The express bus will provide riders who aren’t able to connect with 1 Line light rail with the option to get to the center city and make additional connections via King County Metro’s Night Owl bus network.

Currently, Seattle-bound riders heading from the airport must catch a 1 Line train by 12:05 am on weekdays and Saturdays and by 11:02 pm Sundays in order to access most stations on the north end of the light rail network, including downtown. Later northbound trains drop riders off as far as Beacon Hill on the way to Sound Transit’s operations and maintenance base in SoDo, but the very last train leaves SeaTac at 12:57 am, 12:12 am on Sundays.

Northbound 1 Line service resumes at 4:51 am from the airport station, except Sunday, when that pushes back to 5:50 am.

While riders have been clamoring for later trains for years, the Sound Transit has regularly pushed back on those requests, asserting a need to maintain an overnight maintenance window for the light rail network. In recent months, the agency has begun implementing early light rail closures to expand that maintenance window on select evenings, a move that it has lauded as providing big benefits to being able to make headway on deferred system work.

This one-off change would come in advance of the planned roll out of a new overnight service network this fall, set to be implemented along with changes to the broader ST Express bus network that are intended to allow riders to take better advantage of new light rail connections to Federal Way and the Eastside. The overnight network is expected to include three new routes starting in Everett, Redmond, and Lakewood that all terminate in Downtown Seattle. This new pilot would get things started with a short line to both SeaTac and Tukwila International Boulevard Station that will ultimately get extended in the future.

Constantine announced the pilot program at the Sound Transit board’s rider experience and operations committee. A follow-up release from Sound Transit noted that the SeaTac overnight bus will include stops “near SODO, Stadium, International District / Chinatown, Pioneer Square, Symphony, and Westlake,” but that an exact route is still being developed.

“This overnight pilot will ensure 24-hour transit access from Seattle to the airport,” Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine said in the release. “While our proposed regional overnight bus network is still in development, adding this pilot now provides expanded flexibility for airport passengers and employees as we prepare to welcome the world during the FIFA World Cup.” 

With the existing piecemeal overnight bus network really lacking in regionally connectivity, the news of the proposed early-morning bus routes have been greeted enthusiastically by riders since it was announced last year. Initial outreach by Sound Transit showed close to 90% support for more overnight buses, while feedback on some of the other changes proposed to the ST Express network this fall has been more mixed.

Ultimately, being able to fully implement the overnight network is going to depend on Sound Transit’s ability to leverage its partnerships with the three transit agencies who will directly operate the buses: Community Transit, Pierce Transit, and King County Metro. If Sound Transit is able to fully implement the network this fall as intended, the service will likely turn into one of those elements of the regional transit network where it’s hard to imagine what life was like without it.

The post Sound Transit Greenlights Overnight Express Bus to Sea-Tac Airport first appeared on The Urbanist.

My fellow port commissioners and I have explored multiple solutions to this issue, including attaching a moving walkway to the parking garage or cutting a deep walkway into the concrete structure – though both proved technically and financially unworkable. We improved the existing path with wind blocking plexiglass and brightly colored walkways. And the passenger carts have been moderately successful, albeit inconsistent, carrying nearly 250,000 people per year to the terminal (even as staffing shortages and heavy mechanical wear have made the system difficult to sustain). 

Coming up, the port has proposed a number of projects within its Sustainable Airport Master Plan, including a new space – heated and cooled for comfort – with a moving walkway between the light rail and skybridge. This will come up for a Commission vote as soon as 2027.

But the primary barrier to get people on the light rail isn’t the long walk from the station. A 2018 study demonstrated that commute time is the primary reason people choose to drive instead of ride. In fact, commute time is cited as six times more likely to be the barrier to using transit as compared to walking through the garage. 

While encouraging folks to use public transit has been a regional effort, the Port Commission has set its sights on strategies that will center its workforce. Indeed, the greatest opportunity for meaningful change lies with the airport’s 23,000 employees. With three shifts spanning 24 hours, nearly 46,000 workers commute to the airport every day. It’s also an equity issue: reliable, affordable transportation is essential for the airport’s diverse workforce, many of whom work non-traditional hours and live far from the airport. 

It is mission-critical to ensure that every employee, regardless of income, schedule, or home location, has a safe and reliable way to get to work. 

Today, the Transportation Management Association (TMA) is beginning to deliver results of the commission-led ORCA-for-All program, which will ensure every SEA employee has a free transit pass. Additionally, they’re piloting and delivering an analysis of employee-only bus routes from high density cities – a strategy to meet employee’s unique transportation needs and meet our single-occupancy vehicle reduction goals. And they’re deploying carpool and parking incentives aiming to change employee behavior. 

The Commission also passed the Port’s Roadway Improvements Project and is currently implementing Ground Transportation Center improvements that will include a dedicated southbound lane for shuttles, and prioritize shuttles to have dedicated access to the curbside areas. While the entrance of the Ground Transportation Center does not meet the state definition of an HOV or bus-only lane, it will function like one by design.  

We are especially encouraged by the brand new Federal Way Link extension that serves an area where a large proportion of our airport workers live. However, light rail does not yet serve swing-shift workers. Many lower wage employees start or end their shifts around 5am, when transit options are limited. For these workers, affordable parking must remain available. Revenue from employee parking, potentially up to $20,000 per day, will help fund the TMA and expand commute-trip-reduction programs. 

It is worth noting that most airport employers are not covered by state commute-trip-reduction requirements due to shift times and employer size. So while the airport hosts more than 23,000 workers, only a small number (primarily those employed by Alaska and Delta) are required to participate. This makes the Port’s leadership and investment even more critical. 

Looking ahead, the Port will continue to champion light rail expansion and support high-speed rail. Any solution that eases pressure on our constrained airport footprint, protects surrounding communities, and delivers reliable, low-carbon access for the region has our full support. We are also partnering with local communities to build bike-friendly routes to SEA, along with charging and secure storage for electric bikes and scooters. These are practical, popular, and accessible options for both airport workers and passengers.

