PSRC - Regional Aviation Baseline Study Final Report

Regional Aviation Baseline Study
Final Report May 2021

Final Report May 2021
Prepared for
Prepared by
In association with
The Regional Aviation Baseline study is funded by a grant from the

Federal Aviation Administration. Additional funding for this document Additional copies of this document
provided in part by PSRC member jurisdictions, grants from U.S. may be obtained by contacting:
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal
Highway Administration, and Washington State Department of Puget Sound Regional Council
Transportation. Information Center
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information
Seattle, Washington 98104-1035
Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations may request written 206.464.7532
materials in alternate formats, sign language interpreters, physical
accessibility accommodations, or other reasonable accommodations by [email protected]
contacting the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le, at 206.464.6175, with two weeks’ www.psrc.org
advance notice. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact
the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le, through TTY Relay 711.
Title VI Notice: PSRC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, visit
https://www.psrc.org/title-vi.
Regional Aviation Baseline Study | Final Report May 2021

Final Report
Contents
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 COMMERCIAL AVIATION COORDINATING COMMISSION ............................................................................ 2
1.3 COVID-19 IMPACTS ON AVIATION ................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 3
2. Study Overview ............................................................................................................... 4

2.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 STUDY ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 STUDY AREA AND AIRPORTS .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 STUDY SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.5 STUDY PHASES .............................................................................................................................................. 10
2.6 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 10
3. Existing Conditions and Aviation Demand Forecast ........................................................11

3.1 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 11
3.2 TRENDS AND FORECASTS BY AVIATION SECTOR ........................................................................................ 14
3.3 KEY MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS ........................................................................................ 16
4. Airport Needs ................................................................................................................18

4.1 BENCHMARK EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE BY AVIATION SECTOR ..................................................... 18
4.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES............................................................................................................. 21
4.1 COMMERCIAL SERVICE ................................................................................................................................. 21
4.2 AIR CARGO .................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3 GENERAL AVIATION ...................................................................................................................................... 30
5. Assessment of System Requirements .............................................................................33

5.1 COMMERCIAL SERVICE ................................................................................................................................. 33
5.2 AIR CARGO .................................................................................................................................................... 34
5.3 GENERAL AVIATION ...................................................................................................................................... 36
5.4 SUMMARY OF INTERMODAL NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................... 37
6. Development of Scenarios .............................................................................................39

6.1 SCENARIO 1: BASELINE MEET 50% TO 60% OF 2050 DEMAND ................................................................. 42
6.2 SCENARIO 2: MEET 80% OF 2050 DEMAND................................................................................................ 43
6.3 SCENARIO 3: ACCOMODATE 100% OF 2050 DEMAND .............................................................................. 44
6.4 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF MEETING DEMAND ................................................................................. 45
6.5 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.............................................................................................................. 47
7. Evaluation of Airports for Scenarios ...............................................................................49

7.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................. 49
7.2 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF REMAINING AIRPORTS .......................................................................................... 52
7.3 EVALUATION CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 71
8. Public Engagement ........................................................................................................72

8.1 PSRC EXECUTIVE BOARD .............................................................................................................................. 72
8.2 WEBSITE ........................................................................................................................................................ 72
8.3 EMAIL UPDATES ............................................................................................................................................ 73
8.4 SURVEY .......................................................................................................................................................... 73
8.5 IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................................. 76
8.6 REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS ...................................................................................................................... 76
FINAL i
Final Report
8.7 ONLINE OPEN HOUSE ................................................................................................................................... 77

8.8 STAKEHOLDER BRIEFINGS ............................................................................................................................ 77
8.9 KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 78
9. Related Studies ..............................................................................................................79

9.1 MOBILE OBSERVATIONS OF ULTRAFINE PARTICLES STUDY ....................................................................... 79
9.2 AVIATION ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY ........................................................................................................ 80
9.3 AVIATION BIOFUELS INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY ...................................................................... 80
9.4 WASHINGTON STATE AIR CARGO MOVEMENT STUDY .............................................................................. 81
9.5 ULTRA-HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................... 82
10. Conclusions and Next Steps ...........................................................................................84
ii FINAL
Final Report
Tables
Table 2-1. Regional Aviation Baseline Study Goal Areas and Objectives .................................................................... 4
Table 2-2. Airports in the Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4-1. Benchmarks for Commercial Service Airport Coverage and Access (Seattle-Tacoma
International and Paine Field) .................................................................................................................... 18
Table 5-1. Commercial Service Passenger Needs through 2050 ............................................................................... 34
Table 5-2. Air Cargo Requirement Needs through 2050 (Seattle-Tacoma and King County International
Airports)....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 5-3. Air Cargo Planned Capacity Areas through 2037 (Seattle-Tacoma and King County
International Airports) ................................................................................................................................ 35
Table 5-4. Air Cargo Facility Gaps through 2050 (Seattle-Tacoma and King County International
Airports)....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 6-1. Commercial Service Passenger Needs through 2050 ............................................................................... 39
Table 6-2. Projected Demand Accommodating Scenarios ......................................................................................... 46
Table 6-3. Scenario Pros and Cons Compared to Existing Conditions and Other Scenarios .................................... 47
Table 7-1. Arlington Municipal Airport Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 52
Table 7-2. Arlington Municipal Airport Population and Employment Drive-Time Coverage ................................... 54
Table 7-3. Arlington Municipal Airport Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access ...................................... 55
Table 7-4. Arlington Municipal Airport Airspace Analysis .......................................................................................... 55
Table 7-5. Bremerton National Airport Airfield Evaluation ........................................................................................ 56
Table 7-6. Bremerton National Airport Population and Employment Drive-Time Coverage ................................... 57
Table 7-7. Bremerton National Airport Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access ...................................... 59
Table 7-8. Bremerton National Airport Airspace Analysis .......................................................................................... 59
Table 7-9. Paine Field Airfield Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 60
Table 7-10. Paine Field Population and Employment Drive-Time Coverage............................................................... 61
Table 7-11. Paine Field Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access .................................................................. 62
Table 7-12. Paine Field Airspace Analysis...................................................................................................................... 62
Table 7-13. Tacoma Narrows Airport Airfield Evaluation ............................................................................................. 63
Table 7-14. Tacoma Narrows Airport Population and Employment Drive-Time Coverage ........................................ 64
Table 7-15. Tacoma Narrows Airport Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access ........................................... 66
Table 7-16. Tacoma Narrows Airport Airspace Analysis ............................................................................................... 66
Table 7-17. McChord Airfield Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 67
Table 7-18. McChord Field Population and Employment Drive Time Coverage ......................................................... 68
Table 7-19. McChord Field Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access ............................................................ 70
Table 7-20. McChord Field Airspace Analysis ............................................................................................................... 70
Table 7-21. Airport Ownership Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 71
FINAL iii
Final Report
Figures
Figure 1-1. United States and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Enplanements (1976 to 2018) ........................ 2
Figure 2-1. Regional Aviation Baseline Study Area and Relevant Airports ................................................................... 6
Figure 4-1. Enplanements by Airport (2017)................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 4-2. Airline Departures by Airport (2017) ......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4-3. 60-Minute Drive-Time Access to Commercial Passenger Service (Seattle-Tacoma
International and Paine Field) in 2050....................................................................................................... 22
Figure 4-4. Air Cargo Terminal (Hong Kong) ................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 4-5. Brussels Airport BRUcloud.......................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6-1. Los Angeles Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 7-1. Ideal Airport Layouts................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 7-2. Arlington Municipal Airport Existing and Potential Commercial Service Layout..................................... 53
Figure 7-3. Arlington Municipal Airport Existing and Future 60-Minute Drive-Time Coverage ................................ 54
Figure 7-4. Bremerton National Airport Existing and Potential Commercial Service Layout .................................... 57
Figure 7-5. Bremerton National Airport Current and Future 60-Minute Drive-Time Coverage ............................... 58
Figure 7-6. Paine Field Existing and Potential Commercial Service Layout ................................................................ 61
Figure 7-7. Tacoma Narrows Airport Existing and Potential Commercial Service Layout ......................................... 64
Figure 7-8. Tacoma Narrows Airport Current and Future 60-Minute Drive-Time Coverage .................................... 65
Figure 7-9. McChord Airfield Existing and Potential Layout ........................................................................................ 68
Figure 7-10. McChord Airfield Current and Future 60-Minute Drive-Time Coverage ................................................. 69
Figure 8-1. Top Features for the Aviation System (by county).................................................................................... 74
Figure 8-2. Importance of Meeting Demand for Aviation ........................................................................................... 74
Figure 8-3. Importance of Accommodating Passenger Service at Existing Airports (by county) .............................. 75
Figure 8-4. Importance of Increasing Passenger Service Capacity at Regional Airports versus Sea-Tac (by
county) ........................................................................................................................................................ 75
iv FINAL
Final Report
Acronyms
AFB .................................................................................................................................................................... Air Force Base
FAA .......................................................................................................................................Federal Aviation Administration
HCT ........................................................................................................................................................ High-Capacity Transit
JBLM .............................................................................................................................................. Joint Base Lewis-McChord
KCIA .......................................................................................................................... King County International/Boeing Field
MSA ...........................................................................................................................................Metropolitan Statistical Area
NPIAS ............................................................................................................... National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
PSRC ........................................................................................................................................ Puget Sound Regional Council
SAF .................................................................................................................................................. Sustainable Aviation Fuel
SAMP ....................................................................................................................................Sustainable Airport Master Plan
Sea-Tac........................................................................................................................ Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
TNC .................................................................................................................................. Transportation Network Company
UHSGT .................................................................................................................. Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation
WSDOT .................................................................................................... Washington State Department of Transportation
FINAL v
Final Report
1. Introduction
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The central Puget Sound region plays a pivotal role in aviation in the Pacific Northwest. The region serves
as the hub for the 5th largest airline by enplanements (Alaska Airlines), serves as the West Coast gateway
for the nation’s 2nd largest airline by enplanements (Delta Air Lines), contains the 8th busiest airport in the
nation (Seattle-Tacoma International Airport [Sea-Tac]), and hosts major manufacturing and operations
activities of the largest aerospace company in the world—the Boeing Company. The aviation system is a
critical part of an ecosystem that supports high paying jobs, housing, and economic development.
In March 2020, COVID-19 struck the United States and severely affected air travel worldwide. However, by
March 22, 2021, U.S. airline executives saw concrete signs of a domestic leisure travel recovery as a slowing
pandemic and 21% of the U.S. population (having received at least one dose of a vaccine) drove spring and
summer bookings. According to Transportation Security Administration data, more than 1.3 million
passengers were screened in U.S. airports on that Friday and Sunday, the highest number since the
pandemic crushed air travel in 2020. Airports and airlines estimate a recovery to 2019 levels by 2023 to
2024. 1
The Regional Aviation Baseline Study (the Baseline Study) provides a clear picture of the different roles and
purposes of each aviation activity at each of the region’s airports, describes how these activities interact,
and identifies future needs in the central Puget Sound region (King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties)
to set the stage for future planning. This study will provide a common baseline for policymakers about the
region’s aviation needs and options to consider for meeting those needs in the future. This study is the first
phase of potentially more focused studies on specific areas of emphasis.
Recent rapid growth is likely to affect the quality and level of aviation service. State and regional leaders
need solid and reliable information about the current usage and projected regional growth to adequately
plan and provide for future aviation needs. The desired outcomes of the Baseline Study follow:
• Identify the roles of each airport and the aviation activities within the region.
• Provide a regional perspective on how aviation activities at airports in the study area interact with each
other, the community, and the broader economy.
• Obtain input from stakeholders about their needs and build a common understanding about aviation
and airspace constraints.
• Identify future aviation needs within central Puget Sound region and set the stage for future planning.
1 Lexi Lonas. “TSA screens over 1.5 million passengers heading into holiday weekend”, The Hill. April 3, 2021.
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/tsa/546313-tsa-screens-15-million-passengers-heading-into-holiday-weekend
FINAL 1
Final Report
The study provides a regional understanding of the aviation system. In addition to data gathered about the
system and from aviation stakeholders, the study leverages data from current airport master planning
efforts and other regional/statewide aviation studies.
1.2 COMMERCIAL AVIATION COORDINATING COMMISSION
In a separate effort, in 2019 the state legislature created the Commercial Aviation Coordinating
Commission. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) manages the commission,
which will develop recommendations to meet Washington state’s critical aviation system capacity needs.
The commission has been tasked with recommending a new primary commercial aviation facility and
additional ways to accommodate capacity needs at other facilities. You can learn more about this effort on
WSDOT’s website.
1.3 COVID-19 IMPACTS ON AVIATION
This study began in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic affected aviation. Many of us are staying close to
home right now, and passenger traffic at Sea-Tac has slowed as a result. Aviation has experienced dips in
growth over the past 40 years, particularly during economic recessions, but long-term aviation growth has
remained consistently positive. Figure 1-1 shows the passenger boardings, or enplanements, for both the
United States and Sea-Tac over the past 40 years. These trends are discussed in detail later in this report.
We expect the long-term forecasts outlined in this study to remain representative of the long-term demand
of the region.
Figure 1-1. United States and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Enplanements (1976 to 2018)
2 FINAL
Final Report
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
Following this introduction, the report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 2 provides an overview of the study.

• Chapter 3 describes existing conditions and presents the trends and forecasts affecting aviation.
• Chapter 4 outlines metrics and benchmarks used to analyze the future needs by aviation sector.
• Chapter 5 presents an assessment of the future requirements by aviation sector, including access to
the airports.
• Chapter 6 describes several scenarios that were developed to address the future needs and
summarizes the benefits and challenges of each.
• Chapter 7 presents criteria and an evaluation of the potential of existing airports in the region to meet
the future needs.
• Chapter 8 summarizes the study public engagement process and findings.

• Chapter 9 provides an overview of several separate studies that are relevant to this effort.
• Chapter 10 outlines conclusions and suggested next steps.
FINAL 3
Final Report
2. Study Overview
2.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The study team conducted a review of relevant plans and policies at the start of the study and identified
certain goal areas from the Washington Aviation System Plan, completed by WSDOT Aviation in 2017, as
relevant for use in this study. The team developed objectives associated with each goal area. Table 2-1
shows the study goal areas and objectives.
Table 2-1. Regional Aviation Baseline Study Goal Areas and Objectives
STUDY GOAL AREAS STUDY OBJECTIVES
Economic Development  Identify aviation needs of growing population.
and Vitality  Support meeting aviation needs to support economic growth now and in future.
 Support needs of aerospace industry for manufacturing and cargo that must be
on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the airport.
 Quantify the economic impacts of each airport using Federal Aviation
Administration guidance.
Education, Outreach,  Understand community perceptions about regional aviation needs.
and Community  Provide information that is credible and provides a consistent base for
Engagement stakeholders and decision makers regarding the aviation system and constraints.
 Obtain feedback from the general public regarding aviation needs and scenarios
to address them.
Infrastructure  Develop a set of benchmarks that identify what each airport needs to fulfill its
Improvement, role.
Preservation, and  Determine the aviation demand and capacity at each airport based on airport
Capacity master plans and other existing plans.
 Assess the existing and future regional aviation airspace configurations and
constraints, taking into consideration Federal Aviation Administration NextGen
airspace improvements.
Modal Mobility,  Provide adequate ground access to/from airports.
Capacity, and  Support road capacity and access improvement alternatives.
Accessibility  Support and improve multimodal connections, including multiple transportation
options for users.
 Support adequate vehicle parking at airports.
Stewardship  Protect the continued operation of airports from encroachment by limiting
incompatible uses and development on adjacent lands.
4 FINAL
Final Report
2.2 STUDY ORGANIZATION
2.2.1 Project Sponsors/Management Team
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) led this study with a grant from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). PSRC develops policies and coordinates decisions about regional growth,
transportation, and economic development planning within King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties.
PSRC is composed of over 80 jurisdictions, including all four counties, cities and towns, ports, state and
local transportation agencies, and tribal governments within the region. PSRC’s Executive Board is
overseeing the study. The FAA participated throughout the project and provided technical review and
guidance. A project management team comprising representatives of both agencies and the consultants
met bi-weekly throughout the study period and provided review and comment on all products.
2.2.2 Technical Working Group
To support study transparency and ensure timely stakeholder input during each phase, the study team
consulted stakeholders so that their perspectives were considered in developing findings and
recommendations. As a part of this effort, a Technical Working Group—comprising representative airports,
airlines and other major stakeholders in the aviation industry—was established. The group met at three
points during the study to review draft technical papers.
Participating organizations included the following:
• Alaska Airlines
• Boeing
• Delta Air Lines
• King County International Airport (KCIA)
• Lynden International
• Paine Field/Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field)
• Port of Bremerton
• Renton Municipal
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac)
• TransGroup
• Washington Airport Management Association
• WSDOT, Aviation Division
FINAL 5
Final Report
2.3 STUDY AREA AND AIRPORTS
The central Puget Sound region covers four counties: Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap. As shown in
Figure 2-1, the aviation system in the study area consists of 27 public-use airports and two military base
airports—McChord Field and Gray Army Airfield—which are on Joint Base Lewis-McChord. The following
three airports are considered regionally significant, and play a critical role in the commercial passenger, air
cargo, and commercial jet aircraft production markets:
• Sea-Tac
• KCIA
• Paine Field
Figure 2-1. Regional Aviation Baseline Study Area and Relevant Airports
Source: WSP based on Federal Aviation Administration, National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (2019–2023)
6 FINAL
Final Report
The region’s public-use airports are vital to their communities and support the region’s economy and air
transportation network.
While outside of the central Puget Sound region, because of their importance to the Washington state
airport system and/or proximity to the region, the following four airports were considered for their
influence on study area airports:
• Bellingham International
• Spokane International
• Grant County International
• Olympia Regional
These airports are not analyzed in a similar manner to the regional airports but are included because their
influence affects the region/airspace.
2.3.1 Agency Jurisdiction
The FAA works closely with state aviation agencies and local planning organizations to identify public-use
airports that are important to the system for inclusion in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS). The NPIAS identifies nearly 3,330 existing and proposed airports that are included in the national
airport system, the roles they currently serve, and the amounts and types of airport development eligible
for federal funding under the Airport Improvement Program over the next 5 years. The FAA is required to
provide Congress with a 5-year estimate of Airport Improvement Program-eligible development every two
years. The Secretary of Transportation transmitted the 2021 to 2025 NPIAS to Congress on September 30,
2020. The NPIAS contains all commercial service and reliever airports, and selected public-owned general
aviation airports.
Airports are grouped by statute into two major categories: primary and nonprimary. Primary airports are
defined in the FAA’s authorizing statute as public airports that receive scheduled air carrier service with
10,000 or more enplaned passengers per year. Primary airports are further grouped into four hub
categories defined in statute: large hub, medium hub, small hub, and nonhub.
Nonprimary airports include commercial service airports (public airports receiving scheduled passenger
service and between 2,500 and 9,999 enplaned passengers per year), general aviation airports, and reliever
airports. General aviation airports are further grouped into five FAA defined roles: national, regional, local,
basic, and unclassified.
FINAL 7
Final Report
2.3.2 Hierarchy of Airports
Table 2-2 lists the airports in the study area. The NPIAS includes 12 airports in the central Puget Sound
region that are federally obligated. 2 This includes three primary airports, three reliever airports, and six
general aviation airports. In addition, 15 non-NPIAS airports comprise general aviation airports and
seaplane bases. Finally, the study area includes one military base that comprises two airfields.
In sum, the study area includes the following:

• One large-hub primary airport (Sea-Tac)
• Two nonhub primary airports KCIA and PAE
• Nine NPIAS-general aviation airports
• Fifteen non-NPIAS airports
• One military installation with two airports
Among the civilian facilities are the following:
• Commercial service and air cargo airports (KCIA and Sea-Tac with Paine Field initiating passenger
service in March 2019)
• Three industrial airports involved with large aircraft manufacturing (KCIA, Paine Field, and Renton
Municipal)
• Six seaplane bases
• Multiple general aviation facilities
2.4 STUDY SCOPE
The Baseline Study sought to support future planning efforts by collecting information about the following:
• Existing conditions and recent trends in aviation, including the roles of each airport and the aviation
activities within the study area.
• Economic contributions of regional aviation sectors and the factors that affect different market sectors.
• A conceptual level of analysis of primary airspace flows and relevant airspace constraints. The airspace
was analyzed whether the current airspace system can deliver future demand scenarios.
• Relationships and dependencies between airports within the region and with the National Airport
System.
• Landside access to the region’s airports and adequacy to meet future demand.
• Community perspectives, concerns, issues, and impacts identified through a robust stakeholder
engagement process.
2 Federally obligated airports are public airports where the airport sponsors have accepted federal assistance, either in the
form of grants or property conveyances.
8 FINAL
Final Report
Table 2-2. Airports in the Study Area

S. AIRPORT NAME FAA
NO. (NAME USED IN FINAL REPORT) I.D. CITY COUNTY DESIGNATION SERVICE LEVEL
1 Seattle-Tacoma International SEA Seattle King NPIAS Primary
(Sea-Tac)
2 King County International/ BFI Seattle King NPIAS Primary
Boeing Field (KCIA)
3 Paine Field/Snohomish County PAE Everett Snohomish NPIAS Primary
International (Paine Field)
4 Renton Municipal RNT Renton King NPIAS Reliever
5 Auburn Municipal S50 Auburn King NPIAS Reliever
6 Harvey Field S43 Snohomish Snohomish NPIAS Reliever
7 Kenmore Air Harbor Seaplane S60 Kenmore King NPIAS General Aviation
Base (SPB)
8 Vashon Municipal 2S1 Vashon King NPIAS General Aviation
9 Bremerton National PWT Bremerton Kitsap NPIAS General Aviation
10 Pierce County PLU Puyallup Pierce NPIAS General Aviation
11 Tacoma Narrows TIW Tacoma Pierce NPIAS General Aviation
12 Arlington Municipal AWO Arlington Snohomish NPIAS General Aviation
13 Bandera State 4W0 Bandera King Non-NPIAS General Aviation
14 Lester State 15S Lester King Non-NPIAS General Aviation
15 Skykomish State S88 Skykomish King Non-NPIAS General Aviation
16 Norman Grier Field S36 Kent King Non-NPIAS General Aviation
17 Kenmore Air Harbor SPB W55 Seattle King Non-NPIAS General Aviation
18 Seattle Seaplanes SPB 0W0 Seattle King Non-NPIAS General Aviation
19 Will Rogers—Wiley Post W36 Renton King Non-NPIAS General Aviation
Memorial SPB
20 Apex Airpark 8W5 Silverdale Kitsap Non-NPIAS General Aviation
21 Port of Poulsbo SPB 83Q Poulsbo Kitsap Non-NPIAS General Aviation
22 Ranger Creek State 21W Greenwater Pierce Non-NPIAS General Aviation
23 Swanson Field 2W3 Eatonville Pierce Non-NPIAS General Aviation
24 Shady Acres Airport 3B8 Spanaway Pierce Non-NPIAS General Aviation
25 American Lake SPB W37 Tacoma Pierce Non-NPIAS General Aviation
26 Darrington Municipal 1S2 Darrington Snohomish Non-NPIAS General Aviation
27 First Air Field W16 Monroe Snohomish Non-NPIAS General Aviation
28 McChord Field TCM Tacoma Pierce Non-NPIAS Military
29 Gray Army Airfield GRF
AIRPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED DUE TO THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
Bellingham International BLI Bellingham Whatcom NPIAS Primary
Olympia Regional OLM Olympia Thurston NPIAS General Aviation
Grant County International MWH Moses Lake Grant NPIAS General Aviation
Spokane International GEG Spokane Spokane NPIAS Primary
FINAL 9
Final Report
2.5 STUDY PHASES
The study included the following key phases:
• Airport and Aviation Activity Analysis Phase – During this phase, the study team examined existing
conditions, regional demand forecasts, goals, objectives, and metrics for the system, and analyzed
socioeconomic conditions, market trends, airspace flow, and multimodal connections. Working
Paper 1, “Airport and Aviation Activity” was the key deliverable. 3
• Future Aviation Issues Analysis Phase – During this phase, the study team analyzed the feasibility of
airports in the region to accommodate demand. Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis” was the
key deliverable along with a separate analysis of the regional airspace system.
• Scenarios Definition and Evaluation Phase – During this phase, the study team defined and evaluated
scenarios for accommodating future aviation demand as well as the regional economic and high-level
environmental effects of the aviation industry. Working Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of
Scenarios” was the key deliverable.
• Final Report and Project Completion – The key findings are published in this report.
2.6 LIMITATIONS
This study provides a regional overview of needs and offers some perspectives about different approaches
to addressing projected aviation gaps. However, it is not a master plan or a siting study. An airport master
plan is a comprehensive study of an airport and usually describes the short-, medium-, and long-term
development plans to meet future 20-year aviation demand. Sometimes an existing airport cannot be
expanded to meet the future demand and a new or supplemental airport is required. In these cases, a new
airport site may be selected as part of an airport’s planning process or as identified through a siting study.
The Baseline Study builds on master planning processes underway at many of the region’s airports. The
study provides empirical data and describes potential scenarios to accommodate future demand, but it is
not a siting study and will not offer recommendations or solutions. The study is intended to provide a
comprehensive view of the existing regional aviation system and inform follow-up actions by policymakers.
3 All working papers referenced in this report are on the Regional Aviation Baseline Study website.
10 FINAL
Final Report
3. Existing Conditions and Aviation Demand Forecast
3.1 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM
Aviation activity is concentrated in King and Snohomish Counties within the central Puget Sound region.
King County is home to 13 public-use airports and several major Boeing facilities, including the final
assembly lines for the 737 and P-8 aircraft at its Renton plant, final delivery preparations, and test flights
at KCIA. Snohomish County is home to five public-use airports and the Boeing facility in Everett. It is the
final assembly site for the 747, 767, the new 777X (including the composite wings), composite-based 787
Dreamliner, and the Air Force’s KC-46 aerial refueling aircraft, built on a 767 platform. The county also hosts
suppliers and related companies. Pierce County is home to six public-use airports and two military airbases
and has a smaller aerospace sector than King and Snohomish Counties, but is an important center for
suppliers and related industries. Kitsap County has three public-use airports and aerospace-related
companies.
The three commercial service airports are discussed along with their contributions to the region. Sea-Tac
connects the central Puget Sound region to the world, by serving approximately 50 million passengers
annually. Thirty-four airlines serve 91 nonstop domestic and 28 international destinations. Sea-Tac is in King
County, with the entire airport covering an area of 2,500 acres or 3.9 square miles—which is much smaller
than other U.S. airports with similar annual passenger numbers—and is severely constrained by urban
development and existing topography. Sea-Tac is one of the region’s leading economic engines. From
airport workers who live in neighboring communities to cherry farmers in central Washington, and from
shops in tourist destinations like Pike Place Market to corporate giants like Microsoft and Boeing, Sea-Tac
touches nearly every aspect of the economy in the central Puget Sound region. Sea-Tac’s economic impact
totaled $22.5 billion in business revenues in 2017. 4
KCIA is one of the nation’s busiest primary nonhub airports and is in King County. The airport averages
200,000 takeoffs and landings each year. The airport serves small commercial passenger airlines, cargo
carriers, private aircraft owners, helicopters, corporate jets, and military, and other aircraft. It is also home
to Boeing Company final production aircraft services and flight testing operations as well as The Museum
of Flight. This airport is severely land constrained with ongoing urban encroachment. The airport is confined
by the Duwamish River and Boeing Complex to the west and major railway and interstate to the east. Due
to its strategic location just four miles south of downtown Seattle and close to other business centers, it
frequently hosts celebrities, dignitaries, and sports teams, and supports $3.5 billion in local business. 5
Paine Field is a unique airport located in Snohomish County, particularly with the recent change in status
with commercial and Part 139 certification. 6 The airport has 24 daily flights by Alaska and United Airlines
4 https://www.portseattle.org/page/airport-basics
5 https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/airport.aspx
6 Part 139 certification includes requirements for airports serving scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft designed for
more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger seats.
FINAL 11
Final Report
and is home to over 650 aircraft, including small, single-engine recreational aircraft, corporate jets, vintage
Warbirds, and Boeing Dreamliners. Located about 30 miles north of downtown Seattle, the airport has
become a major tourist destination with the opening of the Future of Flight Aviation Center & Boeing Tour,
the Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum, and the Historic Flight Foundation. Other attractions include
the Legend Flyers-Me-262 Project and the Museum of Flight Restoration Center. The airport's economic
impact is estimated at $20 billion annually. 7
Airports in the central Puget Sound region serve different sectors and roles, such as business, recreation,
flight instruction, medical, search and rescue, and law enforcement. The four counties that make up the
central Puget Sound region are unique in their demographics, economics, and geographic terrain, thus,
requiring the airports to serve a diverse need within the region.
3.1.1 King County
The population of the county is 2,188,649 (based on the 2017 census) and the county seat is Seattle, which
is the largest city in the state. The county has a total area of 2,307 square miles; land makes up 2,116 square
miles and water makes up 191 square miles. Sea-Tac and KCIA serve the population and businesses of this
county. Additionally, this county has two general aviation reliever airports: Renton Municipal and Auburn
Municipal.
Renton Municipal is home to Boeing 737 production and is co-located with Will Rogers-Wiley Post
Memorial SPB, supporting economic vitality and tourism to the area. Auburn Municipal is a general aviation
reliever airport and is the third-busiest in Washington state for average daily operations. This airport has
limited room to expand, and future redevelopment will depend on rerouting major arterial roads. Kenmore
Air Harbor SPB S60 on Lake Washington is a privately owned SPB classified as a commercial service airport.
Vashon Municipal has a single turf runway that provides year-round access/exit to Vashon island and is
particularly important when ferry service is disrupted.
Additionally, three state-owned airports—Bandera State, Lester State, and Skykomish Airports—are within
the county. These airports are at relatively higher altitude—above 1,600 feet (except Skykomish, which is
at 1,002 feet)—and are open seasonally between June 1 and October 1. The airports support emergency
management functions, emergency medical operations, firefighting, law enforcement and recreational
activities. Norman Grier Field is family owned and provides flight school and training for the nearby Green
River community. In addition to Kenmore Air Harbor SPB S60 on Lake Washington, the county also has
three additional SPBs to connect various island communities to the region. Kenmore Air Harbor SPB W55,
Seattle Seaplanes SPB on South Lake Union, and Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial on Lake Washington are
in King County. Kenmore Air Harbor SPB W55 is at Lake Union in Seattle and connects Washington state
and Vancouver Island. Seattle Seaplanes SPB is privately owned and offers scenic flights and pilot training.
7 https://www.painefield.com/27/About-Our-Airport
12 FINAL
Final Report
3.1.2 Snohomish County
The population of the county is 801,633 (based on 2017 census data). Everett is the county seat and largest
city. The county has a total area of 2,196 square miles; land comprises 2,087 square miles and water
comprises 109 square miles. Paine Field is in this county. Additionally, Snohomish County hosts one
privately owned, public-use general aviation reliever airport—Harvey Field—which is family owned and is
8 miles from Paine Field. Arlington Municipal is a general aviation airport located strategically at the
economic center of Arlington and could be expanded into a reliever airport. The City of Arlington recognizes
this importance and opportunity and continues to support the airport through city planning, financing, and
development. Snohomish County also houses Darrington Municipal (co-owned) and First Air Field (privately
owned).
3.1.3 Pierce County
The population of the county is 876,764 (based on 2017 census data). Tacoma is the county seat and largest
city. The county has a total area of 1,806 square miles; land comprises 1,670 square miles and water
comprises 137 square miles. Pierce County is notable for being home to Mount Rainier (the tallest mountain
in Washington state) and a volcano in the Cascade Range. General aviation airports Pierce County and
Tacoma Narrows are located within the county. Pierce County Airport is the sixth-busiest airport in the
state, is 25 miles northwest of Mount Rainier, and serves as the base for search/rescue operations and
emergency response. Tacoma Narrows has a control tower, thus, making it an ideal training facility for
student pilots and military operations and provides for corporate aviation serving the Greater Tacoma
region.
Ranger Creek State is a state-managed airport that is seasonally open between June 1 and October 1. This
airport is at 2,650 feet in the White River Valley not far from Mount Rainier, and supports emergency
management, forest fire fighting, emergency medical operations, and recreation. Swanson Field is a public
airport 25 miles from Mount Rainier. Shady Acres Airport is privately owned and American Lake SPB serves
as a seasonal aircraft charter and provides emergency medical aircraft operations. Pierce County also
serves as the home for two military base airports: McChord Field and Gray Army Airfield that are located
on Joint Base Lewis-McChord.
3.1.4 Kitsap County
The population of the county is 266,414 (based on 2017 census data). The county seat is Port Orchard and
the largest city is Bremerton. The county has a total area of 566 square miles; land comprises 395 square
miles and water comprises 171 square miles. Bremerton National is a general aviation airport owned by
the Port of Bremerton that supports regional business activities through its connected business park as well
as military activities. In cases of emergency or natural disaster, Bremerton National provides a corridor of
transportation. Apex Airpark is privately owned and has recently opened to the public. This airpark is
located 2 miles south of the prohibited airspace over the Bangor naval submarine base and intercontinental
ballistic missile base. Port of Poulsbo SPB is a popular destination for seasonal recreational flights. The Port
FINAL 13
Final Report
of Bremerton is making plans to explore and expand seaplane operations to build a commercial seaplane
terminal.
3.2 TRENDS AND FORECASTS BY AVIATION SECTOR
3.2.1 Commercial
Overall, local population and economy growth is providing a catalyst for the increase in the central Puget
Sound region’s aviation demand. From 2010 to 2017, population in the four PSRC counties grew at a faster
rate than Washington state and the United States. Additionally, the proximity to Canada and its third-most-
populous metropolitan area—Vancouver, British Columbia—has further served as a catalyst for additional
demand for transporting people and goods in this region. Comparatively cheaper air fare options, lower
airline taxes in the United States, differences in airline competition at airports, lower costs for domestic
flights, and the presence of discount airlines in the United States make it appealing to the residents in
bordering Canadian cities to utilize Sea-Tac and other airports within reasonable proximity to the Canadian
border. Finally, Delta Air Lines’ development of Sea-Tac as its West Coast hub and its primary gateway to
Asia—in addition to the increased competition between Delta and Alaska Airlines—has further driven
growth of aviation demand in the region. Commercial enplanements in the central Puget Sound region are
forecast to grow between 2.4% and 2.8% annually between 2017 and 2050 while aircraft operations are
forecast to increase between 2.1% and 2.4% annually for the same period. This study began in 2019, before
the COVID-19 pandemic began to affect aviation, and growth in passenger traffic at Sea-Tac has slowed as
a result in 2020-2021. There have been dips in aviation growth over the past 40 years, particularly in line
with recessions, but long-term aviation growth has remained consistent. We expect the long-term forecasts
outlined in this study to remain representative of the long-term demand of the region.
3.2.2 General Aviation
General aviation airports in the central Puget Sound region serve different sectors of the aviation
community based on the location and local demand. The unique geographic terrain of the region is a mix
of coastal land, Puget Sound low lands, and the Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges, and is home to
Mount Rainier, and a volcano in the Cascade mountain range. It is characterized by a complex array of
saltwater bays, islands, and peninsulas carved out by prehistoric glaciers. Thus, the geographic terrain
presents unique opportunities for recreational flight and tourism, in addition to business, flight instruction,
medical, emergency management, law enforcement, local transportation (air ferry), and search/rescue
operations. Depending on the needs of the user, several different airports meet the needs of the varying
interests within the region as outlined in the discussion of the four counties previously.
In the central Puget Sound region, the overall pilot population is remaining steady while the private pilot
population is experiencing a slow decline, which is similar to trends at the state and national levels. This
trend will likely affect the user-base at many of the noncommercial service airports in the central Puget
Sound region. Aircraft-maintenance technician numbers in the region are also declining, affecting the
services and necessary time for repairs to general aviation aircraft. Finally, a decrease in nationwide
14 FINAL
Final Report
personal flight hours stems from the decline in pilots and mechanics available to service and fly general
aviation aircraft—an important trend that could affect the future of central Puget Sound region airports.
The technological trends that are affecting general aviation are important qualitative areas of the industry
that are also highly unpredictable, with new regulations and improvements affecting how they are
implemented. The FAA has mandated that all aircraft be outfitted with Automatic Dependent Surveillance–
Broadcast Out, which provides air traffic controllers with information that is critical to ensuring aircraft
separation via satellite rather than ground-based radar. This could result in a portion of the general aviation
fleet being denied use of certain airspace starting January 2020, although, that denial should last only until
the avionics industry can catch up with Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast installation requests.
In the central Puget Sound region, the replacement of avgas and the advent of electric-powered aircraft
could lead to an increase in the types of aircraft and number of pilots, with cheaper and more user- and
environmentally friendly options becoming available.
3.2.3 Air Cargo
Air cargo services enable global marketing of goods and services, providing a competitive transportation
medium, especially for time-sensitive products and trade with distant markets. Economic growth,
international trade, and air transport are inextricably linked. Specifically, air cargo service:
• Provides fast and reliable delivery of high-value products especially relevant to central Puget Sound
region industries, such as the pharmaceutical, technology, aircraft assembly, and aerospace equipment
sectors.
• Supports the express carrier industry, which provides guaranteed, rapid, and door-to-door delivery
services, and increasingly offers logistics support for companies.
• Facilitates the development of e-commerce, enabling companies to transport online shopping orders
quickly and reliably between regions and countries and allowing products to be stored in large
warehouses, which reduces retail and distribution costs.
• Allows improved stock management and production techniques, reducing companies’ storage costs,
losses due to stock outages, and disruption caused by failure of machinery on production lines.
• Improves companies’ handling of returns and complaints, allowing a quick turnaround of repairs or
delivery of replacement parts.
Air cargo in the central Puget Sound region is generated primarily by activity at Sea-Tac and KCIA, which,
combined, account for over 85% of the total Washington state market. Sea-Tac handles two-thirds of the
cargo tonnage and has the greatest variety of cargo offerings in the central Puget Sound with a mix of
domestic and international belly cargo, domestic and international freighter cargo, as well as
integrator/express cargo generated by FedEx, DHL, and Amazon Air.
FINAL 15
Final Report
The integrator all-cargo carrier, UPS, almost exclusively generated the air cargo at KCIA. Paine Field
generated approximately 19,300 metric tons of air cargo in 2017. Almost all the air cargo at Paine Field was
entirely related to the Boeing aircraft assembly process and for all intents and purposes should be
considered general aviation rather than commercial air cargo activity.
According to the recently completed Washington State Air Cargo Goods Movement Study, fresh cherries
and seafood together represented over one-quarter of the region's air cargo exports, by metric tons, in
2016. Sea-Tac is a significant gateway to East Asia for footwear parts, electronic integrated circuits, and
machines and apparatus for manufacturing semiconductors. Most of the growth in air cargo within the
region is driven by the increase in international wide-body aircraft air service at Sea-Tac and the growth of
e-commerce. Air cargo at Sea-Tac increased by 16% from 2016 to 2017, although preliminary data from
2018 indicates a moderation of this growth to less than 2% year-over-year due to a significant drop in the
cherry export season.
The robust regional economy will serve as a catalyst for both domestic and international air cargo demand
in the long term. The air cargo forecast anticipates average annual growth of 2.75% for the 33-year period
between 2017 and 2050.
3.3 KEY MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS
The central Puget Sound region has invested in a strong multimodal connection to the interstate highway
system, state highways, and public transportation that are necessary to connect airports to the four-county
region and beyond. Interstate and state route access and transit connect the three commercial service
airports—Sea-Tac, KCIA, and Paine Field. Overall, 24 out of the 26 active, nonmilitary system airports are
within 2 miles of an interstate, U.S., or state route, indicating that most airports are easily accessible by
automobile for local trips. However, only 12 of these airports are within 5 miles of an interstate, which
provides an important connection to the rest of the state for recreational, business, and freight operations.
The relatively limited number of airports within close proximity to an interstate places additional emphasis
on this group for current and future charter, commercial, and cargo operations.
Rental car companies are present at four airports: Sea-Tac, Paine Field, KCIA, and Tacoma Narrows. Shuttle
service is also available at Sea-Tac to and from nearby hotels. Kenmore Air Harbor SPB W55 offers a special
ground-service option at Lake Union to Sea-Tac to connect passengers flying to and from remote areas.
Automobile parking is a challenge. Many of the parking spots at Paine Field are now dedicated to
commercial service, which began in March 2019. Renton Municipal, co-located with Will Rogers-Wiley Post
Memorial SPB, also noted a strain on parking, especially for tenants near the Boeing production facilities
where there is limited area to expand. Harvey Field (in Snohomish County) indicated that an overflow gravel
lot was often used when the 105-space parking lot was full. Considerations for additional parking could be
made in future master plans while also considering the context of the future regional transportation
system.
16 FINAL
Final Report
Congestion is a serious problem throughout the metropolitan area that particularly affects Sea-Tac and
KCIA. According to the 2018 PSRC Regional Transportation Plan, the region is expected to see 16.6 million
more vehicles miles per day by 2040—an increase of 21% from the base year. Hours of delay are also
projected to increase dramatically, with 233,000 hours added daily to the region by 2040. Traffic growth
will put pressure on roads, which underscores the need for additional transit and other alternative modes.
Working Paper 1, “Airport and Aviation Activity” Chapter 7, Multimodal Connections and Access, discusses
anticipated improvements and new service trends that should be considered in future planning.
FINAL 17
Final Report
4. Airport Needs
4.1 BENCHMARK EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE BY AVIATION SECTOR
Working Paper 1, “Airport and Aviation Activity” identifies a series of metrics and Working Paper 2
establishes benchmarks for each aviation sector. Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis” Chapter 2,
Benchmarks, reports the performance of each aviation sector against these industry benchmarks. Table 4-1
summarizes the commercial service benchmarks and how well the region meets these benchmarks now
and predictions for meeting them in the future.
Table 4-1. Benchmarks for Commercial Service Airport Coverage and Access (Seattle-Tacoma International and
Paine Field)
SEA-TAC SEA-TAC AND PAINE FIELD
BENCHMARK 2017 2050 2017 2050
Percentage Population
80%1 62%2 42%2 83%2 70%2
within 60 minutes
Percentage Employment
90%1 743 57%3 90%3 80%3
within 60 minutes
Interstate Highway or
Major Expressway within 100%4 100%5 100%5 100%5 100%6
5 miles
Highway or State Route
100%4 100%5 100%5 100%5 100%6
within 2 miles
Direct Access to 4-lane
100%4 100%5 100%5 100%5 100%6
Arterial Road
High-Capacity Transit
100%4 100%5 100%5 50%5 100%7
Access at the Airport
1Based on analysis of relevant statewide aviation system plans
2Drive sheds from PSRC travel model for 2014 and 2050 and population for 2017 and 2050
3Drive sheds from PSRC travel model for 2014 and 2050 and employment for 2017 and 2050
4Desirable for commercial service airports based on subject matter expert knowledge
5 Determined from Google Earth analysis and SoundTransit website
6Assumes no changes in roadway access from the current conditions
7As of 2017, Paine Field did not yet have high-capacity transit. Service started in 2019.
4.1.1 Multi-Airport City Analysis and Conclusions
Many regions across the country are home to multiple commercial service airports, with each airport
contributing to a specific role to meet the needs of the system. As demand at Sea-Tac continues to grow
and with Paine Field opening with tightly limited commercial service, it is important to look at other cities
as a way of understanding potential strategies to meeting future aviation needs within the central Puget
Sound region.
18 FINAL
Final Report
Sea-Tac is the largest airport in the region and has been the only commercial service airport for the Seattle
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) 8 until March 2019, when Paine Field started passenger service. Sea-Tac
is a connecting hub for two airlines and, as an international gateway, has a variety of domestic and
international destinations. As Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis” Chapter 2, Benchmarks, further
details, the Seattle metropolitan area was compared to nine other metropolitan areas:
• Los Angeles
• Chicago
• Dallas
• Houston
• Washington, DC
• Miami
• Boston
• Phoenix
• San Francisco
The initial purpose of this comparison was to determine if one or more catalysts prompted the
justification/need for an additional commercial service airport in other regions. The data collected did not
support this hypothesis. However, it did highlight several interesting comparisons between the central
Puget Sound region and other regions with multiple commercial service airports.
This multi-airport city benchmarking analysis identified several factors that appear to drive the need for an
additional airport(s) within a region. While the Seattle MSA is smaller in terms of population than the other
cities, its high per-capita income and the presence of two airlines having connecting hub operations at Sea-
Tac make it comparable with the multi-airport cities studied. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 present the Seattle
MSA’s rankings for both 2017 enplanements (six of nine) and 2017 air carrier departures (eight of nine),
respectively. Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis” Chapter 2, Benchmarks, details these and other
findings.
Chapter 2 concludes that differences in geography and historical development among the cities or
regions—such as population density—make it impossible to make straight-line comparisons and that a
more detailed analysis of aviation demand and supply in the central Puget Sound region is required to
ascertain the local needs for growth at these or potentially another airport. The following sections
summarize the challenges and opportunities in meeting these benchmarks going forward.
8 An MSA is a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high
degree of economic and social integration with that core. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/metro-
micro/about.html
FINAL 19
Final Report
Figure 4-1. Enplanements by Airport (2017)
Source: Federal Aviation Administration Enplanement Data, 2017

