� '• - i•, .. _ - -`••. .J. :a...::.. . ..— _—j �_ . g. = _ • \ _ C �` s,; , .L......................- . . _
ice -_� j \ 1--''
- _ _ _ - - _ -'?- - - - E---- =- • 1 - // . =_ -_ - - --
is - Ea i - \ - _ ._ -___ _. /
`�\ -= /I -�^ _ _ .. _ 1 /'_. Q -r -`_%- -L'� —' — - -' -' -- - %'.�5 .��' , .r9cae ,a000a0
Exhibit 2020 Central Pierce Supplemental Airport 2 R/W - 13.0 MAP
CP-3 Alternative 11
The Flight Pion Project Phase Ill
The Flight Plan Project Phase III 1 uMO
■\ '• ■■P
PUGE1 SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE app/I,
I
N �'-- - I I U ' " - 8 1 " I ; _ .
w.i"T+ °' l f�fry:;' %
/
-.1
- - - _ �l . / � y-
�.• I — t H F . _ __ • - / ` , \ ` _ ... _ I. \
/ - \ �
/ J-A
i ° ..
S . . . ..� ._. ,d R.�. . •• •
• —ad - ,-7-7-___ -3- - - -- - : _ -- .I /..• - ` -- _ s
?�
/ \ � —_- 80 SEL .,774",).,;(,14,., -. ` I � .... •r ie•• . .` _ .. /�
a_ '
-55 Ldn _ _.�7_ - -
•
. • 80 SEL _ — . Ldn F— -- —`- z _;_= :••• _ - 55 Ldn
- _ • "'<. .�' - -• ., -�q\. _ /j f = r�.� - v = -5 — ------.T- -% • z- _�rt _=�-: — - I __:_ %
3 p • -
. r c i . �' �,'— 65 Ldn _7.--7;....-:-.2-11-,,, _ 1 �' �% _ ..
r , - -�\ 55 Ldn _ --
e's
- --•-- - .J— .— n
' / ✓l✓
.l' .TO of AI,
'
' r IND' <q
r
I
i
Exhibit 2020 Central Pierce Replacement Airport 3 R/W - 45.0 MAP
CP -4 Alternative 31
•
The flight Plan Project Phase 111
The Flight Plan Project Phase 111 MIL N.
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
INNS
- - \.' '-\) ` ' 1 •
i -_ -- I 'ol _I "\ 1" - I. , J t�,/ ^ -'. "\, ,'�- �, •� •- T I ^ i�. -
. Et • � I h 1_ -- I' �_ __ ' l' .gym .
J
•
1 / "."...-.7-7.-. I _ j- 1 •:1� ITF --f _ -J • _\1I----
-. _ �: !! .. :_� '4-1' . f��J /4 ` `� • r: 1 -_\ 1.....80 SEL,..t �\ •mss :>' - - = --_ _ . : r' fe.t. !_-: - - .7. -- -�
t-1C -~- _',_ 000, 5. I .l• °afa� - f S� I ��� crk 't.-- 4".o ' ' x . Er _ . • §'ir. . - '`.^ ' � ` .. Lin _ 55•Ldn � 7:- ., -- .. * - �\ ‘....., 7, _ .. 4
\`•� 1 ' f. a` I - "1 r �- -- - —� ''i\ 1 is 1 . 1 :::_s_ 3 i _ _ - - - _� T a - I - __ --� , •1n -�4 j �9 </- • �,/ , i�o I 'po I I i -__ a_ - - _ ^;•l - - _c = - - B �% D D' I
1 r• •s > ^1 • f "i: I I r "I} • ttZ . \ '€ S 1 .ii I ' ' �_ , - \'r— : _ �y a' yy / - w � tom^ "�LL -=_: -/ \I 017 . _ • — !-- ..- 1:� -O_- _'t�� -� - - -
4 1 - /\ .> �- I \X `• \�\ 6. i I —& 7r I -j ' %' -�� � ��r��• I �Nti_� si7'� -"` _ - —7 :_ _�_ _ - 2' -- i
�tJ \ _ .. � I -_ a \ UR(/N 1 _ `. ?__-._ _ - p.�.:f
3i� �\ ^/_( i� --+�, . . 0 ! Pa Uf/C, - ... - '4 J \ - NOR7MER - -. - %/ _ T-'��. • ✓ `-_ _ _ - \. t . . \•/�f / _ __
1 il,- y_' -'' "!' 1� • _ ;G•� : . r-%= 1 �'� ._.1 - ^ y .- -_I --,:r — ; •�rr�-
Exhibit Olympla /Blacklake Supplemental Airport 1 R/W - 1.3 MAP
OB -1 Alternatives 29 & 30
AUER C
r
a
1•u•U•i
he Flight Plan Project Phase III IMEN -
UGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE P;�� 10,
—L 12�_ .,' . ' 'v 1 ` `\..1 ` - _ w ' _
r / `
• 1- - I/� - -.... �_ I ! sl �� I ,. I. ter. �� `�- r"�
7". -:'• - u''S' i,„P4 I : --- ,_ ; ' s lo i111 -J c ^ ° V __ - I . --1
,ll A
/-'1 !J / %y - i >' Z
•
I O \ ` ? / i
1 ...... - .(,.;:...„....: '
1
_
t c s-
_ - .. : "~ . — �: °+. `- 1 _ 65 Ldn R`µO o 55 Ldn • E- +Y'. �. - •"•r,
65 Ldn '-\ ? `�'. =:`
i o 0 2 , -` ''".,� 80 SEL .. 1•a. ' 55 Ldn �. I k._ - -
--\........- �•p R I' ('f i •' .. ,,� ° '� - _....... \�• - faro' �_ak "' .o......... - •��' - . ..
•
—/~_ t' Y °, !..&----",' _ G ` \ - _ r �a = - = - -- - 'C - t - .