As one of the most land-constrained and densely developed airports in the country, our best path forward is clear: get people out of their cars and onto transit — for the climate, for efficiency, and for equity across the region. Achieving this will require strong partnerships with Sound Transit, King County Metro, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and our surrounding cities. We are committed to working together to build a transportation system that works for everyone. 

The post Op-Ed: Sea-Tac Airport Transportation: Off the Road and Onto the Train first appeared on The Urbanist.

Hidden in the proposal for increasing the business and occupations tax rate is one more exemption for the Boeing Company, probably the worst offender of this century for exporting jobs out of Washington state. Boeing was actually a sort of good corporate citizen back in the 1980s. I remember hearing Boeing testify in the Washington State Legislature for a zoning change to enable construction of housing for their workers in Everett. They were not asking for handouts, they just wanted to make sure Boeing workers had a place to live.

Fast forward to 1997. Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas, and McDonnell Douglas’s CEO, Harry Stonecipher, effectively took over Boeing. Stonecipher ditched Boeing’s centering of strong engineering with high quality work and replaced it with the overwhelming need for cash flow and profitability, especially immediate returns to shareholders.

Simultaneously, Boeing decided to sever its corporate public citizenship with the state of Washington, moving its corporate headquarters to Chicago, thousands of miles away from where Boeing planes were produced. So instead of managers being able to take a five-minute walk to observe airplane design, engineering, and construction, actually talking with engineers and machinists, now they could focus on making Wall Street happy. 

At the same time, Boeing demanded tax breaks from the state of Washington, dangling production of the 787 in the faces of legislators. Legislators and Governor Locke responded with a 40% cut in business taxes, research and development tax credits and lower property taxes, all for and only for Boeing. The state lost about $3.2 billion from this tax break during the first two decades of this century. 

But Boeing did not really build the 787 in our state. They outsourced 70% of the design, engineering, and manufacturing of components for the 787 to other countries and other states. The center fuselage came from Italy, the landing gear from France, the wings are produced in Japan, the wing tips in Korea, and the outsourcing goes on and on. And, no surprise, Boeing had to spend billions to retrofit these parts together which did not meet the exact specifications needed for flight. 

The other thing that Boeing did with its tax cuts and tax credits was to build a completely new aerospace facility in South Carolina, far from the union workers in Seattle and Everett. 

In 2013, Boeing decided it needed even more tax subsidies from Washington state. The company forced the Legislature into a two-day special session to vote through an $8.7 billion 16-year tax exemption deal, on top of what the Legislature had already given them in 2003. What else did Boeing demand in 2013? An end to the defined benefit pension for Boeing workers.

After losing a vote to upend the pension in mid-contract in November 2013, Boeing forced the machinists to revote on January 3 2014, a convenient date for Boeing when thousands of workers were on holiday leave. Boeing won that vote by a whisker, with 51% voting for it. 

So what does Boeing do with its money taken from workers and state services? It gives it away to shareholders. Between 2010 and 2019 Boeing spent an estimated $68 billion on share buybacks and dividends. 

Which leads to the question: why exempt Boeing from the 1% business and operations (B&O) tax surcharge on businesses proposed in the Legislature? That surcharge is only for companies with taxable income over $250 million. It would impact around 400 businesses. But not Boeing, because the surcharge exempts manufacturing.  Since 2012, Boeing has shrunk its workforce by 25%, from 87,000 to 66,000. Boeing has laid off more than 2,500 workers in Washington since December, according to American Machinist.

Will the Legislature, yes, the Democratic Legislature, ever learn that stooping to corporate behemoths never works? They will just take our money and literally run away.

The post Op-Ed: Washington Legislature Must Break Boeing’s Corporate Handout Addiction first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Port of Seattle projects another year of increased passenger volumes, rising another 1.7% to 53.5 million in 2025.

Domestic passenger volumes were slightly above 2019 levels with about 46 million, a 0.1% increase. But the bulk of increased passenger volumes has come from international travel, rising 15% from 2019 levels to around 6.6 million passengers. 

2024 saw the addition of eight new international connections with service to Taipei–Taoyuan (STARLUX Airlines, China Airlines, and Delta Airlines), Munich (Lufthansa), Chongqing (Hainan Airlines), Toronto–Pearson (Alaska Airlines), Manila (Philippine Airlines), and Liberia, Costa Rica (Alaska Airlines). More international connections have already been announced for 2025 with Kelowna (WestJet), Zurich (Edelweiss Air), Copenhagen (Scandinavian Airlines), Seoul (Hawaiian Airlines), and Tokyo–Narita (Hawaiian Airlines). 

Buttressing this growth, the Port of Seattle is marching toward a substantial expansion of the airport. Last fall, the agency released its draft Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) Near-Term Projects Environmental Assessment. It’s an important milestone as the agency tries to obtain authorization from federal and state partners to approve a lengthy project list, complete design and engineering, and advance toward construction. 

All told, the near-term projects list includes over 30 different project items. Individual project scopes differ wildly, but include airfield improvements, relocating existing facilities through new construction, building new roadways and infrastructure, and creating a brand new terminal. 

The near-term projects list was developed with the intent of increasing airport capacity for passengers and cargo while reducing aircraft delays and congestion within a reasonable timeframe, which the SAMP is targeting for 2032. The SAMP suggests that those projects would be able to better accommodate 56 million passengers per year and ensure that the airport operates at a much higher level of service.  

Proposed projects would help the airport reach a Level of Service of B. That’s a considerable improvement over the Level of Service D that the airport has been operating under with existing facilities and demand. However, the trajectory of passenger growth could easily exceed 56 million passengers by the time the project list is completed, eventually leading to lower levels of service than the SAMP suggests. In fact, within five years of completing the near-term list, the Port of Seattle expects to see over 64 million passengers pass through airport facilities.