Note: Only Air Carrier Activity is included. Enplanements are departing passengers.
Figure 4-2. Airline Departures by Airport (2017)
Source: Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Activity System, 2017

Note: Only Air Carrier Activity is included. Departures include all air carrier takeoffs.
20 FINAL
Final Report
4.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Many challenges face airports and aviation in general. Two important issues are replenishing the retiring
pilot population and accessing limited funding to address deteriorating airfield pavements. For airports
other than Sea-Tac, the Pavement Condition Index for the airports within the state continues to decrease.
This is an infrastructure and funding issue. WSDOT does not have enough funding to assist airports with
this issue, which affects many of the airports covered in this study.
4.1 COMMERCIAL SERVICE
4.1.1 Challenges
Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis” illustrates that the region’s 60-minute commercial passenger
service coverage meets the established benchmarks for population and employment coverage in 2017.
However, given the limited air service available at Paine Field, the long-term coverage provided by Sea-Tac
is poor, particularly for western Snohomish County and the central area of Kitsap County (Figure 4-3).
Providing better coverage for Snohomish County would require either adding a strong lineup of commercial
service at another airport in Snohomish County or increasing commercial service at Paine Field. Coverage
for central Kitsap County could be provided by commercial service at nearby airports. Overall, Sea-Tac
reliever possibilities also exist but have limitations. (See Section 4.3, General Aviation, for more
information.)
The 2018 Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) for Sea-Tac projects that if future demand levels
materialize and no procedural improvements or capacity enhancements to the existing airfield are made,
aircraft delay would become significant around 2029 and intolerable around 2034. The SAMP concludes
that the airfield/airspace system—as currently configured and operated—can support the proposed Near-
Term Projects 9 for the passengers forecast for 2027 (28 million enplanements). However, the airport would
have insufficient capacity to meet the unconstrained 20-year forecast demand at a sustainable level of
delay with the improvements identified in the SAMP Long-Term Vision 10 that were developed to meet
requirements associated with the forecast activity of 33 million enplanements.
The issues and potential solutions involving the airfield/airspace system are complex and involve benefit-
cost trade-offs. Therefore, the Port of Seattle concluded that additional study is required to address long-
term capacity enhancements beyond 2027.
9 The SAMP identifies a program of improvements referred to as “Near-Term Projects” to allow the airport to accommodate
more than 28 million enplanements that are projected to occur at Sea-Tac around 2027.
10 SAMP identifies a Long-Term Vision to accommodate approximately 33 million enplanements in 2034.
FINAL 21
Final Report
Figure 4-3. 60-Minute Drive-Time Access to Commercial Passenger Service (Seattle-Tacoma International and
Paine Field) in 2050
Notes:
1 The drive time is derived from Puget Sound Regional Council’s travel model for 2050.
2. Cross-hatching indicates Paine Field coverage.
22 FINAL
Final Report
KCIA depends on the aircraft arrival and departure streams from Sea-Tac. Currently, KCIA is under the Sea-
Tac flight pattern, resulting in operations at the airports that are not always independent of each other.
During busy periods, Sea-Tac is the priority, and KCIA can experience delays. NextGen flight procedures can
ultimately resolve many of these issues. Also, when the airspace is operating in north flow—a condition
that occurs only about 5% of the time—KCIA approaches conflict with operations at Sea-Tac departing to
the north. Air traffic control must separate operations from the two airports in a manner that generally
reduces operations and creates delay.
Southwest Airlines considered establishing a mini-hub at KCIA but abandoned the idea due to the airspace
dependency. In addition, KCIA has very limited expansion capability.
Although Paine Field started commercial service in early 2019, according to the supplemental
environmental assessment, 11 the airport’s terminal facility can accommodate only 500,000 annual
passenger enplanements with its two airline contact gates and one remote aircraft stand, which limits it
growing this service further.
Accommodating the region’s projected 55 million passenger enplanements in 2050 will be a challenge.
Beyond the Near-Term Projects proposed by Sea-Tac that the SAMP analysis demonstrates can
accommodate approximately 28 million enplaned passengers, further growth would need to rely on the
following:
• Potential improvements that would be identified through additional study that the Port of Seattle
would conduct as recommended by the SAMP
• Any combination of additional efficiency and capacity gains achieved by utilizing larger aircraft, higher
passenger load factors, scheduling more flights during non-peak hours, and gains in airspace
improvements with FAA’s NextGen technologies, etc.
Sea-Tac and Paine Field have potentially limited opportunities to expand their airports to accommodate
passengers beyond about 29 million enplanements. This translates to a gap of around 27 million annual
enplanements for the region. Thus, if this demand cannot be accommodated at the existing commercial
service airports, then it would need to be accommodated elsewhere.
11 https://www.painefield.com/223/2019-Air-Service-Environmental-
Assessmen#:~:text=2019%20Commercial%20Air%20Service%20Supplemental%20Environmental%20Assessment&text=20%
2C%202019%20that%20it%20has,Snohomish%20County%20Airport%2FPaine%20Field
FINAL 23
Final Report
4.1.2 Opportunities
FAA’s NextGen program is continuing to improve the complex airspace in the central Puget Sound region.
The following is a summary of recent and future improvements in airspace/runway capacity:
• Recent Air Traffic Control/NextGen Capacity Improvements at Sea-Tac:

− Time-based flow management helps to improve the flow of arrivals to the runways.
− Reduced diagonal spacing for arrivals of 1 nautical mile for runways with centerline spacing of
2,500 feet or greater provides an increase in arrival capacity.
− Wake Recategorization Phase 2 assigns aircraft to new wake turbulence classifications based on
their wake turbulence characteristics, such as wake generation, wake decay, and encounter effects.
This results in closer longitudinal separation for certain aircraft types without sacrificing safety.
However, no real benefit occurred for Sea-Tac but the benefit was felt by KCIA and other airports.
• Future Air Traffic Control/NextGen Improvements at Sea-Tac:

− Improved Runway Delivery Accuracy: The combined effects of several new capabilities—including
Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast Out, Cockpit Display of Traffic Information, and
Terminal Sequencing and Spacing in the terminal area—will improve the controllers’ ability to
deliver aircraft to the runway with the desired separation from the preceding aircraft. This will
reduce the average spacing between arrivals and boost arrival capacity.
4.1.3 Multimodal Access
Sound Transit Stride bus rapid transit service at Tukwila International Boulevard Station (one station north
of the Sea-Tac station on Link Light Rail) will extend to the eastern suburbs, creating a new connection with
communities that lack high-capacity transit. This new service will provide an alternative to personal-car use
or taxi and Transportation Network Company (TNC) connections, which add congestion to roadways and
require areas for pickups and dropoffs or long-term parking. In addition, Sound Transit will be expanding
the Link light-rail system to the north of Seattle (to Lynnwood and eventually Everett), to the east (to
Bellevue, Redmond and Issaquah), and south to Tacoma, providing expanded direct rail service to Sea-Tac
and Paine Field. Depending on the trends for taxis and TNCs, more areas may need to be dedicated to these
services at all commercial service airports. Overall, alternative modes to private car transportation provide
an opportunity to alleviate congestion and reallocate landside space to other uses.
24 FINAL
Final Report
4.2 AIR CARGO
4.2.1 Challenges
Within the context of this study, the term air cargo congestion is commonly used to describe situations
when demand increases beyond what an airport can efficiently handle. Effects of congestion can usually
appear long before annual capacity is reached due to the cyclic nature for air cargo demand. For example,
air cargo handling capacity can be significantly stressed at Sea-Tac during the summer cherry season and
the winter holiday season. Yet, during other times of the year, air cargo facilities may be sufficient or even
underutilized.
There is also a need to account for the fact that the air cargo system is complex and comprises both on-
airport facilities and services (airlines, ground handlers, cargo terminals, aircraft parking, on-airport parking,
terminal parking, etc.) and off-airport facilities and services (freight forwarders, trucking terminals,
warehouses, sort facilities, customs brokers, shippers and receivers, etc.). Capacity constraints at any one
of its components can cause congestion.
The 50-year forecast for air cargo in the central Puget Sound region anticipates air cargo tonnage to
increase from 539,574 metric tons in 2017 to 1,319,262 tons in 2050—a 2.7% compounded average annual
growth rate. Air cargo freighter aircraft operations are projected to increase almost 75% in 20 years from
19,200 in 2017 to approximately 33,445 by 2037 and to approximately 46,000 by 2050.
Sea-Tac is the dominant commercial airport in both the state and the region. It has more than 35 scheduled
airlines that offer nonstop narrow-body and wide-body service to over 90 domestic and 30 international
destinations. In 2017, the airport accommodated 45.7 million air passengers (up 2.6% from 2016) and
processed 425,856 metric tons of belly cargo and freighter cargo (up 16.2% from 2015).
KCIA (locally known as Boeing Field) is the other regional airport with commercial air cargo activity. It acts
as regional gateway for the integrator/express airline for UPS and serves as a center for business aviation
and an industrial aerospace facility for the Boeing Company.
Paine Field shares the same market area as Sea-Tac and KCIA but has traditionally operated as an industrial
general aviation airport that supports the assembly of aircraft for the Boeing Company. In this role, the
airport has not developed the facilities and services to attract scheduled air cargo service. In general, air
cargo service—because so much of it goes in bellies of passenger flights—is tied to commercial passenger
service. So, when locating commercial passenger service, the need of air cargo should be considered as
associated.
Sea-Tac will face a deficit of on-airport cargo buildings starting in 2022 that will reach 75,000 square feet
by 2026 if no capacity improvements are made. The Port of Seattle’s 2018 Air Cargo Growth Potential and
Facility Requirements Assessment determines that the Cargo 4 South and L-Shape warehouse development
projects proposed in the SAMP Near-Term Projects can accommodate growth in on-airport cargo demand
through 2027. Another 400,000 square feet of on-airport cargo buildings are contemplated in the South
FINAL 25
Final Report
Aviation Support Area; however, they are not included in the Near-Term Projects and hence would require
further study after 2027. A major issue facing Sea-Tac is that potential future development of air cargo
facilities in the South Aviation Support Area would be expensive to develop and cargo facilities
contemplated in the SAMP Near-Term Projects proposed for development on the existing airport footprint
must compete for scarce Port of Seattle resources being used for overall airport expansion.
KCIA appears to be slightly congested with a deficit of cargo ramp space based on the estimates of land
needed to support the future forecasts compared to the existing available land. Aerial views confirm this
assessment, with UPS occupying approximately 11 acres available for its operations. If forecasts are
realized, additional land may be required by 2026. Because UPS is the primary carrier, UPS may be able to
adjust its operations and support the forecasted growth within the same ramp footprint. Near the UPS
ramp, on the other side of Perimeter Road (currently on the landside), 2 to 3 acres appear available. The
relatively high RWY 14R/32L IFR minimums limit air cargo activities in poor weather. Indeed, KCIA operates
a Category I ILS at both ends of its main runway. Diversions of KCIA cargo traffic to Sea-Tac occur when
weather conditions are below these minimums, creating potential capacity impacts to Sea-Tac.
4.2.2 Opportunities
Opportunities for additional air cargo capacity in the central Puget Sound region exist both within the region
and with utilizing other aviation and logistics resources around the state.
According to the Port of Seattle’s 2018 Air Cargo Growth Potential and Facility Requirements Assessment
Report, additional air cargo capacity at Sea-Tac can be accomplished by the following:
• Replace old and inefficient cargo buildings with newer and more modern facilities.
• Redesign the North Cargo Area ramp area.
• Shift certain non-cargo handling activities away from the airport ramp area.
• Relocate other non-ramp dependent activity to nearby off-airport properties (also designated as “L-
shaped property” in the SAMP).
The report suggests that the redesign of existing facilities and development of nearby off-airport properties
can expand the Sea-Tac air cargo facilities from approximately 400,000 square feet in 2018 to almost
650,000 square feet by 2024.
Air cargo capacity at KCIA, particularly ramp space, is limited. However, UPS is using off-airport facilities to
leverage limited on-airport cargo terminals. KCIA will examine opportunities for additional cargo aircraft
parking as part of its master plan update currently underway.
As outlined in the Washington State Joint Transportation Committee’s Washington State Air Cargo
Movement Study (published December 21, 2018), additional air cargo capacity that can benefit the region
could also be achieved by developing commercial air cargo facilities at Paine Field and using Grant County
Moses Lake International Airport as a cargo reliever airport during the Washington state cherry season. The
26 FINAL
Final Report
integrator airlines (such as Amazon, DHL, FedEx, and UPS) also have the option to shift more of their peak-
season traffic to Spokane International Airport, which is already operating as a Pacific Northwest
transshipment center for the integrators today.
Finally, the Washington State Legislature can work to implement the findings of the Washington State Air
Cargo Movement Study, which recommends developing non-urban airports into centers for regional
ground-based logistical operations. Developing airport-related logistics/distribution centers, airport
logistics parks, or inland ports helps small and nonhub commercial service airports (such as Skagit Regional
Airport, Ellensburg Bowers Filed, Yakima Air Terminal, etc.) to generate non-aviation revenue while building
up the facilities and services necessary to attract air cargo services. Logistics facilities and services located
strategically within the state could take some of the pressure off the Port of Seattle and Sea-Tac, by
accommodating activities that traditionally take place at, or near these facilities today.
In the longer term, additional air cargo capacity for the region can be increased by encouraging and using
multistory logistics facilities—both on- and off-airport—that can increase the usable floor space for
handling air cargo with a limited ground floor footprint. A good example of a local multistory off-airport
logistics facility built recently is the Prologis Georgetown Crossroads Warehouse located 2.4 miles from
KCIA. It is a 590,000-square-foot, three-story facility on 13.7 acres of land that typically would require
47 acres for a single-story facility.
On-airport, multistory cargo facilities are more common in Asia than North America. The Hong Kong Air
Cargo Terminal Limited facility at Hong Kong International Airport is a good example of an on-airport cargo
facility. It is a two-story express center and seven-story cargo handling facility with a floor area of
4,251,745 square feet and 313 truck docks on 43.1 acres (Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-4. Air Cargo Terminal (Hong Kong)
FINAL 27
Final Report
Incentives for creating multistory logistics facilities could require revised building codes and zoning
requirements. Support should also be given to creating a regional cargo community system, defined as a
neutral and open electronic platform, that would enable intelligent and secure information exchange
between public (Port of Seattle) and private stakeholders (airlines, forwarders, warehouse operators,
trucking companies) to improve the competitive position of the central Puget Sound region as a global
logistics hub.
The following typical services are part of an airport cargo community system:
• Information exchange between the transport operators in the airport and for the hinterland
connections, the airport users, customs, airport and other authorities
• Electronic exchange of customs declarations and customs responses, and cargo releases between
private parties and customs
• Electronic handling of all information regarding import and export of cargo for the airport community
• Status information and control, tracking and tracing goods through the whole logistics chain
• Processing declarations of dangerous goods with the responsible authorities
Brussels Airport in Belgium is an example of an airport making use of a cargo community system to manage
the flow of trucks to and from their land-locked cargo campus and provide slot booking for trucks accessing
the cargo terminals, among other things. Brussels Airport utilizes a system branded as BRUcloud, which is
the umbrella name for the open-data-sharing platform with multiple collaborative applications, operational
within BRUcargo and based on a third-party data sharing technology (Figure 4-5).
Utilizing multistory cargo terminals and warehouses, combined with a cargo community system such as
BRUcloud, would allow maximum efficiencies for the limited land available within the central Puget Sound
region for air cargo and allow the region to grow its logistics industry and other air cargo dependent
industries such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, high-value agriculture, etc.
Regarding the need to add runway capacity for the takeoff and landing of freighter aircraft, it should be
noted that within the span of 50 years the state of technology will most likely have advanced to the point
where the use of pilotless aircraft will be common. Fully autonomous aircraft will allow for significant
efficiencies in the airspace system with smaller in-space aircraft separation requirements and all-weather
landing capabilities, thereby increasing the region's runway capacity.
28 FINAL
Final Report
Figure 4-5. Brussels Airport BRUcloud
KCIA handles major deliveries to Boeing facilities on the airport. The operation of this facility has set up the
airport with good access for cargo, because many of the nearby roads can accommodate large vehicles
used in delivery. At Sea-Tac, multimodal access related to cargo could be expanded by adding the proposed
South Access Highway. The project is in planning stages and is estimated for completion by 2030, per
WSDOT.
Other opportunities include working with local municipalities and transportation agencies to identify
problem areas related to cargo transport as well as using intelligent transportation system capabilities to
streamline freight operations on local roadways around these airports. Technology offers a cost-effective
method for increasing efficiency and operations without intrusive infrastructure improvements.
FINAL 29
Final Report
4.3 GENERAL AVIATION
4.3.1 Challenges
The preceding sections identified areas where it is anticipated general aviation airports will face future
challenges. This includes airports where landings and takeoffs are expected to grow to a point where
demand for airfield capacity is stressed, resulting in growing delays unless airfield capacity enhancements
are undertaken. Based on future activity (where data were available), four of the regional airports
(Arlington Municipal, Bremerton National, Renton Municipal, and Harvey Field) should be planning to
enhance their airfield capacity.
A lack of aircraft parking and hangar storage space at airports where there is greater demand for hangar
space than is currently available is another challenge general aviation airports face. Growing numbers of
based aircraft at these airports will only exacerbate the situation. Based aircraft owners frequently want to
store their aircraft inside hangars to keep them secure and protect them from the elements. However, not
all airports have sufficient land space to make hangar space available to all that want it. Nearly all of the
regional airports are facing hangar shortages, as evidenced by the abundance of aircraft hangar waiting
lists at these airports. The other categories of airports also face this issue to some degree. Three out of five
of the community airports have hangar waiting lists, and a third of the local airports do as well. The only
airports that do not report hangar waiting lists are general use airports.
Urban Air Mobility 12 is a potential challenge for the air system, for which general aviation airports will be
most affected. Based on current research and draft regulations, Urban Air Mobility “air taxis” that may start
to operate in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe will most likely follow the same regulations and concepts of
operations than helicopters, with potential slight changes to take into consideration their specificities.
4.3.2 Opportunities
Despite the challenges, a number of opportunities exist at the general aviation airports, especially in terms
of providing reliever capacity for the commercial service airports in the region. The airports with the
greatest potential for this are the regional airports. Each of the following regional airports was assessed for
its potential to accommodate future growth in Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis”:
• Arlington Municipal
• Bremerton National
• Harvey Field
• Pierce County
• Renton Municipal
• Tacoma Narrows
12 Urban Air Mobility encompasses the operation of small unmanned aircraft systems for delivery and new electrical “air taxis”
in dense, urban environments. In the United States, both are still in a research and development stage.
30 FINAL
Final Report
While there are opportunities for commercial use at some general aviation airports, those uses—including
the use of ramp space and not limited to operations (takeoffs and landings)—typically constrain the growth
of general aviation when airports are land constrained. Commercial use of facilities at both Renton
Municipal Airport and Paine Field are projected to increase; this use includes airfield land leases associated
with Part 121 manufacturing, and direct use of the airfield and airspace for both Part 121 and Part 135
operations.
At Renton Municipal Airport, aircraft manufacturing necessitates that aircraft parking occupy large portions
of airport-controlled land adjacent to the airfield, limiting the expansion of general aviation facilities such
as hangars or aircraft tie-down spaces.
At Paine Field, increases in Part 121 commercial operations will constrain general aviation through
intangible means. One intangible impact might be administrative (Code of Federal Regulation) and/or
legislative (United States Code) changes resulting in altered Transportation Security Administration policies,
procedures, and practices concerning the access and use of airport facilities. Even if those policies are not
specifically borne of a general aviation conflict or directly consequential to general aviation operations, the
convenience of airport access and access to adjacent airspace are strong considerations for many general
aviation pilots.
A decline in general aviation operations at an airport is a precursor to a reduction in available

noncommercial passenger service as fixed-base operators 13—unable to service Part 121 operations even if
they service large Part 135 aircraft—face a shrinking market. Even if a significant number of general aviation
aircraft remain at Paine Field, a loss of convenient access and the subsequent reduction in operations would
alter airport activity. This would in turn affect funding models and projections that businesses use to
determine the viability of an airport. Both direct and indirect consequences will lead to the lack of
investment for new general aviation-related businesses and, in some cases, the failure of existing
businesses—fixed-base operators, in particular.
Roadways are the primary access for general aviation airports, with many of the airports in the region
meeting the project benchmark of being located within 2 miles of a state route. Several general aviation
airports could expand their services to help meet the aviation needs of the region.
However, congestion and available land present challenges for some airports that could see a change in
service. Potential improvements to make these airports more accessible for commercial passengers include
the addition of high-capacity transit, dedicated space for pickup and dropoff by taxis and TNCs, as well as
rental car services or shuttles for travelers.
13 A fixed-base operator is a commercial business granted the right by the airport sponsor to operate on an airport and provide
aeronautical services such as fueling, hangaring, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, flight
instruction, etc.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/media/5190_6b_appC.pdf
FINAL 31
Final Report
General aviation airports with opportunities for multimodal access upgrades include Auburn Municipal and
Renton Municipal, which are near interstates and a mix of land uses. Rapid Ride F is already in service near
Renton Municipal, and Rapid Ride I is planned to connect the cities of Renton and Auburn in 2023.
32 FINAL
Final Report
5. Assessment of System Requirements
5.1 COMMERCIAL SERVICE
The commercial service passenger demand is estimated to grow from 22 million enplanements in 2017 to
between 49 million and 56 million enplanements in 2050, as discussed in Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs
Analysis” Chapter 4, Challenges and Opportunities. As described in Section 4.1.1, Challenges, of this report,
existing space available to accommodate the 2050 commercial service demand is limited at Sea-Tac and
Paine Field. That section also outlines the SAMP’s Near-Term Project and Long-Term Vision plans that
attempt to address the gap. As previously stated, due to airside capacity and financial constraints, any
improvements outside of the Near-Term Projects would require further evaluation as part of a future
airfield/airspace study.
The previous chapter also explains the limitations at KCIA from both landside and airspace perspectives. As
such, KCIA is unlikely to be able to accommodate significant commercial passenger growth.
Paine Field’s existing passenger terminal can accommodate 500,000 annual passenger enplanements with
space for three aircraft positions. Although there is no plan to expand this facility at this time, the airport
has commenced an airport master plan that will address the success of the new airline service initiated in
March 2019.
Table 5-1 compares the high forecast for passenger enplanement to the plans and potential growth for
Sea-Tac and Paine Field. The high forecast is used to answer the study’s question: Can all the forecast
passengers be accommodated in the future? Two capacity scenarios were prepared to assess future needs
based on the airports’ vision plans:
• Scenario 1. Sea-Tac can accommodate up to the SAMP Near-Term Project capacity of 28 million
enplanements plus Paine Field is limited to its existing terminal building.
• Scenario 2. Sea-Tac can accommodate up to the SAMP Long-Term Vision capacity of 33 million
enplanements plus Paine Field is limited to its existing terminal building.
FINAL 33
Final Report
Table 5-1. Commercial Service Passenger Needs through 2050

FORECAST OF PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGION 2017 2022 2027 2037 2050
Passenger Enplanements (High Forecast) 22,450,500 25,400,000 31,100,000 38,000,000 55,600,000
Source: Working Paper 1, “Airport and Aviation Activity”, WSP, KPA, CDM
Note: Low forecast for 2050 is 49,300,0000 enplanements
PAINE FIELD + SEA-TAC 2017 2022 2027 2050

Constrained to Near-Term Project SAMP
23,050,000 25,655,000 28,600,000 28,600,000
Scenario(1,2)
Constrained to Long-Range SAMP Vision
23,050,500 25,655,000 28,600,000 33,600,000
Scenario(1,3)
Source: Sustainable Airport Master Plan (2018), Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast (2018)
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGION 2017 2022 2027 2050

Constrained to Near-Term Projects SAMP
0 0 -2,500,000 -27,000,000
Scenario(1,2)
Constrained to Long-Range Vision SAMP
0 0 -2,500,000 -22,000,000
Scenario(1,3)
Note:
(1) Assumes Paine Field accommodates only 600,000 annual enplanements, per supplemental environmental assessment.
(2) Based on Sea-Tac SAMP Near-Term Projects, accommodating up to 28 million annual enplaned passengers.
(3) Based on Sea-Tac SAMP Long-Term Vision, possibly accommodating up to 33 million annual enplaned passengers.
These two capacity scenarios were combined into a single baseline scenario and compared to other future
scenarios as to how well they address future needs later in the study. Chapter 6 of this document describes
the future scenario development and evaluation process.
5.2 AIR CARGO
The space available for warehouses (and their landside component) with direct access to the airfield is a
scarce resource at both Sea-Tac and KCIA. Considering the redevelopment of cargo facilities planned for
Sea-Tac in the SAMP Near-Term Projects (SAMP) and the facility requirements for the two airports, the
central Puget Sound region system will fall short in supplying enough warehouse space to air cargo beyond
2027, as the Air Cargo Growth Potential and Facility Requirements Assessment (September 2018), prepared
for the Port of Seattle by Logistics Capital Strategy (LCS report) confirms that the SAMP Near-Term Projects
satisfy demand for on-airport cargo facilities through 2027. As described previously, while the South
Aviation Support Area identified in the SAMP Long-Term Vision would provide substantial additional on-
airport cargo capacity, the South Aviation Support Area is not included in the SAMP Near-Term Projects, is
subject to further study, and would not address the long-term demand for new off-airport cargo and
logistics facilities.
34 FINAL
Final Report
Developing off-airport facilities on the Port of Seattle’s L-Shape property (SAMP projects C02 & C03 Off-
Site Cargo Phases 1 & 2) and the on-airport warehouse redevelopment at Cargo 4 South (SAMP project C01
Cargo 4 South Redevelopment) addresses the near-term needs at Sea-Tac. KCIA has one air cargo operator
(UPS) that does not use on-airport warehousing but trucks the freight in and out the airport for sorting at
an off-airport distribution center.
Sea-Tac and KCIA combined have enough airside ramp space to accommodate the 2050 demand (aircraft
parking and GSE/container storage). Locally, Sea-Tac will compensate for the loss of ramp space available
to air freight operations caused by the expansion of the passenger terminal complex to the north by
reorganizing the northern part of the existing air cargo area. Table 5-2 presents the air cargo needs for the
PSRC Central Region, and Table 5-3 depicts the planned capacity for Sea-Tac and KCIA. Although Sea-Tac
consultants used two different methodologies for the SAMP and LCS report, the Port of Seattle’s LCS report
confirms that the SAMP Near-Term Projects satisfy demand for on-airport cargo facilities through 2027.
Table 5-2. Air Cargo Requirement Needs through 2050 (Seattle-Tacoma and King County International Airports)
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS (SQUARE FEET)
EXISTING 2017 2027 2037 2050
Cargo Apron 4,473,612 1,171,764 1,825,164 2,347,884 3,219,084
Warehouse & Landside(1,2) 577,421 1,269,020 1,692,359 1,873,130 2,561,321
Source: SAMP Executive Summary (2018), Air Cargo Growth Potential and Facility Requirements Assessment (2018), Google
Earth
(1) Landside comprises truck parking and maneuvering areas.
(2) Warehouse square feet based on the Port of Seattle’s Air Cargo Growth Potential and Facility Requirements Assessment report
through 2027; landside square feet based on Airport Cooperative Research Program.
Table 5-3. Air Cargo Planned Capacity Areas through 2037 (Seattle-Tacoma and King County International
Airports)
AREA (SQUARE FEET)
Existing (2017) Apron 4,473,612
Existing (2017) Warehouse & Landside 577,421
Near-Term Vision (2027) Capacity for Apron 4,833,612
Near-Term Vision (2027) Capacity for Landside & Warehouse (LCS report) 1,739,545
Long-Term Vision (2034) Capacity for Apron 4,184,612
Long-Term Vision (2034) Capacity for Landside & Warehouse 2,024,784
(1) Based on Sea-Tac SAMP, the Near-Term Projects will improve the existing North Cargo Area, with two additional off-airport
warehouses and then loss of existing cargo apron will occur due to Long-Term Vision passenger facility expansion.
(2) Warehouse square feet based on the Port of Seattle’s Air Cargo Growth Potential and Facility Requirements Assessment study
report through 2027; landside square feet based on Airport Cooperative Research Program.
While Sea-Tac and KCIA can maintain their respective roles of major international gateways for air freight
and regional hub for UPS, Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis” Chapter 3, Aviation Needs Analysis,
identifies potential challenges in addressing the 2050 demand for warehousing. Table 5-4 describes the
“gap” between the need and what is planned to accommodate some of the demand. The combination of
both airports’ cargo aircraft apron areas will meet demand while warehousing and associated landside
facilities will be needed in 2037 and 2050. Additional off-airport warehousing and other opportunities to
accommodate air cargo, including outside of the region should be considered.
FINAL 35
Final Report
Table 5-4. Air Cargo Facility Gaps through 2050 (Seattle-Tacoma and King County International Airports)
GAP (SQUARE FEET) (1)
2017 2027 2037 2050
Existing vs. Required Apron 3,301,848 2,648,448 2,125,728 1,254,528
Existing vs. Required Warehouse & Landside -691,599 -1,114,938 -1,295,709 -1,983,900
Near-Term Vision (2027) Capacity vs. Required Apron 3,661,848 3,008,448 2,485,728 1,614,528
Near-Term Vision (2027) Capacity vs. Required
470,526 47,187 -133,585 -821,776
Landside & Warehouse (LCS report)
Long-Term Vision (2034) Capacity vs. Required Apron — — 1,836,728 965,528
Long-Term Vision (2034) Capacity vs. Required
— — -133,585 -821,776
Landside & Warehouse
(1) Gaps compare planned capacity areas of Table 5-3 with the required needs of Table 5-2.
5.3 GENERAL AVIATION
A key study goal related to general aviation in the central Puget Sound region is to identify the aviation
requirements of the system and individual airports. This was accomplished by developing performance
measures and benchmarks that gauged whether airports were performing as expected in various areas.
General aviation services were evaluated for the coverage they provided the population and employment
of the region. Individual general aviation airports were assessed for their suitability to provide adequate
facilities and capacity in terms of airside, landside, and ground access. Forecasts of future activity were
used to determine if any airports were likely to experience capacity constraints.
The airport system performance measures and benchmarks consisted of coverage by business-aircraft-
capable airports (i.e., those airports with jet fuel, de-icing, or a precision instrument approach). These
system analyses identified shortfalls in population coverage by airports capable of handling business
aircraft, and employment coverage of airports with de-icing capabilities, indicating a need for these services
at general aviation airports in the region.
The analysis of adequate capacity found a need for more airfield capacity in the region. Three airports—
Arlington Municipal, Renton Municipal, and Harvey Field—were found to be approaching their airfield
capacity limits by 2050. Arlington Municipal would need to implement airfield capacity improvements to
accommodate its anticipated growth in aviation activity, while Renton Municipal and Harvey Field would
need to commence planning for such improvements to avoid capacity issues before the end of the planning
period. Other airports in the region were identified as having excess capacity that could be used to
accommodate aviation operations from other airports in the region.
36 FINAL
Final Report
5.4 SUMMARY OF INTERMODAL NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
As the central Puget Sound region continues to grow, multimodal access to the different airports in the
area will change and be influenced by a multitude of factors. At the time of this analysis, current
connections and planned projects were considered to gauge the needs and opportunities related to access.
5.4.1 Commercial Service
At commercial service airports, high-capacity transit modes connect passengers at Sea-Tac and Paine Field
with planned high-capacity access planned near KCIA, allowing all three airports to provide affordable and
alternative connections to many areas throughout the region. All three airports also have adequate
roadway access provided by I-5 and various state routes.
The creation of direct connections to airports from limited-access highways is a potential area that can be
evaluated in future planning efforts and a second such access is already in planning stages at Sea-Tac.
Providing direct access allows for efficient pickups and dropoffs or direction to parking lots and structures.
Areas for taxi and TNCs may also need to be expanded, with the inclusion of more curb space for these
uses as well as staging areas. Overall, the region is well connected and accommodating for commercial
service passengers, but growth and mode share should be monitored to ensure that proper connections
are being provided for.
5.4.2 Cargo
Of the three airports in the region capable of accommodating wide-body air cargo operations, two operate
within the context of major Boeing facilities and the third is the main source of international freighter
service and belly cargo through commercial passenger aircraft operations. Paine Field and KCIA, with
current Boeing operations, are set up with good access from wide roadways and locations near interstates
and state highways that can manage freight vehicles. Paine Field has rail freight access that operates to the
Boeing facilities and could be an incentive for attracting cargo logistics companies to the airport. KCIA has
rail access on either side of the airport including a spur line to the west and mainline and major yards to
the east. Sea-Tac is the third airport with air cargo operations and is the primary center for air cargo in the
aviation system. Multimodal access for cargo vehicles is maintained through roadways that offer good
connections for freight vehicles to interstates and state highways. Since the airport is experiencing rapid
growth on the passenger side, air cargo access is constrained due to congestion on arterial and local
roadways. The south airport access road, which is in planning stages, could alleviate potential congestion
and offer a new connection for air cargo at Sea-Tac.
FINAL 37
Final Report
5.4.3 Other Airports
Several airports in the region that might have potential for an expanded role were considered for their
vehicular access. The results are detailed in Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis” and summarized
below:
• Arlington Municipal Airport: Good