.• — _ - __
_
l•
£J= _ ■ _,�_. -k„C u_k o d.caic_ _�;.. ^ �sunu _� ..._.. - _ _ r -- - l•
J _
.�.. _ _.....___ .. .. 3colo 1:1000Qj
Exhibit I 2020 Olympia /Blacklake Supplemental Airport 1 R/W - 10.9 MAP
!
u.ItigEl iiuijJT
'.TIER
i'uff- • WO \*
W11211.11 •dic AIWA
SUr14,111e- • •
11";'
,e AMVIBd► ILI BI Ll. 1:1 ∎11IIlr• •l•]bru111144
•
• e /6"7 '1":":“'
• "
,1!:-% •
r,
• 4Pl.h )
• 1.
4....
FCATTER CiEiK ' A rif i CIE
ST 110/RA M.111...11ECAL k.0- IA ATE W .1 REC AREA
,.. I _ _ ...-.\
• 1.---..■ f'
LU
U)
rt.
't•t,
- THUR TON CO
i rtuis co
L'"?---V•kr/
•
6 \.4
•THURSTON
Lau co
V/:
77111.‘•-• ,
• ,„/„.
Ne.
2020 Olympia /Blocklake Supplemental Airport 2 R/W - 13.0 MAP
it 0
11 ■■••11.11
11■. •1111 ■r
fhe Flight Plan Project Phase III 11 ■ ■∎ NIP
11■■■
•UGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE :P;�� • = / - —. - - - , I �--^•- : FT 1 1 ...... ! -1. J • \ r--..._•,--,--.3 " - 7 , .._.. ! .— 1 ______, • i- -"-17- 1 '---i--1 ' - - .. - x, -- -.;- E
. • \ !.-. .-
.1 ' / l .. I : - gY
r�' \ \\ • - %:.ice
,Z _. /i 3 a � .-. ,
— s ... _ � ..I . as . •
t
/. I C-�: _ L 1 _ •
' i ' , F -_ _ _ _ - l f / i
= - .
! --- > _ _ n' I ....... * — _'mo T- 7-- ^••.:.C..', - i / v .r d - ��
- ,.-_, ___ FRp !-- _ 55 Ldn `�•.,. - ` i ,.../- 7- . _ L _
65 Ldn r _� :, c r `.
— •ma - =-
•
\ � _ mot_ ,� . .. —
7'N rY - ,. • .tit -�,.. - +goer _ .. t i ?r�.f \�i 7.7..i. _ 1 /L •
r ; _ 65 Ldn v :
� -- 55 Ldn ^ / ,• - ^...... -•:..` ..- .- ^_I\\- __� - _ �__ �.��
- a� \� l �l`�, /i �� /-
- ,' t� I . 1'��s' Lt
I- \ 1 - �_� I iii i �YLV \ I - .: - w - •
4... - ,..... , , ›_, ,,. , , r ---i- - 1. .*-- '-`• ' :=----- ! -- ' : , .,. r • . st ._=:-_-:. -.L.--___...-._: :-..-,....,.;-..-_-_,,: ....-.—_-;_•.: !•-•.7., V
�z�� �", J •
�r —!A .. _..�/ ] ' , • BUR[ /N _ -• •1 r7 5-
r • 'F . ... _..... — Le_ • ? .. . Scale 1:100X0
S'ATTEll C
ICIIT...1111c
2020Olympki /Blacklake Replacement Airport 3 R/W - 45.0 MAP
Ca
0
The Flight Plan Protect Phase 111
The Flight Plan Project Phase III 11•111111111111111111
PUGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE : '
..Alit.. 1
Q •r `��� : " ....0.- ....._ :._: cs o : •
.
S.H. • S.H. ! �.
FS ' Vashon Island lI
Tacoma
S.H. •� :: :. 1/4
�, ... ,.. � f :.: Maury • :: ..., / - :vu�,i"
1- • Island
Puget ora
/ q te • et
S.M.
512
/ S.H. Puget
r • / 509 .on ' S H.
% —' ��' k Seattle AV Green Lake 99—r,
Puyallup S.H. D-83 — - 9 S I
I /
99 4
I . �
S.H.
li
I 737 -301 ;J�I S szo
• S.H ��
I
• er). 167 • a 14as7Un9 %On 510 --
S.H. •
522
72 522
I
��_S.H. S H. •
162 167 III • I S.M. 167 Merger Island
I Renton ---s Bellevue Klrtdand I
i � 1 -405
S H. 1
18
Ce/c{ 1 !1 Lake Yo •
� S.H.
Qr %,,,per Sby S.H. S.H. 202
S.H. •4-‘" 90. 520
410 �•.
Redmond
(\li\ ::;:i..2.O.: .
c Lake • ii I I
• SammamsA iQEQ
i 4 p.p
S.H. �
l._-/o
/ aw 19• ^ 9GUE wrEET Yi C
Exhibit Composite 80 SEL Noise Contours (727 - 200,737 -300 & MD83)
E -1
t.
t)
N
•1A
EVERETT
J(,NCT,ON,
•
EVERETT
MUKILIED
• MUK i
4
.1°Ia
b -
y� y N e spa a .66
EDMONDS`],: 'r,[,l_
N 0 hl{.
F' °I.
LYNNWOOD
i;hr�� %i yl
DAY -NIGHT LEVEL (DNL) FOR COMBINED
AIRPORT FLIGHT AND ENGINE GROUND
RUN -UP OPERATIONS
PROPOSED ACTION (1996) CONDITIONS
AND NO- ACTION (1996) CONDITIONS
4000 8000 •
feet
, 4
.k !mar
dti::- ••••■.`4 ;7.- w ' 0 =pill`,•
AIRPORT AND INDUSTRIAL
(DEVELOPED OR ZONED)
RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOLS
COMMERCIAL
OPEN LAND
MIXED (IND.,RES.,COMM.,OPEN)
STUDY AREA LAND USES
• UNO AIR rRANSPO • A • COMMII7E
------
-- ---
.. • .
