Hacker News Reader

Comment by subzidion | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

Didn't happen with Denver or Hong Kong.

Or Paris.

In Washington DC, Washington National Airport (WAS) is just across a river from downtown and connected by subway, and Dulles International Airport (IAD) was way out past the exurbs when it was constructed and only just got a subway connection several decades later. IAD gets way more traffic and has as long as I can remember. I'd guess that's because it's not possible to add many more flights to WAS.

This is wrong. Reagan National is DCA, not WAS. Also, DCA handles more passengers than IAD.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/nat...

Sorry, I take the train 10x more than I fly, I mixed up the airport with Union Station.

Flights to/from WAS are artificially restricted by congress: https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter

DCA and IAD have their work-load shared due to regulatory action:

> The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles (49 U.S. Code § 49109). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport.

> Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore.

https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-infor...

Not if the old airport gets closed - like Tegel and Tempelhof were in Berlin, even though the new one next to Schonefeld wasn't ready yet due to it being a fiasco of colossal proportions.

Sure, like in the case of Hiroshima Airport (HIJ) and its predecessor (HIW), but even then most people (not necessarily including the politicians) end up longing for the one that was more convenient.

When DFW was built Congress passed the Wright Amendment which kneecapped Dallas Love Field (DAL) to only serve domestic and immediately adjacent state travel. Personally I prefer DAL but I can see how DFW would have potentially withered on the vine if it hadn't been passed. I'm happy its finally expired though and now DAL can offer international flights.

Although now that there's a Whataburger at DFW one big argument for me for DAL is a bit less strong. When the Silver Line finally gets built, I imagine almost all my air travel will go to DFW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid...

Jesus. I just read the Wright Amendment article and it’s absolutely disgusting the level of regulatory capture and corporate cronyism enmeshed in our government in this country. There is no reason the federal government should be involving itself in these petty airline disputes, and certainly shouldn’t be helping maintain monopolies for reasons as bad as “American Airlines is the largest employer in North Texas”.

I largely agree with these opinions and dislike the cronyism that is a part of this deal. Looking at it a bit more holistically and seeing the growth of the DFW metroplex from 1980-now though, I think it makes sense for DFW airport to have succeeded. Having the very centralized airport with (theoretically) good rail service to both major cities makes a heck of a lot of sense and have been a good thing for the DFW economy. It would be nearly impossible to build the airport as it is now post that growth, but there's a good chance it wouldn't have survived in the early days given how far out there it was in 1979.

So short answer, I hate the cronyism, but many of the positive end goals marketed here ultimately did come true here. And it didn't fully kill DAL or Southwest in the end.

The issue for Seatac is that it's on a relatively small piece of land and can't really expand. They would definitely just go that route if they could.

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.

I fly into Haneda whenever I can, because even though the train is super convenient, for a train, it’s nicer to just throw your bags in a taxi and head straight to your hotel after 13 hours on a plane.

I tend to travel pretty light but trains get inconvenient with any amount of luggage. I'm coming into NY by ship after a longish trip, continuing on home by train at the end of May. I came to the conclusion I should take advantage of a not too expensive luggage shipping service because dealing with the luggage was going to be just too big of a hassle.

That's a key if you want a "rail to plane" setup - if you do it right (read-nobody will do it) you check in for the train with your baggage and your flight at the same time, and give the bags over to a dedicated baggage car that handles everything for you.

Hong Kong recently added this, called In-town Check-in [1]. You can check in and drop your bags at the MTR Hong Kong station when taking the Airport Express. Can even drop off the bags up to a day in advance. Currently only open to Cathay Pacific customers though.

[1] https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin....

Yeah, any airline could set something like this up. Cathay has always had pretty primo service though.

This is not a recent addition. It is more than 10 years old but was shut down during Covid. They are slowly starting to bring it back. It also wasn’t restricted to just Cathay before, but a large number of major airlines had counters at HK Station for check-in services. It’s wonderful - you can check in your bags before heading to work in the morning and in the evening take the train to the airport directly.

It's not recent - I have been using it since the mid-2000s, it's fantastic. It might have been shut during COVID, and just re-opened though.

I used it over 10 years ago too, It's great if you can use it. There are still a lot of stipulations though.

Right airline, right boarding time etc... It's not available for 100% of flights out of HKG.

