[subzidion]

There's been discussions where the "next" airport should go in the Seattle region, and the consensus is that nobody wants it. The State Legislature created a commission to try and identify some potential sites, but the public backlash was so great that they ended up submitting it's final report with no actual recommendation.

One of the interesting ideas (that was proposed even back when SEA was adding it's third runway) is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. I'm doubtful it happens, since that means building a major airport _and_ a new train.

[perlgeek]

> One of the interesting ideas [...] is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there.

While reading this article, I thought about something like that too. Build an airport quite a while away from the big city, and provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. Make it free for customers.

Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again.

[sandworm101]

>> Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again.

Or go one step further and just put on barriers to block the trains too. Don't let anyone near the airport unless they walk/bike the few miles. That will drive up servicing costs but will dramatically lower congestion. If don't correctly, virtually nobody will ever get to the airport. It can then be closed altogether, thereby eliminating any and all future noise complaints.

[Dalewyn]

The aforementioned setup nearly always means the closer airport ends up getting upgraded later to meet convenience demands, leaving the newer-but-inconvenient airport out to dry.

See: Haneda (HND) vs. Narita (NRT) in Tokyo, Itami (ITM) vs. Kansai (KIX) in Osaka, etc.

[newhotelowner]

I don't think you ever traveled international or your plane got delayed or cancelled.

I don't want to carry 4 big bags in the train when I travel international

I don't want to travel 30 miles if my plane get cancelled.

[lobochrome]

I live in Tokyo where we have both Narita, far out but well-ish connected by train with NEX and Haneda, with direct access to the city.

Haneda is vastly more convenient.

[mst]

-I- would be entirely fine with an airport with those transit restrictions.

mdk (Shadowcat's resident responsible adult / business person) however has three kids, and two adults trying to wrangle three children as well as luggage makes trains much, much less attractive as an option.

So I think "fantastic to imagine, DOA as an idea in practice" applies, I'm afraid.

[7952]

That is often the experience already when using a big hub airport. Because by their very nature they draw people in from across a region. And that naturally leeds to congestion and inconvenience. Rail is a help but may not be fast if you don't live close to the right stations.

I think hubs are often setup to serve airlines running lots of connecting flight rather than the regional population. They would be happier flying out of a small local airport on a narrowbody and flying direct or connecting elsewhere.

[pif]

> make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means

Absolutely not! High-speed train have many advantages, but serving stations with large, long-term parking lots is not one of them.

After all, you don't need to disincentivize the approach: you just need to make it clear that the airport is there to stay, and maybe to grow three-fold, and that noise complaints will never be receivable.

[kiba]

Only allow cargo delivery via rail as well. This way this deincentivize road traffic as much as possible.

[user_of_the_wek]

> provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there.

They wanted to do that in Munich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU

[Arrath]

> run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport

Woah, that's a good ways out there

[dboreham]

See: DIA

[balderdash]

What’s comical is how hard it is to get to many urban US airports - why their isn’t the equivalent of the Heathrow express to serve New York city’s three airports is absurd

[resonantjacket5]

> There's been discussions where the "next" airport should go in the Seattle region, and the consensus is that nobody wants it. The State Legislature created a commission to try and identify some potential sites, but the public backlash was so great that they ended up submitting it's final report with no actual recommendation.

The commission was hampered by rules that stated they couldn't look into increasing the existing airports capacity.

"Survey responses also conveyed members’ views on what kind of options the Legislature permitted them to consider — the 2019 legislation prohibited considering sites in King County, or those near military bases. Some members noted that those constraints hindered their search efforts, with some doubting whether it’s possible to have a new airport operational by 2040." https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/state...

The "next" airport is basically just expanding SeaTac. There's plans to add a second terminal in SAMP https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/1805... And then even WSDOT's project for the new 509 extension is to allow freight traffic to reach the seatac airport.

Outside of that the other regional airport to be used is king county international airport -- even back in 2005 southwest looked into using it.

Paine field, while it has the capacity is not where the demand is for passengers. Secondly, I don't think many people realize the bottleneck for SeaTac airport is not just passenger traffic but freight traffic. It's why the airport commission keeps choosing sites south of Seattle aka Pierce County or Thurston County because it's close to the port of tacoma. They aren't going to choose Paine field.