Alk
! •
I 'a. ";11'i7i.11 I
, "co • .1
• I. 3 •
!!_
Dow:mash
/lead
I I ---P, ! ' '--!'-`
I
,..„,,•1- :.!;I I•IIt
.. • ." (I..., 1 ;J.,' , r:i :,,
./: C.5",. • . I '
..1.1•• \1•. I
i • '.' '
C: ,, )
.. j , ,N . • ■:/,..1 ,. ,
i
!! 01
•
r.7
1 Boon
ASocernolleocly:,...0%.
J
5."••
,..0101111.„1
I14,
ink!'
Tolir 11
•
‘,.•, t!I Normandy Par
K,....•••
cr)
. • )/soing l000
!
• Pottage i C.
• tIllepoel
014-- 0
's.: .., Fern Nraiii• ,
. .. i., ,...i
s--, ..."....: ,..,...... .. . % -. A.......
..
• ,
I
I • • • ' r
II I
I 1 ,
v.
•• • . I;
m911'0041
MP
STATE
, • V.S
(lOrn1
• mut
I1/.4.1;• -• I
I .
;3-
the Flight Plan Project Phase III
' UGET SOUND AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
and
er
Yvan
Igo�.a+e
Nowanunh
,rear,
11... /• , \I._ . 1 I 1 . :'1
.:i till l I 1 I` . � •
c....r r, '\
..ek'
I II 1.I ..ti '� .
,rt.new, xnx 1
xt...
r;
\I.1
Botch
IngeM..l `.
S rah „ns
Il..<h .•
Normandy Path
1
)Fels Neer N (n
•
-EIIMpotr 0
Pottage
s; !'Fern I IM,Ii -�
�' ` `.I Ivw.n. o
I . � • i II IMimv ... P in
I p.�
S‘'
\
rOwEli J tE
cernrn,
Sea -Tac with Restricted Dependent Runway -•37:4 MAP`
4
O
Q
Aircraft thrust increased during side-step maneuver
The Flight Plan Project Phase 111
Seatac Integrated Noise Model Assumptions
Alt. Airport System Alternatives
Seatac Seatac Dependent
Annual MAP Runway
OPerations Utilization
( x1000)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 380
Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 410
Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 380
Alternate 1 + Olympia /Black Lake 2 R/W 380
Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 480 _4].8_
Sea-Tac w /Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R /W ___ . _ 477.7 41.6
32
34.9
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
15 Sea-Tac w /Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 480
16 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W 478.9
17 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Olym. /Bik. Lake 1 R/W 480
18 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 480
19 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 477.7
20 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 480
21 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 478.9
22 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Olym. /Bik.Lake 2 R/W 480
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 380
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W ' 380
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym. /Bik. Lake 1 R/W ) 380
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W 380
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W 453.6
X28; , Alter, ,HateJAA- Central-Pierce-l:R /Wr. , _
29 Alternate 13+O1ympia /Black Lake 1 R/W 476.6
30 Alternate 14 +Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W 462.8
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W N/A
41.8
41.7
41.8
41.8
41.6
41.8
41.7
41.8
32
32
32
32
39.5 33% of all operations
_439:8 __ 38 3_ 3396 of all.operafions
41.5 33% of all operations
40.3 33% of all operations
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
38 N/A
33% of Daytime Arrivals
430 37.4 Daytime Commuter "'
N/A
Commuter Only
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
33% of all operations
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32 Olympia /Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce /Fort Lewis 3 R/W
34 Alternate 1 + Demand Management
• Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W Mitigated
Sea -Tac w /Restricted R/W Utilizing Side -step
N/A
N/A
380
1
Side -step Maneuver utilized by 20% of daytime air carrier aircraft, initiated at 4 nautical mi. and
concludes at 1.6 nautical mi. to runway 16R /34L
JAN 27 '92 14:57 POS FACILITIES RE
P.2 /9
30 -YEAR PASSENGER TREND
SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1960 1990
DOMESTIC
YEAR DEPLANED ENPLANED TOTAL
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1919
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1935
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
20
18
PASSENGER$
(.141o9NS)12
8
4
0
1060 1966 '1974
• Dab mot mvouthie.
Sops: at roomed is 5 .Too Op o t D,Anfattxt g air wrists.
INIERNATioNAL
DEPLANED ENPLANED TOTAL
702,778
899,725
801,799
911,529
1,060486;5
1,2913,050
1,748,307
2,032,180
2,209,692
2,108,792
2,x23,3,492
2,173,572
2024,909
2.594,136
?,76,4,880
3,094460
3,350,766
3,851,444
4,520,879
4,129,401
4000,647
4,274079
4,66;3,125
4,759,120
0,232,001
0222,502
6,551,40
60454644
6,970$81
7,058,429
•
897,739
802,396
877,705
1/424,971
4244532
1,766,23
2,038,018
2,213,308
2,161,505
8,1
4208,289
2,'319,144
2,047,298
2,733298
3,064,50
3,295,647
3,814,539
4,
4,117,825
4,069,976
41243'387
4,592,911
4,709,324
5.204,160
6.242,841
6,629,119
4639,843
6,739,574
7,941,100.