• Auburn Municipal Airport: Good
• Bremerton National: Fair
• Renton Municipal Airport: Good
• Harvey Field: Poor
• Tacoma Narrows: Fair
Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis” summarizes access potential at several area airports. To the
extent these airports are considered for a larger aviation role, a series of other considerations related to
airport infrastructure, available land, market demand and airspace restrictions would need to be applied,
depending on the particular use.
38 FINAL
Final Report
6. Development of Scenarios
The 2018 SAMP for Sea-Tac proposed facility expansion to accommodate growing passenger and cargo
demand that requires significant financial investment and reconfiguration/relocation of existing facilities.
The SAMP identifies a program of improvements referred to as Near-Term Projects to allow the airport to
accommodate more than 28 million enplanements that is projected to occur at Sea-Tac around 2027. The
SAMP also identifies a Long-Term Vision developed to accommodate facility requirements associated with
forecast activity of approximately 33 million enplanements; however, due to airside capacity and financial
constraints, any improvements outside of the Near-Term Projects would require further evaluation as part
of a future airfield/airspace study (Table 6-1).
Table 6-1. Commercial Service Passenger Needs through 2050

ACTUAL FORECAST OF PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGION 2017 2022 2027 2037 2050
Passenger Enplanements (High Forecast) 22,450,500 25,400,000 31,100,000 38,000,000 55,600,000
Source: Working Paper 1, “Airport and Aviation Activity” WSP, KPA, CDM
Note: Low forecast for 2050 is 49,300,0000 enplanements.
PAINE FIELD + SEA-TAC 2017 2022 2027 2050

(1,2)
Constrained SAMP Near-Term Projects Scenario 23,050,000 25,655,000 28,600,000 28,600,000
Constrained SAMP Long-Term Vision Scenario(1,3) 23,050,500 25,655,000 28,600,000 33,600,000
Source: Sustainable Airport Master Plan (2018), Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast (2018)
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGION 2017 2022 2027 2050

(1,2)
Constrained SAMP Near-Term Projects Scenario 0 0 -2,500,000 -27,000,000
Constrained SAMP Long-Term Vision Scenario (1,3) 0 0 -2,500,000 -22,000,000
Notes:
(1) Assumes Paine Field accommodates only 600,000 annual enplanements, per supplemental environmental assessment
(2) Based on Sea-Tac SAMP Near-Term Projects, accommodating up to 28 million annual enplaned passengers
(3) Based on Sea-Tac SAMP Long-Term Vision, possibly accommodating up to 33 million annual enplaned passengers
Based on forecast aviation demand, additional airports would need to accommodate the additional future
demand of the region, which is nearly double the current demand. This final report provides an overview
of potential scenarios to accommodate that future demand. Each airport that was previously identified in
the study area was analyzed to determine its ability to accommodate future commercial service needs. The
construction of a new airport at a greenfield site was not analyzed nor was an element of the study.
Technical criteria were developed to evaluate each airport to determine the airports that, with economic
investment and infrastructure development, could reasonably accommodate additional regional aviation
passenger demand by 2050.
As PSRC, state, and local leaders consider next steps of exploring how to accommodate all or a portion of
the projected passenger demand for the central Puget Sound region, it should be noted that other cities
have multiple airports serving their constituents in various levels of passenger and cargo activity. Whether
FINAL 39
Final Report
the central Puget Sound region decides to explore additional airports in addition to Paine Field’s growing
passenger service that supplements Sea-Tac’s offerings, several factors should be considered. In the United
States, airports and communities do not decide what airline service will be provided.
Airlines are private businesses and are market driven, and they decide what airports they will serve in order
to be the most profitable. Just because an airport in a large metropolitan area has adequate facilities for
this type of service does not mean an airline will provide service.
Airlines consider several factors, such as demand, the availability of aircraft, connectivity to their hubs, and
potential competition when determining what routes to serve. Airlines are in the business to fill the aircraft
seats and are less profitable when aircraft are not in the air. One of the choices related to choosing markets
includes whether to serve a lesser-served route rather than a route where airlines could provide additional
competition. The airlines closely analyze these choices, because the equipment used to serve them are a
large investment. These decisions are made on a route-by-route basis and have much less to do with the
facilities than other factors.
As an example, the Los Angeles metropolitan area had 56 million passenger enplanements travel out of its
airports in 2018, which is what this study forecasts for the central Puget Sound region in 2050. This multi-
airport system offers some interesting lessons for the central Puget Sound region. Five airports serve the
Los Angeles region: Los Angeles International Airport, Hollywood Burbank Airport, Long Beach Airport,
Ontario International Airport, and John Wayne Airport.
Los Angeles International Airport is the largest airport with four parallel runways (from 9,000 feet to 13,000
feet) and serves as a major connecting hub for 67 United States and international air carriers. While the
regional airports provide important supplementary service and access to other parts of the region, Los
Angeles International Airport serves the largest share of passengers (78%) and service options with
43 million enplanements in 2018 and 132 aircraft gates to 202 nonstop destinations.
Ontario International Airport has 26 gates and two parallel runways (12,000 feet and 10,000 feet). Yet even
though it was served by nine airlines going to 25 destinations, Ontario International Airport had only
1.9 million passenger enplanements in 2018. Ontario International Airport has the space to add up to nine
more gates if demand ever required it. While the airfield has capacity of about 300,000 annual aircraft
operations, in 2018, only 100,000 total aircraft operations occurred, including air carrier, military, and
general aviation. Ontario International Airport has excess capacity to accommodate millions of additional
passengers. Therefore, policy leaders need to understand that particularly with aviation, “Build it and they
will come” does not “fly” with the FAA or airlines.
On the other end of the spectrum, while Ontario International Airport is the second-largest airport in the
Los Angeles region, John Wayne Airport is the second-busiest airport in the region, operating with just one
commercial service runway that is only 5,700 feet in length, which is shorter than most commercial service
runways. The airport also has a short (2,887 feet) parallel general aviation runway. General aviation
operations account for 68% of the airport’s activity. Similar to Ontario International Airport, the airfield
capacity for John Wayne Airport is around 300,000 annual aircraft operations. Both airports are
40 FINAL
Final Report
approximately 35 miles from downtown Los Angeles, with Ontario International Airport to the east and
John Wayne Airport to the south. Yet in contrast to Ontario International Airport, John Wayne Airport
serves nearly 5 million enplaned passengers with 20 gates and with seven airlines going to 24 domestic and
international destinations. The airport is the closest airport to Disneyland and is convenient for passengers
who live between Los Angeles and San Diego. As the population of Orange County grew, demand for airline
service to the area grew, with commercial service beginning in 1952.
Figure 6-1 shows Los Angeles International Airport, Hollywood Burbank Airport, Long Beach Airport,
Ontario International Airport, and John Wayne Airport locations in relation to downtown Los Angeles, along
with drive times without traffic from each airport to the downtown area.
Figure 6-1. Los Angeles Vicinity Map
Notes: LAX = Los Angeles International Airport; BUR = Hollywood Burbank Airport; LGB = Long Beach Airport;
ONT = Ontario International Airport; SNA = John Wayne Airport
Ontario International Airport and John Wayne Airport bookend the success of regional airports in the Los
Angeles region. Even without a much larger investment, Ontario International Airport serves many fewer
flights and customers than John Wayne Airport not because of airport facilities but due to airline market
decisions. For the central Puget Sound region, the types of airports that could “fill the gap” beyond what
Sea-Tac and Paine Field can achieve by 2050 would most likely be regional airport facilities versus providing
significant international passenger service. Most multi-airport regions, like Los Angeles, can support only a
FINAL 41
Final Report
single airport offering broad international destinations. These airports would be similar to existing
Washington state airports: Bellingham International (10 nonstop destinations by three airlines) and
Spokane International Airports (19 nonstop destinations by six airlines). Some of their airlines offer flights
to Canadian airports, which means that Customs and Border Patrol are staffed there for passport control,
etc., and thus are designated as international. Most of their flights are to large-hub airports (i.e., Sea-Tac,
and Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, and Chicago International Airports) but also serve some point-to-
point destinations (i.e., to San Jose, CA, and San Juan Islands).
Paine Field was originally envisioned to be a commercial service airport when it was built in 1936. It was
diverted for military operations during World War II and when the county took over operations, Sea-Tac
was already the region’s primary airport, so Boeing established a production facility at Paine Field. Then 80
years after the airport opened, construction on the commercial service terminal began and multiple airlines
expressed interest in providing commercial passenger service. Paine Field served its first 1 million
passengers (500,000 enplanements) on February 26, 2020. It is served by two airlines, utilizing two gates
opened in December 2019 with 18 daily nonstop flights to 10 destinations on one runway.
Even though the service opened recently, the commercial service offered at Paine Field is already a success
in that the airport is utilizing 15 of its 24 maximum departures allowed per day, per the 2019 Record of
Decision. 14 Thus, it is likely if the airport were approved to expand commercial service, more airlines, flights,
and destinations would occur to meet the demand.
The type of airports that could accommodate the future needs and 2050 gap in capacity for the central
Puget Sound region are similar to those serving the city of Los Angeles: from a major international
connecting hub like Los Angeles International Airport to regional airports like Ontario International Airport
and John Wayne Airport.
6.1 SCENARIO 1: BASELINE MEET 50% TO 60% OF 2050 DEMAND
Scenario 1 assumes that current planned airport expansions would be accomplished. That means that Sea-
Tac would implement its SAMP plan to its 2027 potential, and Paine Field would maintain its current
passenger services (up to 600,000 annual passenger enplanements). In addition, Scenario 1 maintains the
possibility that Sea-Tac would implement its Long-Term Vision should funding and approvals be obtained.
This scenario would result in a projected 2050 gap of 22 million to 27 million enplanements and 450,000
to 540,000 operations. This gap would be similar to the number of passengers at Sea-Tac in 2019 with its
three runways.
Based on the information contained in the WSDOT Aviation Economic Impact Study (2020), if this need is
not accommodated in the region, the opportunity cost would be similar to the current economic
contribution by Sea-Tac, which is over 150,000 jobs and nearly $22.5 billion total economic activity. In
addition to the economic impacts, residents and businesses would be hindered in their ability to access
14 https://www.painefield.com/DocumentCenter/View/1022/Final-Environmental-Assessment-FONSI-ROD-February-2019-PDF
42 FINAL
Final Report
commercial passenger and air cargo services to meet their needs, and it would make the region less
competitive because drive-time coverages would decrease.
Depending on whether the Sea-Tac Long-Term Vision is realized, Scenario 1 would result in $4 billion to
$9 billion in added annual economic activity over today. On the other hand, while aircraft operations are
forecast to increase, the growth is what has already been planned and the amount of aircraft operations
that could be accommodated with the implementation of the SAMP 2027 plan (and, possibly, the 2037
Long-Term Vision) would be consistent for all scenarios. Thus, scenarios that would accommodate more of
the projected aircraft operations would also have more noise impacts and greenhouse gas emissions than
Scenario 1. Simply stated, this scenario would have the least amount of added noise and greenhouse gas
emissions because it would accommodate the fewest aircraft operations.
6.2 SCENARIO 2: MEET 80% OF 2050 DEMAND
The study team analyzed an intermediate scenario that would accommodate some but not all of the
regional aviation demand in 2050. Because most airports in the region would need to be enhanced to allow
for commercial service operations, and there would be associated environmental impacts, there are
potential limitations on the amount of future demand the region could accommodate. Therefore, the study
team analyzed a scenario that would meet about half of the future gap should the Sea-Tac Long-Term Vision
be realized. The PSRC board posed the question, “Should the Region try to accommodate all this demand
or not?” To this end, Scenario 2 explores the pros and cons of meeting 50% of the future 2050 gap of
22 million enplanements and approximately 450,000 operations after the Sea-Tac Long-Term Vision,
meaning approximately 11 million additional enplanements and 225,000 additional aircraft operations
would need to be accommodated by 2050.
To accommodate this demand, significant development would need to occur at one or multiple airports,
as it would require at least two air carrier–capable runways (at least 7,000 feet in length). This scenario
builds on Scenario 1, and the two together would accommodate 80% of the total 2050 demand. This
constrained scenario would generate an estimated increased economic benefit for the region of about $20
billion beyond today.
Overall, environmental impacts would increase but would be about half (compared to Scenario 1,
“Baseline”) than if 100% of the future gap were met. Development at regional airports would be required
to meet this limited need. The need could be met at multiple airports or potentially one airport with parallel
runways, and the trade-off of those scenarios are described in the following subsections.
6.2.1 Scenario 2-1: One Airport
For one airport in the region to handle 50% of the 2050 gap (11 million enplanements), two parallel
runways of at least 7,000 feet would be required with a separation of at least 4,300 feet to allow for
simultaneous independent arrivals under Instrument Flight Rules (i.e., poor weather conditions)
FINAL 43
Final Report
operations. 15 The approximate number of annual aircraft operations that a two-parallel-runway airfield
with a separation of 4,300 feet or greater could accommodate is 320,000, based on the FAA AC 150/5060-
5 Airport Capacity and Delay, which is greater than 50% of the 2050 gap for aircraft operations (225,000).
An example of this type of airport would be Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, which serves
18 million enplaned passengers with 63 gates with its parallel runways.
Scenario 2-1 would concentrate both the benefits and impacts compared to scenarios where multiple
airports would provide the additional service. Thus, the noise and environmental impacts—as well as the
access to commercial service and jobs associated with expanded operations—would be focused around
one airport rather than spread around the region.
6.2.2 Scenario 2-2: Two Airports
Two single-runway airports with runways of at least 7,000 feet in the region could accommodate the
11 million enplanements, depending on the mix of general aviation versus commercial service operations
occurring at the airport. A single runway could handle about 195,000 aircraft operations. Therefore, two
single-runway airports could easily handle the annual aircraft operations estimated for accommodating
50% of the 2050 gap (roughly 7 million annual enplanements and 112,500 aircraft operations at each
airport). The infrastructure needed to accommodate 7 million annual passenger enplanements would be
slightly more than what John Wayne Airport near Los Angeles offers today.
Scenario 2-2 would spread the benefits and impacts to multiple airports in the region in order to provide
the additional service. Thus, the noise and environmental impacts—as well as the access to commercial
service and jobs associated with expanded operations—would be spread around the region. In addition,
two smaller airports would not be able to provide the concentration of service options and would be more
expensive to operate than a single larger airport.
6.3 SCENARIO 3: ACCOMODATE 100% OF 2050 DEMAND
The Baseline Study’s unconstrained forecast projects the region’s future demand to reach 55 million
enplanements and 450,000 aircraft operations by the year 2050. Scenario 3 assumes one or more airports
would accommodate 100% of this demand by 2050.
This scenario would offer the greatest economic benefit of the scenarios or approximately equal to an
additional Sea-Tac, which currently offers over 150,000 jobs and nearly $22.5 billion total economic activity,
compared to Scenario 1, “Baseline” and $31 billion added annual benefit over 2018 conditions.
In addition to the direct benefits, Scenario 3 would allow residents and businesses to access commercial
passenger and air cargo services to meet their future needs and allow the region to remain competitive.
15 Note that the 4,300-foot runway separation is based on standard FAA design criteria and subject to change due to site
characteristics.
44 FINAL
Final Report
On the other hand, there would be more noise impacts and greenhouse gas emissions than the other
scenarios because aircraft operations and local vehicle trips would increase to meet demand.
6.3.1 Scenario 3-1: One Airport Meeting 100% of 2050 Regional Demand
Theoretically, a single airport in the region could accommodate 100% of the 2050 gap with three
sufficiently spaced, 7,000- to 9,000-foot parallel runways (for 450,000 annual aircraft operations).
The future gap is similar to Sea-Tac’s current operations, in which the airport is operating three parallel
runways. John F. Kennedy International Airport and San Francisco International Airport both operate with
two dual parallel runways, and in 2018 both handled over 450,000 operations; however, both airports are
constrained and are operating at maximum capacity. Airports like George Bush Intercontinental/Houston
and Charlotte International Airports (with triple, widely spaced parallel runways) would be the most
efficient airfield layout.
Scenario 3-1 would limit the noise and environmental impacts associated with expanded operations to one
additional airport in the region and the associated community(s), and only one airport would require
resources to handle the future gap (including parking, road infrastructure, landside support facilities,
terminal infrastructure, etc.). However, this scenario would concentrate noise impacts into a smaller
geographic area versus spread over multiple areas, as in the multi-airport scenarios.
The approximate number of operations that a single, triple-parallel runway airfield with a separation of
4,300 feet or greater could accommodate is over 500,000 aircraft operations, based on the FAA AC
150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay, more than the estimated 450,000 aircraft operations gap in 2050.
6.3.2 Scenario 3-2: Multiple Airports Meeting 100% of Regional 2050 Demand
As stated in Scenario 3-1, three runways should be planned for to accommodate the 450,000 annual aircraft
operations in 2050. Two airports in the region could accommodate 100% of the future gap, if at least one
of the airports has parallel runways spaced at least 4,300 feet apart. Otherwise, three airports with a single
runway would be necessary. The ability to meet the demand would also depend on the existing number of
operations occurring at the airport and the ability of the surrounding airspace to accommodate this
increase activity.
6.4 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF MEETING DEMAND
This Baseline Study evaluated several scenarios as to how the region could address accommodating the
projected 2050 demand for passengers and cargo. Due to scope limitations discussed in Chapter 1,
Introduction, this study cannot provide a detailed economic or environmental evaluation of the various
scenarios. Chapter 9, Related Studies, summarizes several related studies with bearing on these and other
relevant aviation impacts. This chapter provides a regional overview of the some of the major potential
impacts of these scenarios. Table 6-2 presents a summary of the four scenarios.
FINAL 45
Final Report
Table 6-2. Projected Demand Accommodating Scenarios