The new terminal will be north of the existing terminal, situated just to the north of the D and N Concourses. The question, however, is in what form as the Port of Seattle is considering two competing options. One option, which is the preferred alternative, would make the new terminal a standalone terminal. The other option, which is considered the hybrid alternative, would directly connect to the existing terminal but still be a terminal in its own right. 

The preferred alternative would require relocation of a portion of the North Airport Expressway, fire department, and other support facilities to construct the airside terminal. The expressway itself would be pushed, more or less, to the east to make space for new hardstands and terminal concourses and expanded with two more lanes on some portions. The new structure would be Y-shaped, stretching as far north as the control tower, and contain three stories of space — across 609,000 square feet — to house passenger holdrooms, retailers and restaurants, and other amenities. 

A skybridge from the terminal would provide a direct connection to the N Concourse, post-security. In addition, the new terminal’s check-in, baggage claim, security screening, and 1,350-stall parking garage would be located on the current grounds of the Doug Fox surface parking lot (1,620 stalls) with a skybridge over the expressway to connect to the airside terminal area.

The hybrid alternative requires most of the same relocations as the preferred alternative, but jettisons a few. The airside terminal would be directly connected to the existing terminal, snaking along the realigned expressway to the existing D Concourse. This would require closure of the D Concourse Annex, which currently provides shuttle bus connections to and from planes that serve passengers from remote hardstands. 

As with the preferred alternative, the hybrid alternative would provide a skybridge connection to the N Concourse as well as to the new terminal check-in, baggage claim, security screening, parking garage facility east of the expressway, and 19 gates. It also has the potential for the inclusion of moving walkways within the airside terminal.

Along with both new north terminal alternatives, the Port of Seattle would construct a new passenger ground transportation facility and elevated busway.

The transportation facility would be situated in an area immediately next to the central parking garage and sandwiched between the airport expressway and Link light rail station. The area is currently a paved surface area and was previously conceived as space for a hotel. For passengers, the transportation facility would offer an indoor space with amenities, such as shops and seating, as well as a meeting place to catch shuttles, taxis, ridehails, and chartered services. Passengers would also be able to take shuttle buses from the main terminal to the new terminal and the rental car facility. 

Another benefit is that the Port of Seattle is planning to construct a moving walkway system, which would speed up the walk between the light rail station and main terminal (about a 1,000-foot walking distance). That space would be fully protected from the elements, increasing comfort and decreasing pollution from the neighboring 13,000-stall garage and roadway.

In terms of the busway, it would offer a relatively quick connection between key airport facilities. The proposed facility would be exclusively for buses end-to-end from the new transportation facility and car rental facility, though it could potentially be used for some private shuttles. That has yet to be formally decided. For passengers, frequent shuttle buses would serve three stops along the busway. The Port of Seattle expects that those shuttle buses would operate at least every five minutes but frequency could be even better.

Though moving walkways have been a consistent request from passengers that use light rail, some demand exists for others throughout the airport. Agency spokesperson Perry Cooper said that none are planned for installation within existing concourses or the main terminal itself, as part of the SAMP. That’s because existing concourses within the main terminal are relatively narrow, making it challenging to fit moving walkways without affecting other passenger flows and circulation within those spaces or necessitating widening of concourses, which have their own knock-on impacts and challenges to gate ramps. 

Consequently, passengers needing to go from the new north terminal to the S Concourse may find themselves having to make a long and varied journey: a walk across the skybridge from the north terminal to N Concourse and a three-seat ride on the SEA Underground, the automated airport subway, from N Concourse to the northern portion of main terminal (Green Line), then from there to southern portion of the main terminal (Yellow Line), and finally from there to the S Concourse (Blue Line). 

Shuttle buses weren’t being considered at this time between gates and terminals, but there have been agency discussions about future modifications or additions to the SEA Underground, whether below or above ground, Cooper said.

A north terminal to S Concourse connection may not necessarily be the norm for most passengers, but it does demonstrate the challenges of a sprawling airport facility and a real headache for connecting international travelers that may need to budget extra time for a connection. That said, the new terminal is likely to trigger a significant realignment of airlines and gate locations, so certain airline tenets could be strategically placed at the new terminal to reduce the likelihood of difficult connections between terminals to make connecting flights.

In addition to the SAMP, the Port of Seattle is still making significant interim improvements to the airport. Examples include expansion of the C Concourse for public and dining, relocation and expansion of security screening areas, enhanced check-in facilities in the Alaska Airlines zone, and a complete modernization of the S Concourse. 

Formal design and engineering of the proposed near-term projects could begin as soon as this year, but the earliest date for construction would be sometime in 2026. Construction of new and expanded buildings is normally a multi-year process and there is a high likelihood that the new terminal would open among the last of projects given the phasing and relocation of other facilities to accommodate it. As for the environmental process, the Port of Seattle expects to conclude that this year in phases.

The post Sea-Tac Airport Sets Passenger Record, Plans Next Phase of Expansion Projects first appeared on The Urbanist.

The post Holiday Video: Best North American Airports for Car-Free Travel first appeared on The Urbanist.

PAE commercial service could grow modestly in time

Passenger service at PAE was many years in the making with requests by airlines to open commercial operations, lawsuits, threats of federal enforcement actions, and extensive environmental reviews. Propeller Airports, a private company, took on a project in 2014 to build out the terminal on long-term leased land, breaking ground in mid-2017 and opening formally for service in early 2019.

Right now, Alaska Airlines dominates service in and out of the airport with 10 routes, a consequence of United Airlines retreating from the market in 2021 and ceasing all operations that October. Kenmore Air is the only other commercial operator with three routes, but it carries less than 1% of all passengers.