•'
1,42458
1,797,461
14604,195
1,739,234
24084836
2,539,582
3,514,830
4,070,198
4•423,000
4270,257
4,319,336
4,181,861
4,641,433
4137;734
5,497,178
6458;445
6,646,{13
7,664983
9,017,605
4,247,326
8,15+4,623
8,518,166
9,256,036
9,468,444
104476,161
12,455,30
13,180,*
13,099,487
13,710,405
14336,529
•
97,371
101,610
nays
95,790
109,498
134,330
165.173
178,606
189,446
192,879
203,753
220,149
291,125
318„890
309,544
031,424
354712
500,511
395,125
469,738
550,325
551,317
609,579
645,484
7
761,965
953,9960
• ' '•
95,388 109759
101,395 202,835
54,230 176,339
115,907 211.497
144773 251,865
14805 2821425
173,604 338,777
185,974 364,580
192.483 381,938
190,307 383,186
174,516 375,269
186,952 407,101
20,815 5611940
315,592 634•82
3015,701 615445
317,279 648,7063
330,318 686,30
04899 701,994
30459 802,814
4604622 947,424
466,496 967,007
365,246 760.371
415,963 865,701
487,861 1,008,186
479,277
567,744
619,416
MAO
MAX
88 AU
1,430,594
1,177,323
1,400.032
1,840.780
30 -YEAR PASSENGER TREND
GRAND PERCENT
TOTAL CHANGE
4635,839
1,619,67
2,444,299
1,780.533
2,000,931
2.296
-1.096
73.5%
.11.0%
124%
2,337,701 16896
2,822,007 20.7%
3,80,607 36.6%
4,434,778 15.196
4,880,928 83%
00,443
4,697,605
4,780,962
5,205,093
5,772,216
6,112,423
6•806,748
7,332443
4167,977
90.419
9;x17,630
9,278,737
10,141,737
10.476.630
11,466,755
12,64
14,445,482
14,495,319
13,241,250
16,740.909
,92%
0.996
1.996
8.796
10.976
8.996
1L4%
7.7%
14.1%
17.4%
-6.476
-0876
1.816
9396
3396
9;596
19.096
5.916
03%
5.196
6.6*
6w66r gomsnc
MI MEM.
410 1111111111
M,/l+irM!lltMlu,!
-- rrr'r..' rM
1975
1980
1988
1990
30 -YEAR AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS TREND
SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1960 - 1990
7224R Ch1721721t
1960 •
1961 •
1962 •
1961 •
1964 •
AVZATZON SEEL111111 TOTAL
• to • 81,034 4.7%
• • • 76,110 06.1'8
• • • 84201 10.661,
• • • 83,989 4.3%
• • • $9,373 I 64%
11e
• • . • • 98,0 104%
1966 • • • • 117,074 18.6%
1967 • .• • •
144,026 34376
1961 • • • • 155,558 . 84'10
1969 • .• • • 145,810 64%
1910 * • • • 150,676 4.176
1971 • • • • 155,144 30*
1973 115,445 17,866 22,878 1,942 158,131 3.896
1974 106,466 34654 21,492 1,304 160,916 1.8*
1975 75 104 33,8896 21,888 1,913 163,759 1.596
1977 119,166 39,11,1 30 173,525 026 4%
1978 119,850 41,747 32,757 607 194991 2496
1979 131,647 45,739 3�' 988 568 211,41 8.7*
1900 143,646 40,481 27,876 541 212,744 0416
1981 141,015 39,400 27,05I 477 , 207,945 .23%
1982 x,415 49,040 356 211,394 1776
1984 142,717 59,824 24678 409 221478 7.0%
1985 1*404
1986 187,870
1987 179,658
1985 176,732
1989,
aTIOUSAND9)
400
300
100
0
•Ws not . 19es
1 Gehl Minden del for 1986 and beyond also bdlodes Dilalog f ob,
Seer= et Peperi d 1* Srr.Tae Operation n DepwI a! bj sir warm
54954 18,537 317 01,723 4.9%
54+977 .. 1480e 286 20,939 10.7%
95,337 17,671 355 2492,1MM 12.4%
124,249 1020 4/1/ 34964 8.296
139,215 12,865 3114 3341924 SA%
150,376 10,444 303 355,007 6.0%
30 -YEAR AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS TREND
1111111111111111111111 IIP
1111 =Mr
E/E d
1975
1980
1985
1990
1N SRT1I1I`)H -1 Sflrl Rc:bt ?f,. J2 HHf
APPENDIX 2
Working Paper 12B, Air Quality Assessment
DATE: November 6, 1991
TO: Puget Sound Transportation Committee
FROM: Mestre Greve Associates/P &D Aviation
SUBJECT: WORKING PAPER NO. 12B - AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
(12.21)
INTRODUCTION,
The purpose of this report is to determine the potential air quality impacts attributable to each
of the airport system alternatives. The potential impacts of the alternatives are compared
relative to the impacts on the regional air quality emissions within the Puget Sound area. The
report discusses the potential future air pollutant emissions based on the general trend of jet
aircraft emissions and on the airport- related vehicular emissions. Both the aircraft and
vehicular traffic air pollutant emission levels were used in the comparison of each system
alternative on the impacts on the regional air quality.
The report presents background information on issues important to the assessment of air
quality impacts, projects the emissions for each of the sources of pollutants attributable to
airport operations, and determines the total contribution to the regional air quality for each of
the system alternatives. The air quality analysis is based on 2020 aircraft operational levels,
passenger demands, and pollutant emission factors. -
SUMMARY
The results of the air quality analysis are summarized in Table 12B -1. This table presents an
emission inventory of selected pollutants for each of the system alternatives..This_data_is_
presented for both the ' bon monoxide (CO) emissions and the nitrogen_oxides_(NOx)_
emissions. Carbon monoxide emissions are best used to indicate the impacts from vehicular
traffic because the CO emissions in the Puget Sound area are primarily the result of vehicular
traffic. The NOx emissions are best used to indicate the impacts from both traffic and aircraft
operations combined because both these sources contribute to the secondary pollutants of
which NOx is an important factor.
Page 1
Table 12B-1
2020 EMISSIONS COMPARSION FOR EACH SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
Traffic Emissions Aircraft Emissions Total Emissions
CO NOX CO NOX CO NOX RANKING
(tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (1 Best)
SEA -TAC AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC WITH MAXIMUM DEMAND MANAGEMENT 26-37 4.2-5.9 9-10 3.6-3.9 36-46 7.8-9.5 4'
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT
68-78 10.9-12.4 7 4.6 76-85 15.5-17.0 5
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC + SUPP(1 RWY) 20-35 3.2-5.6 10-12 4.7 30-47 7.9-10.2 4'
EXISTING SEA -TAC + SUPP(2 RWY) 20-38 3.2-6.0 11 4.7 30-48 7.9-10.8. 4
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY+SUPP(1 RWY) 22-27 3.6-4.3 10-11 4.7-4.8 33-38 8.3-9.1 3
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY+SUPP(2RWY) 22-27 3.6-4.3 10-11 4.7 33-38 8.3-9.1 3
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC + 2 SUPP(1 RWY) 18-26 2.9-4.1 10-11 4.7-4.8 29-36 7.7-8.9 ' 2
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY + 2 SUPP(1 RWY) 21-25 3.3-3.9 9-10 4.5-4.7 28-35 7.8-8.6 1
• Denotes System Alternatives that include Airport Development Alternatives that do not meet System Capacity Demands
NOTE: Figures have been updated subsequent to PSATC adoption
using new and more -refined data.