RESULTING
ANNUAL ESTIMATED
SCENARIOS FOR YEAR 2050 2050 PASSENGER PASSENGER ANNUAL ADDED
PASSENGER ENPLANEMENT DEMAND/ ENPLANEMENT ECONOMIC ESTIMATED ADDED
DEMAND (55M) CAPACITY MET GAP ACTIVITY JOBS TO THE REGION
Scenario 1: Baseline, Meet 50% 28,000,000 to 27,000,000 to ~$4 billion to ~27,000 to 61,000
to 60% of 2050 Demand 33,000,000 22,000,000 $9 billion
Scenario 2: Meet 80% of 2050 44,000,000 11,000,000 ~$20 billion ~135,000
Demand
Scenario 3: Accommodate 55,000,000 0 $31 billion 209,000
100% of 2050 Demand
Note: The 2020 WSDOT Airport Economic Impact Study estimated Sea-Tac to contribute 151,400 jobs, $7 billion in labor income,
and $22.5 billion in business revenues.
Achieving these levels of passenger demand would be challenging and require significant funding, so the
converse should also be considered. Scenario 1, Baseline, which accommodates 28 million to 33 million
enplaned passengers by 2050, would result in a lost economic opportunity of approximately $22 billion in
annual business revenues and approximately 150,000 jobs. So, if the region cannot or chooses not to
accommodate all or half of the projected 55 million enplanement demand, the potential economic impact
and jobs will be affected accordingly as shows in Table 6-2.
Table 6-3 summarizes “Pros and Cons” of these demand scenarios from a very high level. If 100% of the
demand could be accommodated—basically doubling what Sea-Tac could achieve with its Near-Term
Projects—both the economic and the environmental impacts could double, based on aircraft operations,
vehicles traveling to airports, etc., doubling as well. This is a conservative estimate, assuming the worst
case, that aircraft engines would not be improved (no reduction in noise, no improvement in fuel efficiency
or new non-hydrocarbon fuels) and there would be no “cleaner” way to transport passengers to the
airports.
As shown in Table 6-3, the scenarios have trade-offs. Scenarios that would increase economic impact and
jobs would also increase noise and carbon dioxide emissions. Conversely, limiting noise and carbon dioxide
emissions at airports by not accommodating passenger demand would directly affect the economy and
jobs, and passenger access would increase beyond a 60-minute drive time. In addition to the direct
economic impact of not meeting forecast demand, businesses and passengers would not be able to access
the level of air service that they need (as discussed in Chapter 2).
46 FINAL
Final Report
Table 6-3. Scenario Pros and Cons Compared to Existing Conditions and Other Scenarios
SCENARIOS FOR YEAR 2050
PASSENGER ENPLANEMENT
DEMAND (55 MILLION) PROS CONS
Scenario 1: Baseline,  The lowest (5% to 24%) increase in  The lowest increase in airport
Meets 50% to 60% of activity related to potential 2050-level economic impact ($4 billion to
2050 Demand noise and aircraft carbon impacts, single- $9 billion and 27,000 to
occupancy vehicle trips to airports.(1) 61,000 jobs) by 2050.
 Reduces business and
consumer choices compared
to other scenarios.
Scenario 2: Meet 80% of  Generally, increases potential 2050-level  Generally, increases potential
2050 Demand noise and aircraft air quality and carbon 2050 airport economic impact
impacts, single-occupancy vehicle trips to ($20 billion and 135,000 jobs)
airports by ~65% compared to today.(2) compared to today.
 Increases business and consumer choices
compared to Baseline.
Scenario 3: Accommodate  Increases 2020 potential airport  Generally, increases potential
100% of 2050 Demand economic impact ($31 billion and 209,000 2020-level noise and aircraft
jobs) over current conditions.(3) air quality and carbon impacts
 Provides the most business and consumer and single-occupancy vehicle
choices compared to other scenarios. trips to airports by ~106%.(4)
(1) Assumes worst-case no improvements in current aircraft/engine efficiency, noise emissions and fuel types.
(2) Assumes percentage of demand increase roughly relates to the percentage increase/decrease of impacts and benefits.
(3) Assumes doubling of existing airport passengers is related to doubling the 2019 economic impact in dollar output and job
creation.
(4) Assumes doubling the existing airport passengers in the future would double the noise and carbon impacts.
6.5 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Expanding existing airports or building a “greenfield” airport to accommodate future commercial service
operations involves many steps to obtain FAA approval and funding consideration.
6.5.1 Existing Airport Expansion
For existing airports that want to expand their role from serving general aviation to include commercial
service operations, the following steps (and estimated timelines) outline the major items to accomplish
this:
• Statewide Airport System Plan (WSDOT) is updated and recommends change in role. (~2 years)
• An Airport Master Plan would be conducted and its Airport Layout Plan would require approval by FAA
and WSDOT, including commitment by at least one airline that would serve the airport(s). Airline
aircraft types and destinations would justify the runway length that could be built initially and how
many gates terminal would require, etc. (~2 years)
FINAL 47
Final Report
• FAA would determine the appropriate level of National Environmental Policy Act review required for
expanding an airport, which could be either an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement. At the end of the National Environmental Policy Act process, the FAA would issue a final
decision (a Finding of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision). (~2 to 4 years, assuming no
litigation)
• FAA Benefit-Cost Analysis may be required since millions of federal dollars would be needed to fund
the necessary airport capital improvements, but only those eligible for FAA funding (runway, taxiway
and aprons, but not non-revenue-producing projects, like vehicle parking and exclusive-use terminal
functions). (~1 year)
• Federal and state funding grants, financing, engineering, land acquisition, construction, commissioning,
etc. (10+ years)
6.5.2 Establishing a New Airport
Generally, the search for a new airport site is started if it is determined that existing airport(s) cannot be
expanded to meet the long-term future demand. In the United States, the cost of constructing a new airport
is generally prohibitive without FAA funding participation, and it is extremely rare for commercial service
airports to be built without FAA funding assistance. Because federal funding will be needed, the focus is on
describing the FAA’s process for establishing the need for a new airport, selecting a site, and implementing
a new airport. The general steps that apply to developing new airport projects with FAA funding assistance
follow:
• Airport Master Planning (~2 years)

• Site Selection Study (~2 to 3 years)
• Airline Support (variable)
• Detailed Site Planning and Feasibility (~2 to 3 years)
• Environmental Review (EIS 2 to 4 years, assuming no litigation)
• Benefit-Cost Analysis (~1 year)
• Land Acquisition (variable)
• Environmental/Construction Permitting (variable)
• Engineering Design (~2 years)
• Construction (~5 years)
Appendix E of Working Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of Scenarios” provides more details on each
of these steps for constructing a new airport in the United States.
The next chapter reviews existing airports in the study area for the ability to fill the gap. Airports are
screened for their potential to fulfill this role by meeting criteria that include potential runway length, space
for terminals, multimodal access, and airspace constraints, among other factors.
48 FINAL
Final Report
7. Evaluation of Airports for Scenarios
7.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The study team evaluated each of the 28 airports in the study area for the potential to accommodate the
future aviation demand and then rated with a simple color by each criterion. Each criterion has a green,
yellow, or red rating to indicate the ability of an airport to meet the specified criterion with green meeting
the criterion, yellow potentially meeting it with difficulty, and red not meeting it. For critical criteria, a red
rating excludes the airport from further analysis as noted under the rating definitions for the vital criteria.
This chapter outlines the criteria by which the airports in the study airport were evaluated. Working
Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of Scenarios” presents the evaluation and results details.
7.1.1 Ability to Accommodate Single or Parallel Runways (7,000 or 9,000 feet)
To accommodate the significant amount of commercial passenger service identified previously, a minimum
runway length of 7,000 feet would be needed, which would allow for regional service along the West Coast
and the Midwest. A 9,000-foot runway would be ideal and would allow for increased range of service,
including the East Coast and Hawaii. Additionally, an airport that has or could accommodate a parallel
runway would increase the number of aircraft operations than a single airport could handle, therefore
reducing the number or airports needed to meet the future gap.
The study team also considered the potential to accommodate commercial service and domestic (or
narrow-body) belly cargo needs. For an airport to accommodate commercial service, space would be
needed for the operations, which would include belly cargo, aircraft catering trucks, terminal, etc. The study
also analyzed other airports, with annual enplanements comparable to the future gap, to determine the
potential amount of space needed for an airport to have commercial service operations.
Figure 7-1 depicts the idealized airport layouts to meet the 2050 gap with one or multiple airports,
depending on how many runways could be built at the airport site.
Figure 7-1. Ideal Airport Layouts
2,000 Acres
FINAL 49
Final Report
These layouts were then used to analyze the area surrounding the study area airports to determine
whether sufficient space exists to accommodate commercial service and cargo needs with limited impacts
to existing developed areas.
7.1.2 Existing Airspace Constraints or Conflicts
The study team evaluated each of the potential airport sites with respect to potential airspace constraints
that could impede the full use of runways and the ability to operate efficiently at the maximum level of
aircraft operations. The evaluated time period was assumed to be post 2035 where advancement in
technology could improve operational constraints; however, these potential improvements were not
considered in the analysis at this time.
7.1.3 Impact to Sea-Tac Aircraft Operations
The impact to flight operations at a potential airport at the upper levels of capacity was also reviewed with
respect to its impact to operations at Sea-Tac. It was considered a negative if an airport’s future flight
operations affected the operational efficiency of Sea-Tac.
7.1.4 Flood Zone Hazard
If an airport is in an area that is prone to flooding, expansion potential of the airport is limited because
commercial service operations would likely be affected during significant rain events. The regional airports
on current Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone maps were evaluated if they were within
the 100-year flood zone or flood zone hazard area.
7.1.5 Current and Future Roadway and Transit Access
The characteristics of each airport’s multimodal access influence each scenario even as planning for
multimodal access is a derivative of scenario outcomes. Each airport was previously assessed 16 based on
the benchmarks, including proximity of an interstate highway or state highways (using 5 miles as a
criterion), direct access to a four-lane arterial road or highway, and access to high-capacity transit (HCT). In
addition, the airports were evaluated for potential improvements to access where access is not available.
Several factors and data sources were considered when assessing each airport:
• Roadway improvement feasibility (e.g., improving a state highway to a limited-access freeway that
could be designated as an interstate)
• Availability of developable land

• Need or demand for transit expansion
• Existing highway and transit planning by federal, state, and local agencies
16 In Working Paper 2, “Airport Needs Analysis”
50 FINAL
Final Report
Each airport was assigned a rating for its current or potential access.
7.1.6 Incompatible Land Use within A mile of Runway Ends
Assuming a 7,000-foot or 9,000-foot runway(s), the area 1 mile from each existing runway end was
evaluated for incompatible land use, which according to the FAA consists of residential areas, schools, and
churches that are sensitive to high levels of aircraft noise. Compatible land uses around airport consist of
industrial and commercial development.
7.1.7 Ability to Accommodate Additional Aircraft Operations
As aviation demands grow, the ability for an airport to accommodate increase aircraft operations will be
required to allow growth of commercial service and cargo operations. Because existing airports are being
evaluated, the current operations at the airport considered to determine if the airport would have the
ability to handle the full projected gap between future demand and capacity in regional aircraft operations.
7.1.8 Impact to Aerospace Manufacturing
Because aerospace manufacturing is a significant industry and prevalent at several airports in the central
Puget Sound region, there is a desire to limit impacts to existing or planned expansion for aerospace
manufacturing at airports in the region.
7.1.9 Population and Employment within 60-Minute Drive Time
The study team analyzed each airport for drive-time coverage of population and employment based on
2050 congestion projections. Each airport was combined individually with Sea-Tac and Paine Field to
determine the ability of the multi-airport system to meet the original benchmarks for 80% of the population
and 90% of employment to be within a 60-minute drive time to a commercial service airport.
7.1.10 Airport Ownership
Ownership of an airport is important because ownership determines available funding sources for capital
improvements, maintenance, and operation. A privately owned airport could be open for public use;
however, it is generally funded and maintained by its private owners since there is no guarantee that
federal investment would be repaid if the sponsor becomes insolvent. A public airport is open to the public
and owned by public entities (generally a city, county, state or authority). A publicly owned airport is eligible
for, and ranks higher for, FAA Airport Improvement Program funding that provides grants to airports for
planning, development, and noise compatibility mitigation. A military airport, while owned by a public
entity, differs in that it is owned by the federal government, in particular the U.S. Department of Defense.
It is not open to the public, unless it is designated as a joint civilian/military airport. Changing existing
military airfields to public use requires an act of Congress and/or agreement by the U.S. Department of
Defense, which can be very difficult and time consuming.
FINAL 51
Final Report
7.2 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF REMAINING AIRPORTS
Most of the airports were eliminated for failure to meet one or more of several evaluation criteria described
in the previous sections. Working Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of Scenarios,” Chapter 4, Airport
Evaluation analyzed the remaining five airports—Arlington, Bremerton, Paine Field, McChord, and Tacoma
Narrows—based on the remaining criteria to determine the feasibility of the airport to accommodate the
future 2050 demand of the region.
7.2.1 Arlington Municipal Airport
7.2.1.1 Airport Layout Analysis

Arlington Municipal Airport is a publicly owned airport in northeastern Snohomish County. Arlington
Municipal Airport has two existing runways that are 3,498 feet and 5,332 feet in length. Based on visual
analysis, there is potential space for expansion to single or parallel 9,000-foot runways. The area needed
to accommodate commercial service operations was determined based on analysis of commercial service
airport size at airports with similar operations to the future forecast gap. Within this area, there is sufficient
space to accommodate two 9,000-foot parallel runways, which would allow for transcontinental and Hawaii
air service. There would be an impact to surrounding developed areas in order to accommodate parallel
runways; however, it does not appear to be significant. Land use within 1 mile from the runway end was
evaluated for incompatible off-airport land uses. One church is east of the airfield, along with residential
areas, which are considered an incompatible land use. Based on the current Airport Layout Plans, the
airport could accommodate an additional 92,000 operations. Figure 7-2 depicts Arlington Municipal
Airport’s general ability to accommodate the idealized parallel runway system necessary to meet a portion
of the 2050 commercial service demand.
Table 7-1 summarizes the Arlington Municipal Airport’s evaluation.
Table 7-1. Arlington Municipal Airport Evaluation

7,000- 9,000- OFF- COMMERCIAL IMPACT TO
FOOT FOOT PARALLEL AIRPORT SERVICE AND ADDITIONAL AEROSPACE
AIRPORT RUNWAY RUNWAY RUNWAYS LAND USE CARGO NEEDS OPERATIONS MANUFACTURING
Arlington
Green Green Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Green
Municipal
52 FINAL
Final Report
Figure 7-2. Arlington Municipal Airport Existing and Potential Commercial Service Layout
Existing Airport Potential Commercial Service Airport
Potential Commercial Service Airport
FINAL 53
Final Report
7.2.1.2 Population and Employment within a 60-minute Drive Time

The population and employment within a 60-minute drive time was analyzed to determine the amount of
coverage an additional airport would add in the future based on future congestion highway data, as
depicted in Figure 7-3. Combined with Sea-Tac and Paine Field, the population coverage is 71%, an increase
of only 1% from just Sea-Tac and Paine Field combined, and the employment coverage is 80%, which is no
additional coverage from just Sea-Tac and Paine Field combined. The airport does not meet the benchmarks
(80% for population and 90% for employment) for either criteria. Table 7-2 summarizes the airport’s drive-
time evaluation
Table 7-2. Arlington Municipal Airport Population and Employment Drive-Time Coverage
POPULATION WITHIN EMPLOYMENT WITHIN
60-MINUTE DRIVE POPULATION NET 60-MINUTE DRIVE EMPLOYMENT NET
AIRPORT NAME TIME* BENEFIT TIME BENEFIT
Arlington Municipal 71% 1% 80% 0%
*Includes Sea-Tac and Paine Field
Figure 7-3. Arlington Municipal Airport Existing and Future 60-Minute Drive-Time Coverage
7.2.1.3 Current and Future Roadway and Transit Access