Luggage tags can take a rail stop as a final destination. Integrate further! Have a person load the bags onto the train for you!

There are luggage services that will take your luggage from your home to a hotel. You pay for it obviously but it's not a bad option if you're looking to simplify things.

How very 1800s of you. Curious minds wonder what you do to be able to have that kind of time for travel. The amount of time you require in just travel is more than most Americans receive in a year's vacation

Fairly routine tech jobs. In a prior long-term job I got up to about 4 weeks of vacation after a time and did some month-long vacations, especially Nepal treks. I was pretty careful to preserve time off for single vacations for the most part and had flexibility to take a few hours here and there without tapping into my pool.

I'm pretty close to that currently--although it's combined sick/personal/vacation. I've done a number of 3-week workcations in my current role and also had a few weeks of vacation banked from a prior paid time off scheme. I've long had a pretty generous amount of vacation time and I've always leveraged work travel (which I used to do a lot of) for sightseeing and related activities.

I'd add that I've always been pretty religious about taking all my vacation and I've seen a lot of people shocked that I just took off for a month. But I've done so deliberately and with an eye to future commitments and it's never been an issue.

> Curious minds wonder what you do to be able to have that kind of time for travel

In developed countries outside the US annual multi-week vacations are routine for the middle classes

yes, and in developed countries outside the US, healthcare is something covered by the state. neither of which has anything to do with the discussion at hand. you're comparing an apple to a kumquat.

    > Haneda is vastly more convenient.

Many (millions) would disagree. After the opening of the Keisei Skyliner[1], a very fast train from north Tokyo to Narita, from Shinjuku station (west side, busiest train station in the world), it is the same time to either Haneda ("Tokyo Int'l") or Narita.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyliner

and if you're not in a big hurry you can just ride the metro-through line that might be slow but certainly scenic.

I prefer to take a taxi. Also 99% can’t choose. Either you‘re on premium market destinations and carriers (JAL/ANA/LH) or you have no choice to go to NRT.

This very much depends on where in Tokyo you live, no?

Even though NRT is in the middle of nowhere, getting there from my place in Asakusa still is faster then getting across the city to get to HND.

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

Allow only short distance deliveries by truck

This guy simcities. Original game you could build rail everywhere instead of roads at all :)

> 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.

> noise complaints will never be receivable.

But they are always receivable. Complainers will vote, will take control of local government, will lobby state and national government...

"Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.

'"Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.'

Oh depends, you can always build some gulags and get rid of those annoying elections. It's crazy how quick you are into dictatorship realm, with some harmles sounding ideas taken one step further.

> Complainers will vote, will take control of local government

And you won't care, because you have surrendered the zone surrounding the airport to a national authority, whose mandate is clearly linked to the mobility and who is not to report to local council.

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.

One option would be to have people check in, drop off their luggage, and even go through security in some convenient location in the city center and then take a high-speed train "inside security" to the gate. (Maybe you could even have trains to two different fields.)

That would be fantastic. I'm almost salivating thinking about how appealing that would be in Manhattan (or DC, or even SF).

God yeah it's like a hypothetical version of the AirTrain that isn't a huge pain. Last time I flew out of JFK from Manhattan IIRC the easiest way was to do the E or LIRR from Penn to the AirTrain anyway, so might as well streamline the whole shebang.

The Madrid airport offered this service, but it wasn't very popular, nor widely known. You checked in your luggage downtown and hopped on the subway to get to the airport with just your carry-on. I can't find any reference now, so it must have been discontinued.

You can do something fairly similar in Japan. They have luggage shipping services that are quite cheap and reliable, and have some days of storage built in. So you can take a train between cities without carrying everything, or maybe skip your big luggage at one city in your itinerary and have it at your hotel in the next city. You could also deliver it to the airport, but you have to build in some hours of lead time.

30 years ago that was an option in Almaty (was extremely convenient for me, as we lived literally 2 block from there). You could check in, drop baggage, go through security and then ride on a bus directly to the plane. Same in Moscow, not sure about other cities (did not fly to other locations back then).

However, this was only partial solution, as it worked for departures only, not arrivals.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Алматинский_аэровокзал

This is an option in Hong Kong https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin....

This just makes me wonder about a purpose-built train that allows airport luggage carts.