-
Table 12B-1
2020 EMISSIONS COMPARSION FOR EACH SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
Traffic Emissions Aircraft Emissions Total Emissions
CO NOX CO NOX CO NOX RANKING
(tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (1 Best)
SEA -TAC AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC WITH MAXIMUM DEMAND MANAGEMENT 26-37 4.2-5.9 9-10 3.6-3.9 36-46 7.8-9.5 3'
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT
68-78 10.9-12.4 7 4.6 76-85 15.5-17.0 4
TWO AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC + SUPP(1 RWY) 20-35 3.2-5.6 10-12 4.7 30-47 7.9-10.2 2'
EXISTING SEA -TAC + SUPP(2 RWY) 20-38 3.2-6.0 11 4.7 30-48 7.9-10.8 2
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY+SUPP(1 RWY) 22-27 3.6-4.3 10-11 4.7-4.8 33-38 8.3-9.1 2
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY+SUPP(2RWY) 22-27 3.6-4.3 10-11 4.7 33-38 8.3-9.1 2
THREE AIRPORT SYSTEMS
EXISTING SEA -TAC + 2 SUPP(1 RWY) 18-26 2.9-4.1 10-11 4.7-4.8 29-36 7.7-8.9 1
SEA -TAC WITH NEW AC RWY + 2 SUPP(1 RWY) 21-25 3.3-3.9 9-10 4.5-4.7 28-35 7.8-8.6 1
• Denotes System Alternatives that include Airport Development Alternatives that do not meet System Capacity Demands
NOTE: Figures have been updated subsequent to PSATC adoption
using new and more -refined data.
Table 12B -1 also ranks the alternatives in the order that the consultant considers to be most
favorable in terms of air quality impacts. The important findings from the air quality
analysis and the basis for these .findings are listed below:
•
•
The results show that for the system alternatives that meet forecast demand, the three -
airport system alternative with and without the dependent runway at Sea -Tac are
considered the most favorable. This is because the emissions are less with these
system alternative as a result of a reduction of vehicular travel distances and a
reduction in aircraft delays. The three - airport system alternative with the dependent
runway at Sea -Tac shows some slight preference because it has the lower aircraft
delays as well as reduced travel distances.
A multiple airport system locates more airport sites throughout the region so the
average driving distance to the airport(s) is less. Supplemental airport sites such as
Paine Field and McChord that are located closer to the population centers are more
favorable than sites such as Arlington or Olympia/Black Lake that are located further
from populated areas.
The emissions from aircraft operations are less with alternatives that include the
dependent runway at Sea -Tac as a result of the reduction in aircraft delays that will
occur when the airport is not operating at capacity.
Of those alternatives that meet forecast demand, the replacement - airport alternatives
showed the least amount of aircraft emissions because the aircraft delays are
significantly less as a result of the elimination of Sea -Tac. However, this alternative
was rated the worst in terms of overall air quality because of the very long travel
distances to the potential airport sites.
• � °- Airport related- CO emissions are projected to constitute less than 4% of the total
= regional CO emissions in the four county area in the year 2020. Increased transit use
and other transportation demand management techniques as well as airport emissions
mitigation measures have the potential to further reduce commercial aviation
contribution to regional air quality.
• The air quality impacts from all of the alternative airport systems can be partially
mitigated through transportation measures and improvements. Those sites that are
located near the proposed light rail line (Sea -Tac and Paine Field) show the most
potential for trip reduction through increased transit use.
Page 3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON AIR OUALITY
Criteria Pollutants and Health Effects
Air pollutants are divided into two categories. The first is primary pollutants. These are the
pollutants that are directly emitted from a source. Primary pollutants include carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The other
category of pollutants is secondary pollutants. Secondary pollutants are those pollutants that
result from chemical reactions between other pollutants in the atmosphere. Ozone is a
secondary pollutant that is not directly emitted by any source but a result of reactions between
nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons.
The nature of the pollutants emitted from airports is the same as those emitted from other
transportation projects. Carbon monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and unburned
hydrocarbons are common pollutants emitted from the combustion processes. Six criteria
pollutants regulated by federal standards are ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates and
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead. They are described below.
Ozone (03) is a colorless gas which comes from the reaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. Although ozone is the air contaminant for which
standards are set, its precursors, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, are the pollutants which
must be controlled. Ozone results in eye irritation and damage to lung tissues; reduced
resistance to colds and pneumonia, and aggravates heart disease, asthma, bronchitis and
emphysema.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and toxic gas produced by incomplete
combustion of carbon - contaning substances. The highest ambient concentrations of carbon
monoxide occur near congested roadways and intersections during periods of low
temperatures, light winds, and stable atmospheric conditions. CO has been shown to
interfere with oxygen transport in the blood, produce cardiovascular disease, and decrease
visual perception. CO has also been associated with lower birth weight and increased deaths
of infants in highly polluted areas.
Particulate matter which is composed of particles 10 microns or less in diameter is referred to
as PM10 , and is the inhalable subgroup of total suspended particulates (TSP). Suspended
particles aggravate chronic heart and lung disease and often transport toxic elements such as
lead, arsenic, nickel, which can enter respiratory, digestive and lymphatic systems.
Hydrocarbons (HC) result from the release of unburned fuel or incomplete combustion of
fuel. HC plays a very important role in determining regional air quality. HC react with
nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. The amount
of ozone formed is more related to the amounts of HC released than to any other pollutant.