As of last year, the airport still serves under one million passengers per year, even after rebounding passenger volumes since the pandemic. But Snohomish County’s master plan assumes that passenger demand will rise to 4.3 million passengers over the next 20 years. The master plan therefore outlines three “Planning Activity Level” (PALs or Levels, for short) for the purposes of defining the type of airport improvements required to support anticipated demand levels.

• Level 1 equates to about one million annual passengers and 148,478 annual flight operations (16,660 passenger operations and 125,131 general aviation operations). Total operations at this level is considerably higher than the baseline in 2019 even though passenger operations are not.
• Level 2 equates to about 1.5 million annual passengers and 155,028 annual flight operations (18,741 passenger operations and 129,359 general aviation operations).
• Level 3 equates to about 4.3 million annual passengers and 187,303 annual flight operations (41,506 passenger operations and 138,282 general aviation operations).

In the master plan, high level facility requirements are outlined for the different PALs as compared today. Of most interest to passengers, terminal size would be progressively upsized, growing by about five times from what it is today and the number of gates would increase from three to 15. Passenger parking spaces would also increase, but less dramatically from about 970 to 2,600, though whether or not other off-site parking businesses would open is beyond the scope of the master plan.

In terms of how each PAL is expected to develop, the master plan provides separate maps showing the incremental changes.

At the PAL 1 phase, passengers would most likely notice changes to the terminal loop road, terminal curb area, and expanded surface parking lot in this phase.

At the PAL 2 phase, passengers would see a much bigger impact with changes as the terminal progressively expands and other improvements near the terminal are carried out.

Finally, at the PAL 3 phase, passengers would most notice changes around the Airport Road/100th Street SW intersection, airport drive, and expansion of parking facilities. That includes construction of a new six-level parking garage within a short walking distance north of the airport terminal and conversion of a surface parking to the east to as a staging area for ride-shares, valets, and shuttles.

Transportation access to evolve but not exactly for better

In time, PAE expects to see changes to the local transportation system, particularly at its doorstep.

Around 2034, the master plan projects that the Airport Road intersection at 100th Street SW will require substantial modifications due to signal constraints. “The operational analysis indicates that the intersection, in its current configuration will reach an unacceptable level of service between PAL 2 and PAL 3… with delays of 60 seconds or more,” the master plan states.

The intersection is currently signalized with single left-turn lanes on all four sides. In addition to those turn pockets, Airport Way has two general purpose lanes and one bus lane in each direction and 100th Street SW has a variable number of lanes but reaches five lanes at its widest. On top of this, there is a southbound slip lane separated from the intersection by a “pork chop” from Airport Way to 100th Street SW.

The master plan considered two options for modifying the intersection: an expanded version of the signalized intersection or a roundabout. Both options are wide and designed for highway speeds, but the roundabout would actually move more vehicle capacity despite having a much smaller footprint. However, the expanded signalized intersection would have bike lanes — very narrow and unprotected ones at that — and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes unlike the roundabout alternative. Roundabouts, such as the one envisioned here, are usually safer and less intense for those walking, rolling, and biking though.

In making a recommendation, the master plan concludes that an expanded signalized intersection is the better path forward.

“While the roundabout alternative offers increased capacity compared to the signalized intersection, the incompatibilities with the existing BRT and HOV routes, and the planned light rail line in the Airport Road corridor make it a poor solution when considering the greater transportation system surrounding PAE,” the master plan states.

That conclusion is apparently reached on the basis that HOVs and buses would have to merge into general purpose lanes and that the “roundabout concept is also incompatible with the light rail line and potential stop recently planned at this location.” Nevertheless, those assertions are largely erroneous. Articulated buses like the ones uses on Community Transit’s Swift lines can navigate wide roundabouts like the one conceived, with particular ease when going straight through, and no light rail stop is planned at this location. Sound Transit is also planning to grade-separate the light rail alignment which is not in conflict with the road.

In fact, Sound Transit is studying three light rail station alternatives to the north of 100th Street SW. The nearest one is in the vicinity of 94th Street SW on Airport Road (about a 15-minute walk or 0.75 miles from the terminal), but that alternative is a secondary option and was not seen favorably by Snohomish County officials. The other closest option, also a secondary alternative, is at Kasch Park Road on Airport Road (about a 20-minute walk or one mile from the terminal). Instead, the most likely location is the preferred alternative on SR 526 near Casino Road (about a 34-minute walk or 1.75 miles from the terminal).

Consequently, few passengers and workers will likely choose to use light rail to reach the terminal since walking times from the preferred station location will be prohibitively long and would require some additional bus connection and potential walk to complete “the last mile” in reaching the terminal. Plus, that’s after likely having taken some other connection (e.g., bus, ridehail/taxi, or carpool) to reach the initial light rail station to enter the Link system. Adding up all the time penalties and travel time, light rail could be more of a headache for most would-be riders than a sensible choice to reach the airport.

Nevertheless, buses do serve the area now. Route 105, a local bus route, provides hourly or better weekday service and hourly weekend service along Airport Road with a stop at 100th Street SW. The Swift Green Line provides much more frequent service along that corridor, also stopping there, with frequency as high as every 12 minutes. But both routes require that 15-minute walk to the terminal. Everett Transit, however, directly serves the terminal with Route 8, but it’s a bit of a milk run and only hourly with poor span of service.

The bottom line is that transit service to the airport terminal isn’t stellar and if there’s any future improvements, it won’t be coming from light rail alone. Throwing in an expanded signalized intersection, too, would only add to the area’s woes, cementing driving as the near-universal mode choice for the airport.

PSRC seeks a second major airport, but will it be PAE?

With the master plan draft all but sure to be finalized, it raises the question about PAE’s status as the region’s second major airport.

Whether or not it be is still unclear. That’s because back in 2019, the Puget Sound Regional Council estimated that commercial aviation demand would reach somewhere between 98.6 million and 111.2 million passengers by 2050. The region’s principal airport, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, would likely have capped out at 66 million passengers by the early 2030s, meaning that somewhere between 32.6 million and 45.2 million passengers would need to be accommodated elsewhere in the following decades.