The Arlington Municipal Airport benefits from close proximity and straightforward access to both the
interstate and state highway systems. The airport is just 2 miles east of Interstate 5 (I-5), which is directly
accessible from the airport via SR 531.
54 FINAL
Final Report
While the airport does not benefit from direct access to a 4-lane arterial road or highway, WSDOT has plans
to widen SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE. This project is in the preliminary design
and environmental review phases, with construction expected to take place in 2023 and 2024. In addition,
59th Avenue NE could be widened to the east of the airport, because the airport owns the land on the west
side of the road. This would require significant redevelopment of airport property, however, making it less
feasible. The widening of SR 531 will provide the airport tenants and users with four-lane arterial access.
There is no HCT service to Arlington Municipal Airport. Community Transit Routes 220 (Arlington to Smokey
Point) and 230 (Darrington to Smokey Point) both stop at the northwest corner of the airport property in
the 4700 block of 188th St NE. Hourly headway routes operate seven days a week. The nearest transit
facility is Smokey Point Transit Center, approximately 1.3 miles away. The airport is not in the vicinity of
planned expansion of SWIFT services (Community Transit’s Bus Rapid Transit system), but there is potential
to add a route providing service between the Smokey Point Transit Center, the airport, and downtown
Arlington via SR 531 and 67th Avenue. Table 7-3 summarizes the airport’s future transit and roadway access
evaluation.
Table 7-3. Arlington Municipal Airport Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access
4-LANE ARTERIAL
AIRPORT INTERSTATE ACCESS STATE HW ACCESS STATUS HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
NAME Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential
Access for Access Access for Access Access for Access Access for Access
Arlington
Yes Green Yes Green No Green No Yellow
Municipal
7.2.1.4 Airspace Analysis

Arlington Municipal Airport is 43 nautical miles north of Sea-Tac and 16 nautical miles north of Paine Field.
The airport is north of the primary arrival and departure paths for Sea-Tac and one of Arlington Municipal
Airport’s existing runways is parallel to Sea-Tac and Paine Field. The development of this airport is not
anticipated to be constrained by the existing airspace, with the greatest issue being the proximity to Paine
Field and Whidbey Island military operations. Development of a commercial airport at this site is not
anticipated to have significant constraints on the operation of Sea-Tac. Table 7-4 summarizes the airspace
ratings. Working Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of Scenarios” Appendix C, Airspace Analysis,
presents the location of Arlington Municipal Airport with respect to Sea-Tac, Paine Field, and the other
potential airport sites.
Table 7-4. Arlington Municipal Airport Airspace Analysis

AIRPORT NAME EXISTING AIRSPACE CONSTRAINTS OR CONFLICTS? IMPACT TO SEA-TAC AIRSPACE OPERATIONS
Arlington Municipal Green Green
FINAL 55
Final Report
7.2.2 Bremerton National Airport

Bremerton National Airport is a publicly owned airport across Puget Sound from Seattle in Kitsap County.
It has one existing runway that is 6,000 feet in length. Based on visual analysis, there is potential space to
expand to single or parallel 9,000-foot runways. The area needed to accommodate commercial service
operations was determined based on analysis of commercial service airport size at airports with similar
operations to the future forecast gap. Within this area, there appears to be sufficient space to
accommodate two 9,000-foot parallel runways, which would allow for transcontinental and Hawaii air
service. Table 7-5 summarizes the airfield evaluation.
Table 7-5. Bremerton National Airport Airfield Evaluation

Bremerton
Green Green Green Green Green Yellow Green
National
There would be some impacts to surrounding developed areas in order to accommodate parallel runways.
Land use within 1 mile from the runway ends was evaluated to determine any potential incompatible off-
airport land uses. There are no incompatible land uses based on visual analysis. Based on 66,000 operations
and an airfield capacity of 230,000 operations in 2017, the airport has an additional 164,000 operations
capacity. Figure 7-4 depicts the airport’s general ability to accommodate the idealized parallel runway
system necessary to meet a portion of the 2050 commercial service demand.
56 FINAL
Final Report
Figure 7-4. Bremerton National Airport Existing and Potential Commercial Service Layout
Potential Commercial Service Airport Potential Commercial Service Airport
Existing Airport

coverage an additional airport would add in the future based on future congestion data. Table 7-6
summarizes Bremerton National Airport’s drive-time evaluation. Combined with Sea-Tac and Paine Field,
the population coverage is 84% and the employment coverage is 92%, with both criteria exceeding the
respective benchmarks of 80% for population and 90% for employment, as depicted in Figure 7-5.
Table 7-6. Bremerton National Airport Population and Employment Drive-Time Coverage
Bremerton National Green (84%) Green (14%) Green (92%) Green (12%)
*Includes Sea-Tac and Paine Field Airports
FINAL 57
Final Report
Figure 7-5. Bremerton National Airport Current and Future 60-Minute Drive-Time Coverage

Bremerton National Airport is on the Kitsap Peninsula, which is west of Seattle, across the Puget Sound and
located in Kitsap County, WA, which is the least populated county in the study area. The airport is adjacent
to SR 3, a designated National Highway System link with access control to adjacent property. Access to I-5
is 30 miles from the airport via SR 3 and SR 16, a limited-access facility described above. The designation of
SR 16 between Gorst and Tacoma as an interstate is unlikely but feasible. SR 16 access is more than 5 miles
from the Bremerton National Airport. WSDOT does not plan to upgrade SR 16 in the vicinity of the SR 3
access and there are presently no plans to provide a new limited-access highway in the vicinity of
Bremerton National Airport.
Bremerton National Airport has excellent, direct access to the state highway network via SR 3, which runs
nearly parallel to the runway just north of the airport. Bremerton National Airport lacks direct access to a
four-lane arterial road. Despite growing traffic volumes on SR 3 (and despite its designation as an National
Highway System facility), WSDOT has no plans to widen SR 3 at this time. Kitsap County has plans to
construct a new 4-lane arterial in the vicinity of the airport.
Bremerton National Airport is not served by HCT. The airport is in the Kitsap Transit SK Ride service area,
which includes McCormick Woods, Sunnyslope, Olympic View Industrial Park, The Ridge, and McCormick
Meadows. SK Ride is a shared-ride service operating within the service area by rider request only. There
are no designated stops or routing. A proposed regional route along SR 3 is shown on the Kitsap Transit
58 FINAL
Final Report
long-range vision map. This route would connect Bremerton to the Puget Sound Industrial Park. The route
could be implemented as or upgraded to HCT service levels.
In some cases, the lack of a nearby motorway (typically a freeway) designated as an interstate does not
mean that there is no nearby access to a limited-access multilane divided highway with no at-grade
intersections. Furthermore, SR 16 connects directly to I-5 in Tacoma and provides a motorway corridor to
Bremerton, where access is available to nearby U. S. Navy facilities. Interstate access does not exist within
5 miles, but a motorway designated through the National Highway System meets the access criterion, an
asterisk is provided in Table 7-7.
Table 7-7. Bremerton National Airport Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access
INTERSTATE ACCESS STATE HW ACCESS 4-LANE ARTERIAL STATUS HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
AIRPORT
Current Potential for Current Potential for Current Potential for Current Potential for
NAME
Access Access Access Access Access Access Access Access
Bremerton
No Red* Yes Green No Yellow No Yellow
National
* Interstate access does not exist within 5 miles, but a motorway designated through the National Highway System provides
access.

Bremerton National Airport is 19 nautical miles west of Sea-Tac. The airport is west of the primary arrival
and departure paths for Sea-Tac. The runway is not parallel to Sea-Tac, with approximately a 33-degree
angle to the west in south flow. The development of this airport may be challenged or constrained by the
existing airspace, with the greatest issue being the proximity to Sea-Tac traffic over the busy flight area of
the sound when operating in south flow and the closer proximity to military operations. Development of a
commercial airport at this site is not anticipated to have significant constraints on the operation of Sea-Tac
with the biggest challenge from activity over the sound to the north. Modern navigation technology may
be able to minimize conflicts between the two airports in the future. Table 7-8 summarizes the airspace
ratings. Working Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of Scenarios,” Appendix C, Airspace Analysis,
presents the location of Bremerton National Airport with respect to Sea-Tac, Paine Field, and the other
potential airport sites. The Seattle Terminal Area and location of the restricted airspace is also shown in
this appendix.
Table 7-8. Bremerton National Airport Airspace Analysis

Bremerton National Green Yellow
FINAL 59
Final Report
7.2.3 Paine Field

Paine Field is a publicly owned airport in Snohomish County north of Seattle. It has three existing runways
that are 3,004; 4,504; and 9,010 feet in length. The parallels are depicted as red (Figure 7-6). Extending the
3,004-foot parallel runway to a 9,000-foot runway (blue) would affect the Boeing manufacturing facilities
to the north and developed areas to the south. There is a 9,000-foot runway, but further expansion is not
feasible due to the impact to Boeing manufacturing operations and dense development surrounding the
airport. Table 7-9 summarizes the airfield evaluation.
Table 7-9. Paine Field Airfield Evaluation

Paine Field Green Green Red Red Green Yellow Red
Land use within 1 mile from the runway ends was evaluated to determine potential incompatible off-airport
land uses. Currently, there are multiple churches, a school, and residential areas within a mile of the runway
ends, which are considered incompatible land uses. Figure 7-6 depicts the airport’s general ability to
accommodate the idealized parallel runway system necessary to meet a portion of the 2050 commercial
service demand.
60 FINAL
Final Report
Figure 7-6. Paine Field Existing and Potential Commercial Service Layout
Existing Airport Potential

Commercial
Service Airport

coverage an additional airport would add in the future based on future congestion data. Combined with
Sea-Tac, Paine Field provides a population coverage of 70% and an employment coverage of 80%. Neither
criteria meets the respective benchmarks of 80% for population and 90% for employment, as summarized
in Table 7-10.
Table 7-10. Paine Field Population and Employment Drive-Time Coverage

Paine Field Red (70%) Red (0%) Red (80%) Red (0%)
*Includes Sea-Tac

Paine Field is already very accessible via interstate highways, state highways, four-lane arterial roadways,
and HCT. The airport is accessible from I-5 via SR 526 (itself a limited-access, four-lane highway) and via the
FINAL 61
Final Report
four-lane Airport Road. As it loops around the airport, SR 526 becomes SR 525, which is not limited access
but maintains four lanes and eventually connects directly with I-405 at I-5. The airport is also close to the
four-lane SR 99, which intersects with Airport Road. HCT serves Paine Field by Community Transit’s SWIFT
Green Line (Table 7-11). However, the access road to the current passenger terminal is limited with little
opportunity to expand without impacts existing aviation development.
Table 7-11. Paine Field Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access
AIRPORT
NAME
Paine Field Yes Green Yes Green Yes Green Yes Green

Paine Field is 27 nautical miles north of Sea-Tac. The airport is north of the primary arrival and departure
paths for Sea-Tac. The existing runways are near parallel to Sea-Tac. The development of this airport is not
anticipated to be constrained by the existing airspace, with the greatest issues occurring in weather
conditions where the two airports are in opposite flow. Developing a commercial airport at this site is not
anticipated to have significant constraints on Sea-Tac operations. Table 7-12 summarizes the airspace
ratings. Working Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of Scenarios,” Appendix C, Airspace Analysis,
presents the location of Paine Field, with respect to Sea-Tac and the other potential airport sites. The
Seattle Terminal Area and location of the restricted airspace is also shown in this appendix.
Table 7-12. Paine Field Airspace Analysis

Paine Field Green Green
62 FINAL
Final Report
7.2.4 Tacoma Narrows Airport

Tacoma Narrows Airport is a publicly owned airport located across the Tacoma Narrows Bridge from
Tacoma and is surrounded by water on three sides. The airport has one existing runway that is 5,002 feet.
Based on visual analysis, there is potential space for expansion to single or parallel 9,000-foot runways. It
is potentially limited due to surrounding water. The area needed to accommodate commercial service
operations was determined based on analysis of commercial service airport size at airports with similar
operations to the future forecast gap. Table 7-13 summarizes the airfield evaluation.
Table 7-13. Tacoma Narrows Airport Airfield Evaluation

Tacoma
Green Green Yellow Green Green Yellow Green
Narrows
With some impact to surrounding development, the airport could accommodate a single or parallel 9,000-
foot runways within the area needed for commercial service operations. Land use within 1 mile from the
runway ends was evaluated to determine potential incompatible off-airport land uses. Currently, there are
no incompatible land uses. Figure 7-7 depicts the airport’s general ability to accommodate the idealized
parallel runway system necessary to meet a portion of the 2050 commercial service demand.
FINAL 63
Final Report
Figure 7-7. Tacoma Narrows Airport Existing and Potential Commercial Service Layout
Existing Airport

coverage an additional airport would add in the future based on future congestion data. Combined with
Sea-Tac and Paine Field, the population coverage is 92% (an increase of 22% from Sea-Tac and Paine Field
alone) and the employment coverage is 95% (an increase of 15% from Sea-Tac and Paine Field), as
summarized in Table 7-14. Both criteria exceed the respective benchmarks of 80% for population and 90%
for employment, as depicted in Figure 7-8.
Table 7-14. Tacoma Narrows Airport Population and Employment Drive-Time Coverage
POPULATION WITHIN 60- POPULATION NET EMPLOYMENT WITHIN EMPLOYMENT NET
AIRPORT NAME MINUTE DRIVE TIME* BENEFIT 60-MINUTE DRIVE TIME BENEFIT
Tacoma Narrows Green (92%) Green (22%) Green (85%) Green (15%)
*Includes Sea-Tac and Paine Field
64 FINAL
Final Report
Figure 7-8. Tacoma Narrows Airport Current and Future 60-Minute Drive-Time Coverage

The airport does not have interstate highway access within 5 miles. The closest interstate is I-5, just 7 miles
to the southeast via the limited-access SR 16, which includes the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. This nearby
connection to I-5 makes SR 16 the best candidate for providing interstate access to the airport. However,
it is likely not infeasible to upgrade highway to an interstate due to its prominence in connecting Tacoma
and Bremerton. Medium to highly dense residential development in the airport's vicinity, in addition to
various water bodies, makes the construction of new interstate highways very unlikely. Furthermore, U.S.
Department of Transportation has no plans to construct an interstate highway in the vicinity of the airport.
The airport also has excellent access from the state highway network on SR 16, which is a limited-access
route from I-5 in Tacoma to Gorst farther north, a span of approximately 30 miles.
Despite excellent access from a limited-access highway, the airport lacks direct access from a four-lane
arterial road. Widening 26th Avenue NW to four lanes is feasible due to the potential availability of airport
property to the west and undeveloped land to the east. Another potential candidate is Stone Drive NW,
which runs along the northern edge of the airport. However, part of this road already runs through a tunnel
underneath the threshold of Runway 17, drastically increasing the cost of the widening. Pierce County does
not have plans to construct a four -lane arterial in the vicinity of the airport.
FINAL 65
Final Report
HCT does not serve the airport. Pierce Transit Routes 100 (Gig Harbor) and 102 (Gig Harbor-Tacoma
Express) and Sound Transit Express Bus Route 595 (Gig Harbor-Seattle) are accessible within a mile of the
airport. The Pierce Transit routes operate on hourly headways seven days a week. The Sound Transit
Express Route operates northbound trips in the morning peak and southbound trips in the afternoon peak.
Multiple park-and-ride lots are nearby that are served by the existing routes. It would be possible to modify
one or more of the existing routes to serve the airport with HCT.
In some cases, the lack of a nearby motorway (typically a freeway) designated as an interstate does not
mean that there is no nearby access to a limited-access multilane divided highway with no at-grade
intersections. In the case of Tacoma Narrows Airport, for example, SR 16 is a fully access-controlled
multilane divided highway that serves a network function identical to that of an interstate. In cases where
interstate access does not exist within 5 miles but a motorway designated through the National Highway
System meets the access criterion, an asterisk is provided in Table 7-15.
Table 7-15. Tacoma Narrows Airport Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access
AIRPORT
NAME
Tacoma
No Yellow* Yes Green No Yellow No Green
Narrows
*Interstate access does not exist within 5 miles, but a motorway designated through the National Highway System meets the
locality criteria.

Tacoma Narrows Airport is 15 nautical miles southwest of Sea-Tac. The airport is under the primary west
side arrival and departure paths for Sea-Tac. The existing runway is near parallel to Sea-Tac. The runway is
oriented 7 degrees to the west from Sea-Tac, when operating in south flow. Traffic from Sea-Tac and KCIA
to the north, military restricted use to the south, McChord Airfield military traffic to the south, and a military
route in the area to the west create conflicts due to the large volume of aircraft in a relatively small area of
the airspace. Development of a commercial airport at this site is anticipated to have moderate constraints
on the operation of Sea-Tac with the biggest challenge being from the large volume of traffic from multiple
airports. Modern navigation technology could minimize conflicts between the two airports in the future.
Table 7-16 summarizes the airspace ratings. Working Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of Scenarios,”
Appendix C, Airspace Analysis, presents the location of Tacoma Narrows Airport, with respect to Sea-Tac,
Paine Field, and the other potential airport sites. The Seattle Terminal Area and location of the restricted
airspace is also shown in this appendix.
Table 7-16. Tacoma Narrows Airport Airspace Analysis

Tacoma Narrows Yellow Green
66 FINAL
Final Report
7.2.5 McChord Field Airport

McChord Field, part of McChord Air Force Base (AFB), is a military airfield south of Tacoma in Pierce County.
It has one existing runway that is 10,108 feet. Due to the military development surrounding the runway,
there is insufficient space to add an adequately spaced parallel runway. The area needed to accommodate
commercial service operations was determined based on analysis of commercial service airport size at
airports with similar operations to the future forecasted gap. Table 7-17 summarizes the airfield evaluation.
Table 7-17. McChord Airfield Evaluation

McChord
Green Green Red Green Green Yellow Green
Field
With some impact to surrounding development, the airport could accommodate a single 9,000-foot
runways within the area for commercial service operations. Land use within one mile from the runway ends
was evaluated to determine potential incompatible off-airport land uses. Currently, there are no
incompatible land uses. Figure 7-9 depicts the airport’s general ability to accommodate the idealized
parallel runway system necessary to meet a portion of the 2050 commercial service demand.
FINAL 67
Final Report
Figure 7-9. McChord Airfield Existing and Potential Layout
Existing Airport Potential Layout

Combined with Sea-Tac and Paine Field, the population coverage is 90%, an increase of 20% from Sea-Tac
and Paine Field alone, and the employment coverage is 93%, which is an increase of 13% from Sea-Tac and
Paine Field. Both criteria meet the respective benchmarks of 80% for population and 90% for employment.
Table 7-18. McChord Field Population and Employment Drive Time Coverage
McChord Field Green (90%) Green (20%) Green (93%) Green (13%)
*Includes Sea-Tac and Paine Field Airports
68 FINAL
Final Report
Figure 7-10. McChord Airfield Current and Future 60-Minute Drive-Time Coverage