Page 4
Sulfur dioxide (S02) is a nonflammable, non explosive, colorless gas. It reacts in the
atmosphere to form sulfur trioxides (S03) and sulfuric acid. S02, sulfuric acid, and other
inorganic sulfates have been shown to produce asthma which decreases human respiratory
function both at the acute and chronic levels. SO2 also contributes to acid deposition.
Nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2 & NOx) result from the high temperature oxidation of nitrogen
present in air. In the presence of moisture, NO can form particulates by coalescing, reducing
visibility and contributing to acid deposition. NO2, like sulfur dioxide, is also a
bronchoconstrictor that can cause irritation and injury to the lungs. NOx is more of a factor
in the generation of secondary pollutants such as ozone.
Air Oualitv Standards
The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, required states to have State Implementation
plans (SIP) to achieve established air quality goals. The result is the National Ambient Air
Quality, Standards (NAAQS). The Federal Clean Air Act requires that urban areas which do
not meet standards for carbon monoxide (CO) and /or photochemical oxidants (ozone) must
implement transportation plans to achieve the standards for these pollutants. Washington
State and the Puget Sound region have adopted ambient air quality standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) in the Clean Air Act of 1970. These standards have been established
for both the primary and secondary pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates and
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead. Areas that exceed these standards are considered
non attainment areas and a plan- must be developed to ultimately bring the area into
compliance. -CO is one of the major air pollutant problems within the Puget Sound Region.
cFor the Puget Sound area, CO is _primarily a problem associated with motor vehicles'.
The Clean Air Act, Title II, Part B, directs the EPA to establish aircraft emission standards
throughout the United States. The Code of Federal Regulations volume 40, part 87 contains
engine emission standards that apply only to large commercial passenger jets. The FAA is
responsible for implementing the standards through engine certification data provided by the
manufacturers. These regulations do not extend to piston powered, smaller turbofan or
military aircraft.
Page 5
Existing Air Oualitx
The Washington State Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency (PSAPCA) maintain a network of instrumented air quality monitoring stations
throughout the Puget Sound area. In general, these stations are located where the agencies
believe there might be an air quality problem. Other stations are located in remote areas to
measure regional-or background air pollution levels.
The PSRC region, which includes Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties, is currently in
non - attainment for CO emissions. Recently (March 1991) the EPA has reportedly determined
that Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties have exceeded the national standards for ozone
pollutants. On this basis, the EPA and the State of Washington are proposing that these three
counties be designated non - attainment areas for ozone. EPA action with regard to the State's
submittal for this non - attainment designation is currently scheduled for late 1991.
Aircraft operations at the existing Sea -Tac are currently a major source of air pollutant
emissions in that local area and are currently under study by the Department of Ecology
(Olympia, Washington, May 1991).
A downward trend in the ambient concentration of air pollutants generated by motor vehicles,
especially CO, has been observed in the Puget Sound area over the past decade. The
replacement of older vehicles with newer, cleaner ones, and vehicles meeting the
requirements of the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program have been the major factors
for reducing the CO emissions. CO emissions have been reduced by 13% in Seattle due to
the I/M program (May 1991).
Page 6
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
The main sources of air pollutants attributable to airports are aircraft traffic, motor vehicles,
boilers, and fueling operations. Most of the airport emissions are generated by aircraft
operations and motor vehicle traffic. Aircraft and motor vehicles together comprise a
majority of the airport emissions. Other emissions due to tank farms, ground support
vehicles, boilers and training fires are minor sources at the airport.
Aircraft Emissions
The quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere from aircraft operations is a function of
the type of aircraft and engine, mode of operation, and how long the engine is operated in
each mode. Large jet aircraft operations produce the largest amount of airport pollutants.
Small aircraft also contribute in the summation of an airport's emissions.
Aircraft engines emit CO, hydrocarbon, NOx, SOx, and particulates as by- products from the
combustion: process. The emission rates are determined by engine types. Mor Ce O� and
eaa oe c � engine p ncbcuse of ncmpleomb stion -Thamo ii of NOx rodu ed dung start-up is small
compared to that produced during takeoff. SO2 is a result of the oxidation of sulfur
compounds in the aircraft fuel. Aircraft fuel is usually highly refined and contains only about
0.1% sulfur. Particulate matters emitted from the aircraft engines, particularly turbine
engines, is extremely small in diameter ranging between 0.04 and 0.12 microns.
Aircraft emissions can be divided into idle, taxi, climb and approach. Climb and approach
emissions, which are calculated from ground level up to 3500 feet, are the major source of
nitrogen oxide emissions, and takeoffs contribute about 25% of the total aircraft NOx
emissions. Sulfur oxide and particulate emissions are more evenly divided among the four
aircraft modes with climb and approach still being the most significant contributing mode.
Aircraft taxi and idle queues are the major source of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
The Emissions and Dispersions Modeling System (EDMS) computer model, developed by
the FAA and U.S. Air Force, was utilized to assess the projections of aircraft pollutant
emissions. The number of operations per day and the length of time each type of aircraft
spends in the queue mode was also required. All aircraft operations were estimated
according to each of the airport development alternatives. These alternatives and the total
concentration levels are presented in Table 12B -2. Operations data including fleet mix was
obtained from the P &D Aviation - Allocation of Passengers and Aircraft Operations, August
1991. The operational data is presented in the Appendix of the noise assessment. Data on
aircraft delays for each of the airport development alternatives was also provided by P &D
Technologies.
Page 7
The results of the emission inventory for aircraft_operations are presented in Table 12B -2.
The results indicate that the aircraft emissions are similar for all alternatives. This would be
expected in that the alternatives are= baedlon- the,same= levels
_exception ";isahatithe emissions are less for those alternatives "that do not meet system capacity'
_demand2fl2Oii(Aftnatives l— 2; 3,-6 -7- and -34).'E 4;is,s gnsflelvelstfo -.these alternatives___' '
are less - because the:.number_of_operations are less.