To address this, state lawmakers commissioned an advisory committee in 2019 to short list potential sites for another major airport. PAE did make into that process as a potential contender for capacity increases, but the committee had strong interest in greenfield sites for a new two-runway airport well into rural areas, such as locations in Pierce County southeast of Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) and a location in Thurston County southeast of Olympia, and floating the idea of a location near Enumclaw.

Shortlisting those rural airport alternatives, however, proved disastrous for the committee. Rural communities vehemently opposed the idea over noise, pollution, and traffic impacts and several of the options were seen to conflict with JBLM operations. That led to condemnation by the Pierce County Council and Thurston County Council, and consequently the committee ended in debacle with state lawmakers sunsetting the commission before a single airport could be short-listed.

While that could ultimately put pressure on PAE to pick up the pace for expansion in absence of an obvious alternative, there isn’t a statewide committee actively steering the state apparatus to make PAE do so. Though a new committee was commissioned last year to periodically advise on state aviation needs and alternatives, which may involve recommendations to expand existing airports in the region like PAE.

So whether PAE will cap out at 4.3 million annual passengers in the years ahead, as the master plan envisions, or grows to support many millions more is something we’ll all just have to wait and see.

The post Paine Field: The Region’s Next Major Airport or Small Regional Airport? first appeared on The Urbanist.

SEA has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. In 2014, about 37.5 million passengers passed through the airport. But as Alaska Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and international air carriers have boosted connections, the airport has seen passenger volumes grow by over one-third. The Port of Seattle estimates that passenger volumes will be up another 3% this year, reaching a new highwater mark close to 52 million passengers and blasting past the 2019 record. That comes as the airport celebrates its 75th anniversary, the dedication of its first main terminal dating to 1949.

Before the pandemic, SEA was averaging about 7% growth each year between 2014 and 2019. Under such a growth rate, SEA might be on course to over 54 million passengers this year, but regional population growth has slowed as did the pace of the passenger rebound last year. On top of this, Boeing 737 MAX quality issues — like the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 door plug incident — have led to the grounding of planes and mass cancellations, heavily affecting SEA passengers. That could be a short-term countervailing force in passenger volumes due both to passengers flying airlines affected by groundings and wider confidence in aviation.

Nevertheless, the Port of Seattle reports that the airport saw its single biggest passenger volume day in history on July 23, 2023. More than 198,000 passengers passed through airport halls that day. Several monthly passenger volume records were also broken last year: February (3,211,313), September (4,471,360), October (4,364,612), and November (3,976,412).

As for domestic and international traffic statistics, SEA saw international volumes at 101% of 2019 levels — despite Chinese routes still mostly suspended due to federal policy — at 5,787,496 passengers and domestic volumes at 98% of 2019 levels with 45,089,764 passengers. For international traffic, Mexican route passenger traffic was up 91% over 2019 levels and European ones up 21%.

So far this year, SEA isn’t expecting to see many new destinations added to the roster. Except for Lufthansa, airlines will only be providing new connections in their networks:

• Alaska Airlines will add service to Toronto–Pearson (competing with Air Canada) on May 16;
• Delta Air Lines will add service to Taipei–Taoyuan (competing with EVA Air) on June 6 and Dallas/Fort Worth (competing with Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, and Southwest Airlines) on July 8;
• Lufthansa will add service to Munich on May 30; and
• Southwest Airlines will resume service to Baltimore (competing with Alaska Airlines) and Nashville (competing with Alaska Airlines) both on June 8 as seasonal routes.

For now, the Port of Seattle is continuing work on a wide spectrum of capital facilities projects to improve passenger experience and expand some aspects of capacity under the “Upgrade SEA” banner. Those include:

• Installation of large bollards for safety and accessibility improvements at curbside pick-up and drop-off drives;
• Checkpoint 1 relocation, expansion, and improvements;
• C Concourse expansion for more passenger dining, retail, and amenity spaces;
• New lounge spaces for Alaska Airlines (at C/D Concourses) and Delta Air Lines and The Club (A Concourse);
• Baggage handling system optimization;
• Planning a massive revamp of the S Concourse for passenger dining, retail, and amenities; and
• Two phases of work to redesign and build out new office, ticketing, and security facilities for Alaska Airlines.

Wider efforts for larger airport expansion are still in the planning process under the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) program. Near-term projects identified in the SAMP are proceeding through federal environmental review processes and won’t reach a draft environmental assessment stage until late this year. Delays have meant pushing delivery of SAMP near-term projects back from 2027 to 2032, but, if built, the airport would see 19 new gates and a new north terminal building, additional fueling and cargo handling facilities, and changes to the airport transportation system.

The post Sea-Tac Airport Got Very Close To Pre-Pandemic Passenger Peak in 2023 first appeared on The Urbanist.

Seattle’s only majority people of color and immigrant neighborhoods are also the most vulnerable; with more families, lower incomes and higher asthma rates, all living and working by Seattle’s only river. As a near port community, black carbon (a super pollutant) and ultra-fine particulate matter are found in higher concentrations. King County International Airport continues to use leaded fuel for recreational aircraft which disperse dangerous airborne emissions. Toxic clouds of cadmium from Ardagh Glass and poisonous dust plumes from Seattle Iron and Metal, all occur regularly with little monitoring, oversight, or consequence for polluters (DVYC Moss Study).

On top of it all, raging wildfires send soot and ash raining down reliably in late-summer smoke season, delivering the worst AQI scores in the world to the Puget Sound for days at a time.