I certainly understand that sentiment, but a ton of people commute 30 miles daily (or more). Even if you live "near an airport", you probably live 15+ miles from an airport. Tottenham London to Heathrow is 24 miles by car. The British Museum to Heathrow is 19 miles. Columbia University on the Upper West Side to JFK is 17 miles. DC to Dulles is 26 miles. Downtown Denver is 25 miles to the airport. SF to SFO is 14 miles. LA to LAX is 20 miles. The Loop in Chicago to O'Hare is 17 miles. Dallas to DFW is 21 miles. Houston is 22 miles. Seattle to SeaTac is 15 miles.

Most cities don't have airports that close to the city. Maybe you live in San Diego and the airport is right there downtown, but most people are traveling to get to their airport. Ok, maybe you don't want to take a train and can hire an airport van or whatever, but you're likely traveling a distance to get to an airport.

I'm not saying that it isn't nice to have a more convenient airport, but if we're being realistic about climate change air travel is going to have to be something we do sparingly rather than often. People in the US, UK, Germany, and France currently emit an average of 15t, 5t, 8t, and 5t of CO2 respectively. A trip from NYC to London will be 2t of CO2 - which probably needs to be around 40% of your annual CO2 budget. That is to say, an inconvenient airport should be an inconvenience very few times per year.

Making other things in your life more conveniently located should be a much higher priority - the things you'll use daily, weekly, or monthly. An airport is something you'll use infrequently - or will have to use infrequently if we're going to be realistic about climate change. Plus, as I noted, 30 miles isn't really that inconvenient compared to current situations in most cities. Even the "close" airport in London is 20+ miles away from most of London. Is there a huge difference between 20 miles and 30 miles? That's less than a 10 minute difference by car. With a high-speed train it could be a lot less. Paris to Lyon on the TGV averages 167 MPH. At that speed, 30 miles is covered in 11 minutes.

I certainly understand the desire for convenience, but airports are something individual people use infrequently (or will have to use infrequently given the reality of climate change). If getting to the airport is annoying, it's probably not an annoyance in your life frequently.

And yet all aviation combined is responsible for less than 3% of total carbon emissions. Permanently grounding all aircraft will make no appreciable difference. All the major manufacturers are currently sold out for the next decade; even if there were an additional major surge in demand for air travel enough to impact this number, it would be impossible to fulfill it.

I will vote against whoever tried to make my flights less convenient

So demand rail service that drops you off inside the airport right at the security line.

Demand baggage pick-up and delivery services be offered.

Having someone pick up your checked luggage the day before you fly out, walking off a train right into the airport, and then getting on the plane w/o any fuss, is amazing.

VS the American Standard of waiting in a huge line to weigh your checked luggage, that you just paid an Uber 60-80 to carry for you.

Then the new airport will never get built, it'll get horribly congested, and your flights will still be less convenient. Probably by quite a lot too.

I realize not everyone can just pack a carry-on, but as one of those types, traveling with "4 big bags" anywhere just seems insane to me. What do you bring that takes up so much space?

Things for the family maybe?

Hiking gear.

Isn't a big thing about hiking, that you want to hike as light as possible?

Yes, but presumably the hiking involves different gear from the rest of your trip. And certainly backpacking does. It wouldn't be 4 big bags in general but would almost certainly involve checked luggage. (You can't even bring hiking poles in carry-on.)

To get to the "popular" rocks of Patagonia for example, would require many many giant packs.

So the intense mountaineering of that region at BASE requires a porter team to help haul bags of clothes, food, toiletries, litres upon litres of water. Not even considering hiking/climbing gear.

Add in the layer of "most of the world is not the west", where you can just buy these things close to your destination then throw them away. You for example need to be absolute certain of the shoes/boots/crampons/skis, and also have a backup.

I do this all the time, but the bags start mostly empty and get filled up with purchases over time.

Then you would fly via SEA?

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

Japan has this really cool service where you can get your bags picked up from your hotel room and taken to the airport or from the airport to your hotel room. It costs max around $20 USD.

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

My local airport (Sea-tac) is almost 30 miles from Seattle. It can easily take an hour driving to get there. I do agree that taking lots of luggage onto the light rail (WHICH DOESN'T DROP YOU OFF IN THE AIRPORT!!) is a bad idea.

But I am one of those people who despises checked luggage, since it can add another 30+ minutes to checking in. Compared to carry-on and TSA pre-check, where I can walk into the airport, through security, and be at my boarding gate in under 10 minutes.