Of all the alternatives which meet the system capacity demand, the difference between the
alternatives is the amount of aircraft delays that may occur under each scenario. The
replacement - airport alternatives result in the least emissions. This is because these
replacement - airports have the least amount of aircraft delays. The three - airport Alternative
results in the next smallest emissions. This is again as a result of reduced delays because of
more efficient operations at Sea -Tac.
i ih glevel of em ss ons are a result of delays ' a Sea Tacrthat would be antic anticipated to'occur
as the airport operated near capacity. -
Motor Vehicle Emissions
Estimates of the emissions relating to vehicular traffic to and from each of the airport
development alternatives were projected. The vehicle miles traveled per day were determined
from the O/D passenger forecast and the average trip lengths for passengers traveling to each
of the airports. The average trip length was deterrnined from the PSRC travel area zones that
determined the travel distance from each zone in the four counties. The number of passengers
from each zone traveling to each site was then determined.
Emission factors for 2020 are based on MOBILE 4 and EMFAC7D model inputs program.
These programs'are computerized program which calculates the composite emission rates
based on a number of factors such as vehicle operating mode, vehicle types, vehicle
distribution, speed and temperature.
The emissions are projected for the year 2020. The total projected vehicular emissions are
presented in Table 12B -3. The results show that the vehicular emissions for most scenarios
are comparable. The least amount of emissions would be generated by the three - airport
Alternatives. In general, the two and three- airport systems have the advantage of two or
three airport locations. Since passengers are located closer to more airports, shorter average
traveled trip lengths are anticipated. Sites such as Paine Field and McChord that are located
closer to the -population areas are more favorable then sites such as Arlington or
OlympiaBlack Lake that are located further from population areas.
Page 8
Table 12B-2
Aircraft Emissions (Year 2020)
CO NOx SOx PART HC
ALT AIRPORT (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day)
1 • Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
2 • Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
3 • Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
6 • Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 • Alternate 1 + Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W
13 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R/W
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
20 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W
22 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik.Lake 2 R/W
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R
26 Alternate 1.+ Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W
28 Alternate 14+Central Pierce 1 R/W
29 Alternate 13+O1ympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Alternate 14+Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W
34 ' Alternate 1 + Demand Management
9.4
9.8
11.8
10.4
10.4
11.8
11.8
10.5
10.3
10.3
10.5
10.5
10.8
10.3
10.6
10.5
10.6
10.6
10.3
10.6
10.5
10.6
10.6
10.4
10.6
10.4
8.3
7.6
10.2
9.0
7.3
7.3
7.4
9.4
3.6
3.9
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
3.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.8
2.9
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.4
2.2
3.0
2.7
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.8
• Alternative which does not meet system capacity demand.
NOTE: Figures have been updated subsequent to PSATC adoption
using new and more -refined data.
Table 12B-3
Vehicular Trafflc Emissions (Year 2020)
ALT
CO NOx SOx PART HC
AIRPORT (Tons/day) (Tons/day) (Tons/day) (Tons/day) (Tons/day)
1 ' Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W
2 • Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W
3 ' Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W
4 Alternate 1 + Pone 1 R/W
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W
6 ' Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W
7 ' Alternate 1 + Olympla/Black Lake 1 R/W
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W
12 Alternate 1 + Olympia/Black Lake 2 R/W
13 Sea -Tac ‘‘N/Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W
14 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W
15 Sea-Tac.w/Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W
16 Sea -Tac w%Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W
17 Sea -Tac w/Dependent P/ + Oiyim./Bik..Lake 3, P/W
18 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W
19 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W
20 Sea-Tac,w/Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W
21 Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Cen.,Pierce 2 R/W
22 _ Sea -Tac w/Dependent R/W + Olym./Bik.Lake 2 R/W
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
24 . .Alternate) + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym./Bik. Lake 1 R
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1, R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W
28 Alternate 14+Central Pierce 1 R/W
29 Alternate 13+Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
30 Alternate 14+Olympia/Black Lake 1 R/W
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W
32 Olympia/Black Lake 3 R/W
33 Central Pierce/Fort Lewis 3 R/W
34 • Alternate 1 + Demand Management
26.2
28.7
27.2
19.8
27.2
26.8
34.9
28.3
19.8
27.2
28.5
37.7
•23.6
22.3
24.6
24.6
27.1
23.6
22.3
24.4
24.6
27.1
21.6
18.3
25.7
21.7
.22.1
20.7
24.5
22.8
68.3
77.5
68.3
36.7
4.2
4.6
4.4
3.2
4.3
4.3
5.6
4.5
3.2
4.3
4.6
6.0
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.9
4.3
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.9
4.3
.3.4
2.9
4.1
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.9
3.6
10.9
12.4
10.9
5.9
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0,5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.3
1.5
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
.0.5
0.5 ,
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4 .
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
0.8
4.6
5.0
4.8
3.5
4.8
4.7
6.1
5.0
3.5
4.8
5.0
6.6
4.1
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.8
4.1
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.8
3.8
3.2
4.5
3.8
3.9
3.6
4.3
4.0
12.0
13.6
12.0
6.4
Alternative which does not meet system capacity demand.
NOTE: Figures have been updated subsequent to PSATC adoption
using new and more -refined data.
The highest vehicular emissions will be generated by the three replacement - airport
alternatives. This is because the average traveled trip lengths for these replacement - airport
`alternatives are muc,,h- longer 'when- compared to all- ofhef;airport:alternatives: For example,
the average trtplength -to Sea- TacAs- 24- rrmiles, while-the-average trip length =to= Central Pi er'ce
is 45 mi- ,,;1es .
Boilers
Air pollution from boilers varies greatly depending on the fuel used, and the manner in which .
the boiler is operated. The least polluting fuel is the natural gas oil used as back -up fuel.
Boilers are used to power heat exchangers in terminal buildings and other equipment. The
emission levels generated from boilers are insignificant.
Fueling Operations
Hydrocarbon emissions during operations vary in degrees depending on the type of fuel and
the efficiency of the operation. The fuel requirements for piston and turbine engines differ
widely. Piston engines requires a high octane type of gasoline, while jet engines use much
heavier fuel, usually Jet -A fuel or aviation kerosene. Aviation gasoline used for piston
engine powered aircraft is much more volatile than Jet -A fuel. However, the emission levels
generated from fueling operations are insignificant when compared with aircraft and traffic
emissions.