Washington State needs a new approach to air pollution that centers environmental justice, prioritizes human health, and addresses the cumulative impacts of air pollution in communities using disaggregated data from a robust, comprehensive regional air quality monitoring network for environmental justice communities. People of color are 3.6 times more likely than white people to live in counties that experience poor air quality, as reported by the American Lung Association. Given Seattle’s history of redlining and 13-year gap in life expectancy between South Park, Georgetown and Laurelhurst residents, this is a glaring reality.

Many of these impacts are exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, and relative mental health also takes a toll. Policymakers and regulatory bodies should create and enforce stringent reduction goals and aggressive state level standards for harmful air pollutants to close the gaps responsible for health disparities faced by communities living in the Duwamish Valley.

The differences in health outcomes are the result of historic and persistent environmental injustice and institutional racism that state and local legislators and policymakers have attempted to undo with optimistically titled initiatives like the King County Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan and the Healthy Environment For All Act. Regrettably, these policies and rhetorical statements of solidarity have not delivered on the promises of health equity and protection. Some examples include:

• County: King County Council declared racism a public health crisis yet recently approved a new 20-year lease in the valley for Ardagh Glass with almost no community engagement and over serious objections from affected community members in the single public comment hearing offered before the vote to approve. KCIA has begun the process of expansion while community-backed ordinance 2022-0011 opposing the airport’s master plan, including the fuel farm expansion, has languished in committee at King County Council for over a year without a vote.
• State: While the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) is the regional authority for air quality, created by the Washington State Clean Air Act, it remains unclear how the HEAL ACT applies to the PSCAA. The Climate Commitment Act regulates carbon using a market-based “cap and trade” tactic to address climate change specifically, and largely overlooks airborne toxics.

Federal: NAAQS policy is the latest update that is falling short of protective measures with no change for the 24-hour particulate matter (PM) standard for non-attainment and attainment areas. No level of PM 2.5 and toxics is healthy for children or adults.

Washington needs a stringent cumulative impacts policy and regulations that centers health and sets a new standard for emission reduction, both stationary and mobile, emission control technologies, indirect source rules, and a mandate authorizing environmental justice criteria in permitting.

Stronger regulations and actionable implementation is key for our civil rights. For example, the State of Oregon regulates air toxics by evaluating emissions based on the danger to human health they pose when considered with the total pollution present at a specific location by setting limits on the risk to nearby residents, or risk action levels. 

Environmental justice communities in Washington need a cumulative impact policy that includes air toxics that match the reality in which we are living like Oregon has implemented. It’s time that Washington State, King County and the City of Seattle live up to their own stated values and start walking all their environmental justice talk so people in the Duwamish Valley may finally take a breath of healthy air. 

The post Op-Ed: Washington State Needs a Cumulative Air Toxics Law first appeared on The Urbanist.

Passenger numbers ticked up in a big way at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) last year. Total passenger counts jumped 27% year-over-year and topped 45,964,321 in 2022, which is comparable numbers last seen in 2016. Prior to the pandemic, the airport reached a record of 51,829,239 passengers in 2019 and was seeing yearly increases of about 4% during the 2010s. Commercial air travel seems headed toward to pre-pandemic levels as leisure travel booms and business travel resumes.

Most airlines have restored domestic and international service severed during the pandemic, and there is some interest in providing entirely new services. Air Tahiti Nui, which started service to Papeete in the fall, has announced that it will fly to Paris–Charles de Gaulle starting on June 13th. WestJest will start seasonal service to Calgary on April 30th while its regional subsidiary, WestJest Encore, will commence seasonal service to Calgary and Edmonton on May 19th. And Air Canada will resume service to Montréal–Trudeau on May 16th.

Rumors have circulated for quite a while that Delta Air Lines will begin service to Beijing–Daxing and that American Airlines may introduce Shanghai–Pudong service, but those services have consistently been delayed and unpublished for booking. It seems, too, that service to Bangalore on American Airlines has been completely removed from the cards. Meanwhile, foreign relations between Mainland China and the United States have been icy and put firm limits on air service, so it could be quite some time before direct connections become commonplace again. That may benefit other East Asian carriers like All Nippon Airways, which recently restored service to Tokyo–Haneda on March 26th.

With passenger numbers on the rise, SEA may once again see congestion return with more delays and aircraft using hardstands on the tarmac for boarding and unloading. The Port of Seattle, however, has been making substantial investments to deal with increasing demand and aircraft movements.

Last year, the Port of Seattle finally opened the long-awaited International Arrivals Facility (IAF). The facility essentially doubles international arrivals processing capacity at the airport, speeds up passport control processing, and increases the number of international arrival gates from 12 to 20 by providing access to gates at both the S and A Concourses. International passengers can arrive at either concourse to reach the IAF and passport control via secure corridors, though S Concourse arrivals proceed through a massive skybridge connecting to the A Concourse. The project hasn’t been without its issues though. Its completion was delayed several years due to environmental and construction issues, project costs ballooned, and some gates were found to be undersized for widebody aircraft and now require expensive modifications to accommodate them.

Opening of the IAF comes on the heels of the completed North Satellite Modernization project. That project finished in 2021 and increased the number of gates from 12 to 20 in the N Concourse. The project also delivered more dining, retail, lounge, and public spaces within the building. Now the Port of Seattle is moving ahead with a slate of new capital expansion and improvements projects, which will deliver expansions of the S and C Concourses and new main terminal facilities.

The S Concourse will see a large multi-phase modernization project that completely remakes the facility. The Port of Seattle is planning substantial investments in retail, dining, lounge, and public spaces that will improve passenger experience in a relatively cramped and dingy building with few retail options. This will partially be supported by converting lower and basement spaces that previously were occupied by passport control and customs facilities. The project is expected to be completed sometime in 2031.

Similarly, C Concourse will be expanded for enhanced retail and dining space as well as a grand amphitheater hall available to passengers near the Central Terminal. This expansion will include four more floors of space in a wide area that brings the C and D Concourses together. The project is set to see major construction start this year and be completed in 2027.