[danielodievich]

I regularly fly to SFO from Paine field, it is 20 more minutes drive for me from Mercer Island but the experience of the airport is worth it. The lobby that is like a nice W, no security lines whatsoever, and seeing all the green pickle birds being assembled is really nice. I'd fly other places if they were offered. The place can handle a lot more traffic but yeah, the freight isn't going to go there...

[throwway120385]

Paine field is already loud as hell all the time so I'm glad it's a non-starter.

[yadaeno]

Paine Field is about 35 mins away from Seattle and serves airline traffic as of a few years ago.

[patch_cable]

And it is so much better I routinely pay hundreds more to fly out of Paine Field.

[bombcar]

Paine Field is also unnaturally large for a "little suburban airport" because it's the site of the largest building in the world, because it's a Boeing assembly plant.

[jethro_tell]

Its hit or miss if you can get the flight you need or of there and it always costs more from what I can see.

[nojvek]

Make Paine field airport bigger and accept international flights.

I love that airport. It should be bigger and is north enough that it has its own population.

Also US needs to build more high speed rail. We are over-reliant on airports.

[mikestew]

One of the interesting ideas (that was proposed even back when SEA was adding it's third runway) is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there.

That would have been an interesting idea before the railroad right-of-way was turned into a multi-use trail. There's another rail corridor that goes through Stampede Pass, but I don't know that it would be usable for "high-speed rail" (nor do I know that it even goes anywhere useful).

[tallanvor]

It's been 35 years they've discussed that possibility. It's never going to happen. The costs of high speed rail across the mountain are simply too high.

[bombcar]

It'd be easier and cheaper to landfill the sound - or do what is slowly happening and start using Paine Field.

[bombcar]

Wasn’t that the idea behind Denver? It’s outside the city by a decent amount (or was when started). I assume proximity to the mountains was also a consideration.

[asdff]

What is a bit interesting to think about Denver was that rocky mountain arsenal closed in 1992 about the same time as stapleton in 1995. They ended up spending about 2 billion to clean up the rocky mountain arsenal to make it a wildlife refuge and meet all those standards, and spent five billion on Denver international airport. I'd imagine the environmental cleanup would have been substantially cheaper if they just devoted that swath of land (much nearer to downtown Denver actually) for the airport and devoted the swath of unpolluted land Denver airport presently sits on for a wildlife area, maybe one that won't end up being hemmed on all sides by Denver suburbia in time like the present rocky mountain arsenal. There is nothing but empty fields east of dia until you hit Omaha or Kansas City, so wild populations wouldn't be trapped in the preserve so much like they are in these nature preserves surrounded by urban areas and busy roads.

[ghaff]

The newer airport is really less convenient to the mountains than Stapleton was. (At least in terms of distance. Not sure about driving time.)

[throwaway48476]

Paine field is the new seattle area airport.

[subzidion]

I don't think they believe Paine Field on its own is going to be able to accommodate the expected air travel growth. Yes, it's serving some commercial air travel now, but the consensus was there needs to be a new airport for all this growth.

[RaftPeople]

Paine field can't support what is needed and can't be expanded. But it will continue to service a small percent of the overall need.

The state has created a new commission to start the new airport site selection process over again, but this time it will just be a recommendation.

The previous project that had been going on for many years was site selection and not just recommendation, but their selection(s) pissed off the people and so the whole thing got just got killed recently.

[brewdad]

Paine Field would seem to make the most sense but there really isn't much room to expand it. It can probably help in the short/medium term while a new, from scratch airport is built elsewhere.

[arccy]

it barely has any flights anywhere this now

[Izikiel43]

The other problem was that the legislature restricted the commission of where they could look for a new place, it had to be less than X amount of people and other restrictions.

In theory there was a good place for an airport if those restrictions were removed

[jamwil]

Sure would be nice to just pop out to the Gorge for an afternoon of music though!

[shados]

Consider how the FAA handled the Nextgen project and continually gaslight anyone negatively impacted over the last 10 years, I would be against any airport built within 10 miles of where I live too. Not surprising people would be against it. It doesn't have to be so bad, but it is.