But hey, Seattle is, as much as I love it, not a world class American city. Let's try NYC.

It can take over an hour to get from midtown Manhattan to JFK driving.

It also takes over an hour on the subway.

Oops, another bad example.

You know what, I am starting to think flying out of Boston Logan[1] is pretty nice.

But seriously, if you want a huge international airport, you need a lot of land, and you don't want to put that smack dab in the middle of a city, unless the land got paid for long ago, and even then, you'll be stuck with an airport that you cannot expand.

Meanwhile a train from Tokyo to Narita Airport is under 20 minutes.

[1] I legit like flying out of Boston Logan, the big dig was expensive but wow was it effective. Also shout out to Bogota Colombia for having super clean streets around its airport. It was an amazing second impression flying in (the first impression being how beautiful the city is from the sky!)

ha, seeing boston called out as maybe a model intl airport :p

As a counter to that, I did 3 weeks around the world, planes every other day, international every 4 days or so. Not a single customs, baggage, check in, transport problem until getting back home to good ol' logan airport.

The "passport validation" line was somehow over 1.5 hour. Only two international planes coming into this terminal the entire time, and they legit reformed the line like three times for some reason????

That cascaded into missing our bus back to new hampshire, which cascaded into being late for a work commitment.

Wasn't that big a deal but was very funny.

My understanding is that in Japan you can have your luggage portered to your hotel separately.

It works exactly like that in London. All the airports (other than City) are quite far out, so everyone takes the Tube there. And it works.

You even have to take the tube if you want to go from one terminal in Heathrow to another :) well or a bus or something but usually walking isn't an option.

-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.

Taxi infrastructure is entirely plausible in a project with heavy restriction for private cars.

I.e. build all the roads you want but don't make long-term parkings available.

Fair point, I was thinking about "cargo traffic only" as in the original though experiment.

Coaches with a dedicated luggage section would quite possibly help as well, and it occurs to me that you could have a train with baggage cars ... but having never had to travel with more than one small child I can't say how acceptable those options would be to parents in general.

>> 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.

Seeing thought process is interesting. This would face even greater backlash fro locals/local economy.

-No way for business around the development to organically grow. - a built in tourism-choke IE; no reason to use the airport save cargo or business -Jobs funneled to and from the city, not the local area. -millions spent by local taxpayers on two high tech infra projects they see little benefit to.

> run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport

Woah, that's a good ways out there

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.

See: DIA

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

They wanted to do that in Munich

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

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

> 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.

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

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...

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

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

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.

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.

Are you thinking of Boeing Field? Paine is a tiny little luxury airport with 4 gates.

Maybe you've got them reversed? I've never been to Boeing Field, but I've been to Paine, and...

"Paine Field is home to the Boeing Everett Factory, the world's largest building by volume..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paine_Field

Exactly. Paine Field is tiny as a commuter airport, but it's got huge tracks of land (it's more than half the size of SEATAC and has a 9000 ft runway).

I've been to Paine, and apparently I just ignored everything outside of the passenger facility. Oops!

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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

Ah, I meant that putting the airport farther from the mountains means the planes can take off heading west without circling around.

I don't know if it's that far, however.

Stapleton was still east of Denver. I think the siting of DIA was probably more that there was a bunch of flat relatively empty land even further east. It's been a while since I flew into Denver but my recollection is the airport is pretty hell and gone from the city.

It is, but in the last 20 years of visiting now and then, it is much more built up on the way "into town" - it used to be that you'd pass that hellhorse and see nothing for 40 minutes but a sign telling you not to stop for prison hitchhikers.

Now there's tons of developments - which is always a problem for these airports. I remember when SEATAC was far outside the city and everyone hated it, now it's crammed in the middle of the Seattle/Tacoma metro area, which is all one big blob city.

Stapleton is now "in Denver". I had never been to Denver until a few years ago, and was out for a run with a running club based out of a sports store in a strip mall in Denver proper. I asked what the control tower was for, and someone said they used it for training, which made sense. It wasn't until later on that I realized it was the OLD Stapleton control tower! Right in town! Surrounded by stores and condos and a park.

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.

Paine field is the new seattle area airport.

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.

it barely has any flights anywhere this now

Is there a reason for that? Can it handle more?

NIMBY

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com