Though less flashy, the Port of Seattle has a portfolio of smaller projects that will improve passenger experiences on the landside. Checkpoint 1 near A Concourse will be moved from the ticketing level to the baggage claim level over the course of the year. This will support a bigger and more modern security checkpoint zone. A long-term baggage handling system optimization and modernization effort is set to be completed in 2026.

Two phases of work are also being carried out as part of the SEA Gateway project, which will transform the southern end of the main terminal, heavily benefiting Alaska Airlines and its passengers. The first phase of the project builds out about 24,500 square feet of space between the skybridges and check-in and bag claims levels for more check-in and office space. SEA Gateway’s second phase will then reconfigure the Alaska Airlines check-in area, expand capacity and modernize Checkpoint 5, and greatly open up the space behind Alaska Airlines’ check-in area for more natural light and comfort. Both phases are expected to wrap up in 2026.

In part because of improvements that the Port of Seattle has been making to the airport, SEA ranked as the best airport in North America by Skytrax in the 2023 World Airport Awards. Lance Lyttle, the airport’s managing director, recently said that SEA is aiming for a five-star experience and that will mean more improvements to maintain it. “In a small footprint like SEA, we need to constantly innovate on how to deliver a better experience in an increasingly congested space,” he said in a statement. “Our Upgrade SEA program and customer service initiatives are working to ensure that journeys start or end on a positive note at SEA.”

Despite all of the investments that the Port of Seattle has been making, the pace of project delivery may be insufficient to keep up with expected demand. The Port of Seattle previously outlined unconstrained growth forecasts that suggested 66 million passengers per year by 2034. Supporting that demand was predicated on building a completely new terminal north of the existing one, realigning part of the airport highway system, and making targeted adjustments to the airfield along with other strategies. In 2019, the airport only operated about 14 million passengers under the 2034 forecasts and it may rebound to that level this year. If 4% growth returns as the norm and passenger volumes recover this year, the forecasted 2034 demand could actually be reached by the end of this decade.

Growing demand within Puget Sound for air travel has gotten the attention of policymakers. Severals studies have been commissioned to evaluate and consider how commercial airport capacity may be increased for passengers and cargo, which may necessitate one or more relief airports to support SEA-sized demand by 2050. A state aviation coordination commission has been tasked with identifying potential sites for another major commercial airport in Puget Sound, but short-listed sites have caught the ire of communities because they would be located on greenfield sites in rural areas. The commission’s multi-year process seems likely to conclude in failure due to myopic constraints imposed on the study. The study also neglects to account for how state investments in other transportation modes may alleviate some commercial air demand, making the process reductive.

Regardless of what happens with studying airport alternatives, SEA will remain the region’s principal airport for decades to come and how growth plays out this year will be critical in illuminating its likely trajectory for this decade. That will undoubtedly inform the Port of Seattle on new investment priorities.

The post Airport Passenger Volumes Rebound at Sea-Tac as Expansion Projects Roll On first appeared on The Urbanist.

Uncork the North End city center

As light rail opens north of the quickly changing Northgate Station, focus is turning towards Jackson Park and the city’s northern edge. A number of proposals have cropped up for the golf course and its environs, including full redevelopment of the site and possible lids to reconnect Roosevelt Avenue over Interstate 5. 

Casting slightly further west, the opportunity goes from big to megaproject. It is less than a mile to connect a light rail-centered Jackson Park redevelopment with opportunities on transit rich Aurora Avenue. At this location, Aurora is lined with large footprint, car-intensive commercial lots that can be consolidated into employment centers under Seattle’s new industrial zones. The two parallel corridors are just less than a mile apart. Combine the two, and it becomes a brand new urban center optimized with pedestrian focus.

Between the corridors is the low density neighborhood of Haller Lake. A generous estimate puts the area’s residential density at just over 3.5 units per acre, less than half what’s considered the baseline for frequent transit service. The area also includes a couple schools and some churches. As a latter annexation into Seattle, there are quite a few blocks without sidewalks. And it is getting some of the best transit being developed in the country. 

To go big with rezoning and development in this area could add more than 60,000 homes, even if only built to Capitol Hill height. An industrial employment area along Aurora would be a third the size of Interbay, and with the right niche, could support 8,000 jobs. All that’s before deeply imagining the place as a new urban core. The terminal end of Roosevelt Way crosses the neighborhood diagonally, and could present a broad transit and pedestrian boulevard. Ingraham High School and its fields could be parts of a city center rather than exits off 130th Street. All of which could leverage burying the scar of Interstate 5 and connect with developments on Jackson Park.

The legality standing in the way here is Seattle’s noxious Initiative 42, a law passed by the voters in 1996 that bars selling park land without the city receiving “land or facility of equivalent or better size, value, location and usefulness in the vicinity.”

The last “and” here is problematic because it throws up a bar to trading the fenced, fee-based, underutilized Jackson Park golf course for well designed green spaces integrated in new communities. If the new spaces don’t check all four boxes of equivalent size, value, location, and usefulness, it doesn’t matter how used the new spaces will be, then the deal is off. Until Initiative 42 is amended to change “and” to “or,” it is a green space trojan horse hiding a climate suicide pact. 

The bureaucratic bar is just as profound. The north border of 145th Street is a Washington State Department of Transportation surface highway as well as the boundary between Seattle and Shoreline, with King County responsibilities thrown in to boot. Just reconsidering the lanes of the road to make it slightly less of a deathtrap required extensive public consultations in two jurisdictions, and reams of interlocal agreements. Worse, Shoreline has already approved plans to increase density around the station, confined to their side of 145th Street. The road is not just a hard city line, it’s a barrier to imagination.

Overhaul heavy rail in the city.

Trains in and out of Seattle depend on a thin line of beach along Puget Sound. Once trains cross the Salmon Bay Bridge and move north of the Ship Canal, they run at grade along the water until entering Everett. While mudslides onto the tracks have been infrequent for several years, the rising waters of the Sound present an existential threat to train routes. 