Page 11
TOTAL AIRPORT EMISSIONS
Table 12B -4 presents the total airport emission levels from both aircraft and motor vehicles.
Of_all the alternat yes-which -would -meet thesystem capacity demand, tfie_t=trtfee airpoi`k
Alternative 24 and 28-generate- the- least.enissions.
The major contributions_ of the_total_CO_emi,ssions for these a alternatives are vehicular
traffic.C�®-is a good - indicator pollutant for vehicular activity. CO- emissions- increase -with
increased vehicular usage and with increased congestion. Air quality problems local to
roadways are usually the result of CO emissions.
Vehicular and aircraft emissions of NOx are important because they contribute to the regional
air quality. NOx is an important pollutant in the formation of Ozone. With the introduction
of high by -pass engines into the aircraft fleet, NOx is also becoming the pollutant of primary
concern local to airports.
The replacement- airport alternatives 'generate the highest emissions for CO, NOx, SOx and
particulates. Although the replacement - airport alternatives have the least aircraft emissions,
the major contributions of these total emissions are due to the traffic emissions. The traffic
emissions for these alternatives are the highest due to the longest distance traveled lengths.
These emissions can also be compared to the total regional emissions for the four country
area. The Vision 2020 study forecasts the total mobile emissions for year 2020. Theses
emissions estimates for the airport system account for less than 4 percent of the four county
total for CO emissions.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The most significant reductions in regional and local air pollutant emissions are attainable
through programs which reduce the vehicular travel associated with the project. Support and
compliance with the Vision 2020 plan is the most important measure to achieve this goal. The
plan includes improvement of mass transit facilities, implementation of vehicular usage
reduction programs, and transportation demand management programs. This plan has been
been designed to reduce project trips to reduce the traffic congestion and the total emissions.
Any airport development plan will require the development of mitigation measures as part of
the environment process. The air quality impacts from any of the alternative airport systems
can be mitigated through transportation measures and improvements such as these. Those
sites that are located near the proposed light rail line (Sea -Tac and Paine Field) show the most
potential for vehicular transportation control measures.
Page 12
•
Table 12B -4
Total Combined Aircraft and Vehicular Emissions (Year 2020)
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
ALT AIRPORT CO NOx SOx PART HC
( Tons / day) ( Tons /day) (Tons /day) (Tons /day) (Tons /day)
1 • Sea -Tac without Commuter R/W 35.6 c7=8' 0.9 0.7 7.4
2 • Sea -Tac with Commuter R/W 38.5 8.4 0.9 0.8 7.9
3 • Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W 39.0 9.0 1.0 0.7 8.3
4 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W =30:--1 7.9 0.8 0.6 6.5
5 Alternate 1 + McChord 1 R/W 37.5 9.1 1.0 0.7 7.8
6 • Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 1 R/W 38.6 9.0 1.0 0.7 8.2
7 • Alternate 1 + Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W 46.7 10.2 1.1 0.9 9.6
8 Alternate 1 + Arlington 2 R/W 38.7 9.3 1.0 0.8 8.0
9 Alternate 1 + Paine 2 R/W ,30 =1 7.9 0.8 0.6 6.5
10 Alternate 1 + McChord 2 R/W 37.5 9.1 1.0 0.7 7.8
11 Alternate 1 + Central Pierce 2 R/W 39.0 9.3 1.0 0.8 8.1
12 Alternate 1 + Otympla /Black Lake 2 R/W 48.2 10.8 1.2 1.0 9.7
13 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 1 R/W 34.4 8.6 0.9 0.7 7.3
14 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Paine 1 R/W 32.7 8.3 0.9 0.6 7.0
15 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + McChord 1 R/W 35.2 8.7 0.9 0.7 7.4
16. Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cent. Pierce 1 R/W 35.1 8.7 0.9 0.7 7.4
17 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Olym. /Bik. Lake 1 R/W 37.7 9.1 1.0 0.7 7.9
18 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Arlington 2 R/W 34.2 8.5 0.9 0.7 7.3
19 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Paine 2 R/W 32.7 8.3 0.9 0.6 7.0
20 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + McChord 2 R/W 35.0 8.7 0.9 0.7 7.4
21 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Cen. Pierce 2 R/W 35.1 8.7 0.9 0.7 7.4
22 Sea -Tac w /Dependent R/W + Olym. /Bik.Lake 2 R/W 37.7 9.1 1.0 0.7 7.9
23 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 32.2 8.2 0.9 0.6 6.9
24 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Cen. Pierce 1 R/W 28.7 C7P3 0.8 0.5 6.3
25 Alternate 1 + Arlington 1 R/W + Olym. /Bik. Lake 1 R 36.3 8.9 0.9 0.7 7.6
26 Alternate 1 + Paine 1 R/W + Olym./ Bik. Lake 1 R/W 32.1 8.2 0.9 0.6 6.9
27 Alternate 13+ Central Pierce 1 R/W C30:4 ' 8.1 0.8 0.6 6.3
28 Alternate 14 +Central Pierce 1 R/W (2853% 7.8 0.8 0.6 5.8
29 Alternate 13 +Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W 34.8 8.6 0.9 0.7 7.3
30 Alternate 14+ Olympia /Black Lake 1 R/W 31.8 ' 8.3 0.8 0.6 6.7
31 Central Pierce 3 R/W 75.7 15.5 1.7 1.6 14.1
32 Olympia /Black Lake 3 R/W 84.9 17.0 1.9 1.8 15.7
33 Central Pierce /Fort Lewis 3 R/W 75.7 15.5 1.8 1.6 14.1
34 ' Alternate 1 + Demand Management 46.1 9.5 1.1 0.9 9.2
Alternative which does not meet system capacity demand.
NOTE: Figures have been updated subsequent to PSATC adoption
using new and more - refined data.