Meanwhile, the industrial purposes of the system dwindle. There are no industrial users for the rail line between the Port of Everett and the Ship Canal. The Point Wells tank farm has been empty for three years. The rail yard in Interbay is subject to liquefaction and flood inundation, and the Port of Seattle’s new adjacent industrial park adjacent is being designed to face away from rail. And train derailments like in East Palestine, Ohio and Lac-Mégantic, Quebec show the danger of moving bomb trains through the city’s urban core. Every tank car with a 1267 placard is carrying crude oil under Seattle.

It is time to redesign Seattle’s heavy rail system. That needs to happen in two parts.

The first part is easy. Build a publicly owned passenger rail network. High speed rail was never going to happen on BNSF owned right-of-way because they have no incentive to build track that supports traffic over freight’s current 80 mph speed limit. So it’s imperative that the city and state get off their duffs and start acquiring the straight shot right-of-ways that are necessary to crank up the speed and not contend with freight delays and landslides. That means service from north to south AND east to west, spreading from downtown stations in Puget Sound’s largest cities to stops over the mountains and on the coast.

The second part involves far less visibility but far more difficulty. Preserving freight rail in the region is going to mean moving it inland. From Everett, trains could head directly south and wrap to the east side of Lake Washington before reconnecting with the existing lines in Renton. Trains to the Port of Seattle and the grain or maritime connections in Interbay can enter the city. As there are not oil depots in Seattle, the bomb trains would no longer need to go under downtown or past packed stadiums. Trains would also stop needing to roll across the Ship Canal and north Seattle’s entire coastline can be designated park land.

The primary barrier to any change is the train companies. Union Pacific and BNSF own Washington’s primary corridor rail lines, and they viciously guard their turf. Politicians are deferential to the companies, often because of the threats rail corporations make at the slightest whiff of not getting their own way, but also as owners of the land under the rails. For example, BNSF paid $224,000 in taxes to King County on just the northern portion of the Interbay rail yard in 2022, and that is a tiny fraction of the company’s overall holdings.

Redevelop King County International Airport.

Denver closed Stapleton airport when DIA opened in 1995 and has been redeveloping the site into a community of 30,000 homes. Chicago famously closed Meigs Field on the shores of Lake Michigan, or at least Mayor Daley did with bulldozers overnight in 2003. And Seattle already closed one airport when the Navy left Sand Point and the city converted the land to Magnuson Park. Perhaps it’s time to do it again.

With the region casting around for another airport location, it is time to take a hard look at the utility and future of King County International Airport/Boeing Field. Over 1.2 square miles of land in the Duwamish Valley, the airport hosts a central Boeing facility and 180,000 takeoffs and landings each year. 

But those numbers can be misleading as a majority of flights are cargo, private planes, or short hops to Bozeman and Friday Harbor. And Boeing consistently shows itself to be a fickle neighbor. Whether it’s leeching the state for tax breaks or playing dance of the headquarters locations, Seattle should ask itself whether this is a group to be tethered to in the long term. Is it really worth giving up the city’s space for an airport to “frequently host celebrities, dignitaries, and sports teams” as the county’s website points out. 

A redevelopment plan for the airport could break the site into four major parts. The north end adjacent to Georgetown would see fairly dense housing and amenities, taking gentrification pressure off the community. The north central part of the site should complement residences while maintaining industrial uses buy applying the city’s new Urban Industrial zoning which allows a mix of uses and local manufacturing. The bulk of the central airfield could reconnect the rail line along the east side with the Duwamish waterfront, one of the few places in the city where rail and water functionally meet. The remainder of the site could reflect the aerospace history and Boeing’s presence with the development of high-tech office space. 

And consider the benefits. A quieter south end to the city without low flying aircraft. The possibility of a first ever east-west connection between South Park and Beacon Hill. A multitude of employers rather than a single too-big-to-argue behemoth. A future that doesn’t depend on continuing short hop flights everywhere.

The major barrier here is King County who released a high level economic impact study for the airport in 2021. Using the state’s Online Aviation Economic Impact Calculator, they figured that KCIA has almost $6 billion in impact on the community, a total of business revenues, jobs, and money pumped in by visitors. The number pollutes a lot of discussions about the airport, just as the airport does the surrounding community with noise and fumes. The report made no calculation for environmental impacts or public health.

The first and most difficult megaproject.

Just asking that an airport study make the slight recognition that airports aren’t great for everyone seems like small potatoes. But it’s really evidence of the most insidious roadblock to change. Agencies and groups throw up blinders to avoid hard questions and harder decisions. And that’s really what all these barriers are: self imposed silos. Initiative 42, jurisdictional boundaries, corporate governance and pointed “studies” that don’t ask real questions are all just rules and lines that were created by people and can be changed or removed by people.

While these three megaprojects may seem outlandish, they’re good illustrations of the mechanisms that get in the way of all plans in this town. The Urbanist covers a lot of development ideas, and reading through them shows most of the hurdles aren’t money or ideas, it’s the artificial barriers. They are siloed thinking wreaking havoc on even the most basic functions of government going on in Seattle today. We can’t get Sound Transit to talk with the Seattle Department of Transportation about working together on a bridge replacement. We can’t get Seattle Schools to coordinate with the City about building enough houses to keep from closing schools. All because of silos. 

The most important generation defining megaproject in Seattle would actually be a demolition. Implode the silos. Erase those status quo blinders that keep good people from seeing outside of narrow lanes. Take down the barriers to communication between agencies. Dissolve the walls that prevent organizations from pooling their money to undertake bigger projects. Dismantle the ridiculous fiefdoms. It’s not nearly as sexy as a high speed train, but nothing is getting out of the station with all these barriers in the way.

The post Four Generation Defining Megaprojects Seattle Must Start Now first appeared on The Urbanist.