While the proximity of the airport to both the interstate and state highway networks is excellent, low-
capacity, low-speed streets inhibit efficient access to the field, which is wholly contained within the
boundary of Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) and approximately 1 mile from the northwestern boundary
of the base. Additionally, access to JBLM is controlled by the U.S. government and flight operations at the
airfield require the permission of the U.S. Air Force. Direct arterial access to I-5 is provided within 2 miles
of the airport’s western gates.
The portion of the base from which the airport is directly accessible is served by a four-lane arterial road,
Bridgeport Way SW, which is designated as Col. Jackson Boulevard within JBLM. To the north, 112th Street
S features a center turn lane in most sections and further capacity enhancements are highly feasible. The
northeast corner of the base is adjacent to S Steele Street (a four-lane undivided arterial) and SR 512, a
regional freeway designated as part of the NHS. However, base access is not currently provided to either
of these two facilities. Were a commercial terminal built to the east of the airport, the four-lane section of
Steele Street could be extended to the south to serve new terminal.
HCT does not serve McChord Field. The configuration of the roadways on the AFB makes the direct
provision of transit services difficult without redevelopment. Access could be provided via Pacific Highway
S and S Tacoma Way or SR 512 and S Steele Street. Pierce Transit is planning a bus rapid transit corridor
along Pacific Avenue (SR 7) between downtown Tacoma and Spanaway. This corridor is approximately
FINAL 69
Final Report
2.8 miles east of the airport. It is unlikely this planned corridor would be extended to McChord Field due to
the lack of ridership and the impracticality of providing access to trip generators on the base from the east
side of the airfield.
Table 7-19. McChord Field Current and Future Transit and Roadway Access
AIRPORT
CURRENT POTENTIAL CURRENT POTENTIAL CURRENT POTENTIAL CURRENT POTENTIAL
NAME
ACCESS FOR ACCESS ACCESS FOR ACCESS ACCESS FOR ACCESS ACCESS FOR ACCESS
McChord
Yes Green Yes Green Yes Green No Yellow
Field

McCord Field is 19 nautical miles south-southwest of Sea-Tac. The airport is south of the primary arrival
and departure paths for Sea-Tac or where these aircraft are at a high altitude. The existing runway is near
parallel to Sea-Tac. The development of this airport is not anticipated to be constrained by the existing
airspace, with the greatest issue being the proximity to other military operations. Development of a
commercial airport at this site is not anticipated to have significant constraints on the operation of Sea-Tac.
Working Paper 3, “Development and Evaluation of Scenarios,” Appendix C, Airspace Analysis, presents the
location of McChord Field, with respect to Sea-Tac, Paine Field, and the other potential airport sites. The
Seattle Terminal Area and location of the restricted airspace is also shown in this appendix.
Table 7-20. McChord Field Airspace Analysis
McChord Field Green Green
7.2.6 Ownership of Remaining Airports
Airports that were not eliminated due to previous criteria were evaluated based on ownership, because
ownership of an airport is important for funding. A publicly owned airport is eligible for federal grants for
development at the airport. Four of the remain airports are publicly owned: Arlington Municipal, Bremerton
National, Paine Field, and Tacoma Narrows. Private airports are privately owned, and the owners maintain
the airport, which can lead to complications in funding significant improvements, such as expansion to
accommodate commercial service. Because McChord Field is a federally owned military airport,
Department of Defense agreement and Congressional approval would be needed prior to commercial
service operations. Lacking support of these entities, further consideration of the commercial use at
McChord Field was not recommended at this time. Thus, the airport ownership analysis was rated red.
Table 7-21 summarizes the ownership challenges.
70 FINAL
Final Report
Table 7-21. Airport Ownership Analysis

AIRPORTS (FAA CODE) AIRPORT OWNERSHIP ANALYSIS
Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO) Publicly owned
Bremerton National Airport (PWT) Publicly owned
McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord) (TCM) Federally owned
Paine Field Airport (PAE) Publicly owned
Tacoma Narrows Airport (TIW) Publicly owned
7.3 EVALUATION CONCLUSION
Overall, after evaluating each remaining airport, Arlington Municipal, Bremerton National, Paine Field, and
Tacoma Narrows could expand and accommodate commercial service and therefore could help meet the
growing demand of the region through 2050. The following summarizes the results of the analysis:
• Arlington Municipal Airport, while it does not add to the population and drive-time coverages for the
region, does have expansion capabilities to potentially accommodate commercial service to help meet
the future gap in the region through 2050.
• Bremerton National Airport has potential to expand to accommodate commercial service operations
as well. There is potential for the airport to accommodate single or parallel 9,000-foot runways with
limited impacts to developed areas. It also exceeds the benchmarks for population and employment
drive-time coverages.
• Paine Field, which offers limited commercial service, is operating in the northern area of the central
Puget Sound region. It is limited in the number of additional commercial service operations that can
occur each day (24 departures) based on the environmental analysis (2018 Environmental Assessment)
conducted when the airport began accommodating commercial service operations. However, with
additional planning and environmental review, it could accommodate more.
• The analysis shows that Tacoma Narrows Airport could expand to meet the commercial service
operational needs for some of the 2050 gap and would also meet the benchmark for population and
employment drive-time coverage. However, during the fall of 2020, significant concerns were raised
by Pierce County (the airport sponsor) and the City of Gig Harbor regarding previous agreements that
would make it difficult to extend the length of the runway.
FINAL 71
Final Report
8. Public Engagement
The project team developed engagement strategies to support the study’s following communication
objectives:
• Clearly communicate the scope and findings of the study to diverse audiences.
• Provide transparency and create confidence in the study findings as a consistent foundation about the
aviation system and constraints for stakeholders and decision makers.
• Obtain feedback from stakeholders and the larger public regarding aviation needs and scenarios to
address them.
Major public engagement activities included convening a Technical Working Group, briefing the PSRC
Executive Board, communicating with PSRC stakeholders via email updates, fielding a public opinion survey
and focus groups, and holding public meetings and an online open house. As the COVID-19 pandemic
emerged in spring 2020, the project team altered some of the planned engagement strategies to be
conducted in line with social distancing requirements, such as shifting to in-depth interviews instead of
focus groups and holding the public meetings through Zoom Webinar. For more detail on planned
engagement activities and how they were adjusted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, refer to the Stakeholder
Education and Engagement Report. 17
8.1 PSRC EXECUTIVE BOARD
During each study phase, the study team presented an update to the PSRC Executive Board. In addition,
the team provided an update after the study survey and other major deliverables were completed. PSRC
Executive Board members are appointed by their General Assembly constituents to represent the member
governments. The board is chaired by PSRC’s president, meets monthly, and carries out delegated powers
and responsibilities between meetings of the General Assembly.
8.2 WEBSITE
PSRC maintained a section of its website for the study. The webpage includes a project overview, frequently
asked questions, copies of public materials and presentations about the study, a study timeline, and an
option to sign up for email updates or contact PSRC. Starting in fall 2020, the site also included a link to the
online open house.
17 This report is on the Regional Aviation Baseline Study website.
72 FINAL
Final Report
8.3 EMAIL UPDATES
PSRC provided regular updates about the study to its project email list. As of September 2020, the list had
713 subscribers. Between October 2018 and November 2020, news about the Regional Aviation Baseline
Study was shared in 14 issues of PSRC’s email newsletter, which was distributed to nearly 4,000 subscribers.
8.4 SURVEY
The study team conducted a statistically valid public opinion survey of the four-county region to provide
regional decision makers a representative view of how the wider public perceives aviation needs and issues.
The study’s objectives follow:
• Explore awareness and understating of the existing aviation system.

• Outline aviation needs and concerns of the general public.
• Provide regional decision makers with input from a broad cross-section of the public.
The study team mailed invitations to participate in an online-only, statistically representative survey to
20,000 randomly selected households across the four-county region (5,000 households per county). The
survey was open from June 23 to July 8, 2020. During that time, 1,416 people completed the survey (7.2%
response rate, +/- 2.6% margin of error). 18 Overall, the sample was representative regarding gender,
income, and Latinx ethnicity. The sample skewed slightly toward white respondents (in King County) and
those over 55 years of age.
The survey questions addressed the importance of passenger aviation to the region, how to address
increasing demand on the passenger aviation system, and basic demographics of respondents, including
where they live, typical travel behavior, and socioeconomic factors.
A large majority—between 91% and 95% of respondents, depending on county—thought the region should
meet aviation demand.
Participants were asked to rank importance of nine features of the aviation system; participants ranked
each of the features as important, but across all four counties they ranked cost of flying, access to the
airport, getting through security lines, and on-time performance as the most important. Participants ranked
amount of service to a variety of destinations, parking availability, environmental impacts, noise impacts,
and economic benefits as less important.
18 The final sample had 32% King County (margin of error +/- 4.8%), 18% Pierce County (margin of error +/- 6.4%), 26%
Snohomish County (margin of error +/- 5.3%), and 25% Kitsap County (margin of error +/- 5.4%) respondents.
FINAL 73
Final Report
Figure 8-1. Top Features for the Aviation System (by county)
When asked directly about the priority of environmental impacts versus economic benefits, respondents
were fairly split in Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties. (King County respondents prioritized minimizing
noise and environmental impacts.) Participants in every county thought it was important to improve
transportation options to airports (Figure 8-2).
Figure 8-2. Importance of Meeting Demand for Aviation
74 FINAL
Final Report
Between 57% and 67% of respondents, depending on county, thought new passenger service should be
added to existing airports rather than building a new airport (Figure 8-3). Respondents also prioritized
expanding service at regional airports rather than at Sea-Tac (Figure 8-4).
Figure 8-3. Importance of Accommodating Passenger Service at Existing Airports (by county)
Figure 8-4. Importance of Increasing Passenger Service Capacity at Regional Airports versus Sea-Tac (by county)
FINAL 75
Final Report
For complete survey results, including details on the survey questions, method, and respondent
demographics, refer to the Stakeholder Education and Engagement Report.
8.5 IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
The study team conducted one-on-one interviews to elaborate on the feedback received through the public
opinion survey. The study team conducted 22 interviews between October 6 and 16, 2020, with people
who had previously responded to the public opinion survey.
As with the survey, most participants said it was very important for the region to meet growing demand for
aviation. Most participants cited jobs and the economy and travel experience as the primary reasons for
meeting the growing demand. Environmental impacts were the top concern for participants, but when
asked to weigh different benefits and impacts, most participants said the issues were not mutually exclusive
and explained that they thought as capacity for air travel in the region increased, there would also be
advances in dealing with pollution and noise. Most participants favored expanding service at airports
around the region rather than concentrating service at one airport.
The full interview report is available in the Stakeholder Education and Engagement Report.
8.6 REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS
PSRC hosted three virtual public meetings over a two-week period. Virtual public meetings were hosted
live on Zoom Webinar. Meetings consisted of a roughly one-hour presentation that included several poll
questions and a 30-minute question-and-answer session in which participants asked questions via chat,
and the study team responded verbally. The first meeting had 65 participants, the second had 76
participants, and the third had 35 participants.
The study team notified community members in the four-county region about the public meetings through
postcards, online ads, the PSRC email listserv, and direct outreach from PSRC to specific jurisdictions and
interest groups.
The study team asked polling questions at the virtual public meetings, which most participants responded
to in the following ways:
• Use Sea-Tac for air travel.

• Prioritize minimizing noise and environmental impacts of aviation.
• Maximizing benefits of the aviation industry was less important than on-time, easy-to-access passenger
services or minimizing noise and environmental impacts.
• The region should prioritize meeting all or some of the future demand for aviation.
• Disperse new aviation service at multiple airports.
76 FINAL
Final Report
The full virtual public meeting summary is available in the Stakeholder Education and Engagement Report.
8.7 ONLINE OPEN HOUSE
The online open house included similar information to what was presented in the virtual public meeting,
with greater detail on some technical topics. While the virtual public meetings were held at specific times,
the online open house was available any time between September 21 and October 30, 2020; users could
visit the website at a time that was convenient to them to review information about the study.
The online open house experienced 14,253 page views, lasting an average of 2 minutes 31 seconds. The
online open house included a comment box and four questions, matching the polling questions asked at
the virtual public meetings. In total, 390 users left a comment and/or answered the questions.
The study team notified community members in the four-county region through the same postcards, online
advertising, and email detailed above for the regional public meetings.
The online open house included poll questions similar to the virtual public meetings:
• Most respondents use Sea-Tac for air travel.

• Most respondents prioritized minimizing noise and environmental impacts of aviation.
• Respondents were split on consolidating new aviation service or dispersing service across the region.
• Most respondents thought the region should not expand aviation capacity.
Most open-ended comments expressed concern about environmental impacts (close to 200 comments)
and concerns about noise (more than 100 comments). Other comments expressed the following
comments:
• Opposition to meeting demand (more than 50)

• About a specific airport (close to 50)
• The impact of COVID-19 on the forecast
• Support for expanding service at Sea-Tac
• Support for dispersing service
• Concern about access issues
• Support for prioritizing demand
• Support for high-speed rail as an alternative to flying (each less than 50)
The full online open house summary is available in the Stakeholder Education and Engagement Report.
8.8 STAKEHOLDER BRIEFINGS
PSRC held briefings with local jurisdictions and elected officials, aviation-related businesses and airports,
and aviation interest groups. PSRC conducted 56 briefings between January 2018 and December 2020.
FINAL 77
Final Report
8.9 KEY FINDINGS
Using multiple methods to collect input helped ensure the study team received as complete as possible a
picture of regional opinion related to the future of the aviation system. Across the board, members of the
public who shared feedback through any of the engagement methods detailed above recognized the
importance of the aviation industry to the region while also recognizing the noise and environmental
impacts the industry causes, but the study team saw different themes in input across the survey, focus
group interviews, online open house, and virtual public meetings.
Survey participants indicated a stronger preference for meeting the demand for aviation than participants
in the online open house and virtual public meetings. The survey, which was statistically representative of
the region, found that 91% to 95% of respondents, depending on county, thought meeting the demand for
passenger aviation was moderately to extremely important. Because the survey used random sampling and
was statistically representative of the region, the survey findings provide a good sense of the general
public’s attitudes toward aviation.
Survey respondents also ranked noise and environmental impacts as important: 70% to 79% of
respondents, depending on county, ranked environmental impacts as somewhat to very important, and
51% to 64% of respondents ranked noise impacts as somewhat to very important.
Interview participants showed a similar priority for meeting demand but also addressed environmental
issues. They ranked noise impacts as less important. Interview participants emphasized that these issues
were not mutually exclusive: They thought it was possible to meet demand while also improving aircraft
and supporting services to decrease environmental and noise impacts.
In spite of the overall support for meeting the region’s aviation capacity needs expressed in the survey and
focus group interviews, noise, public health, and environmental impacts continue to be of significant
concern to the public. People interested in the topic also continued to question the process for
environmental study and potential mitigation associated with siting a new airport or expanding service at
an existing airport, and who would drive any future airport expansion.
78 FINAL
Final Report
9. Related Studies
This chapter outlines several recent, local studies that have particular relevance to this effort. It also
highlights key findings that bear on this study.
9.1 MOBILE OBSERVATIONS OF ULTRAFINE PARTICLES STUDY
The University of Washington research team led the Mobile ObserVations of Ultrafine Particles Study
(MOV-UP), 19 which assessed ultrafine particle concentrations (UFPs) in the directions of aircraft flight
within 10 miles of the airport. The study was designed to:
“investigate the implications of aircraft traffic at Sea-Tac by (1) assessing the

concentrations of UFPs in areas surrounding and directly impacted by aircraft
traffic; (2) distinguishing and comparing UFP concentrations attributable to
aircraft-related and other sources and; (3) coordinating with local governments,
and sharing results and soliciting feedback from community stakeholders.” 20
The MOV-UP study distinguishes aircraft-related UFPs from roadway-related UFPs and distinguishes the
pollution from the two sources using measurements of particle size and black carbon concentration.
This study finds that the highest UFP counts were nearest major roadways, including I-5. The study also
finds that UFPs derived from both roadway traffic and aircraft sources, though total concentrations of UFP
alone did not distinguish roadway and aircraft features. Key differences for roadway and aircraft features
exist in the particle size distribution and the black carbon concentration. The study notes that “these
differences can help distinguish between the spatial impact of roadway traffic and aircraft UFP emissions
using a combination of mobile monitoring and standard statistical methods.” 21 The study notes several
knowledge gaps including the potential health effects from aircraft-related UFP exposure, effective short-
and long-term approaches to reduce human exposures to UFP, and uncertainties in the impacts of future
UFP exposures. Although the study suggests that some neighborhoods in proximity could be more exposed
to UFPs than others, there are uncertainties in the impacts of future UFP exposures due to roadway and
aircraft traffic volume changing emissions over time.
19 University of Washington Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences. Mobile ObserVations of Ultrafine
Particles: The MOV-UP study report. Seattle; 2019. Available online at https://deohs.washington.edu/mov-up. Accessed
December 2020
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
FINAL 79
Final Report
9.2 AVIATION ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY
WSDOT Aviation completed a new statewide Aviation Economic Impact Study for the Washington Aviation
System. 22 With support from the FAA, the WSDOT Aviation Division completed the study to, “measure the
economic impacts of each public-use airport in Washington”; “assess the economic value that airports
create for communities”; and “show airports and the state aviation system contribute to the state's
economy and economic competitiveness.” 23
The study finds that Washington’s 134 public-use airport system contributes $107 billion in total economic
impact (business revenues) to Washington state’s economy and communities, providing 407,042 jobs and
$26.8 billion in labor income. These airports support community, economic, and transportation needs. The
study highlights that Washington state’s 134 public airports act as “an essential link to the nation's airspace,
commerce, and emergency services and are an important part of Washington state's transportation system
and economy”, developed a new Online Aviation Economic Impact Calculator, and developed a new Airport
Economic Mapping Tool. 24
The potential economic benefits of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in Washington state are a key focus of
the study. The study notes that although SAF is more expensive than conventional avgas, costs will decrease
as levels of supply and demand shift with commercial adoption. Environmental impacts will be positive,
because carbon dioxide emissions are likely to decrease an estimated 41% to 89% compared to
conventional fuels. Additionally, alternative jet fuels and electric aircrafts can promote mobility between
regions, particularly for connecting rural and urban populations, and can also lead to a reduction in the
industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. The benefits associated with emerging technologies in the industry
include “new business partnerships, improved access to jobs and educational opportunities, and more
productive hours as less time is spent in transit” 25 Despite potential financial impacts and obstacles,
Washington state is well positioned to optimize on opportunities for emerging technologies due to the
strong aviation and aerospace manufacturing industry.
9.3 AVIATION BIOFUELS INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY 26
The goals of this study were to “identify sites that could support the receipt, blending, storage, and delivery
infrastructure required to supply Sea-Tac Airport with up to 50 million gallons per year (and to double to
100 million after 2025) of aviation biofuel (also known as sustainable alternative aviation fuel).” 27 This study
supports the goals set by the Port of Seattle, Alaska Airlines, and the Boeing Company to eventually power
all flights fueled at Sea-Tac with aviation biofuel, reducing the lifecycle carbon footprint approximately 50%
to 80% compared to regular jet fuel. To identify potential aviation biofuel sites, the study used a multi-
22 Washington State Department of Transportation. Aviation Economic Impact Study. 2020. Available online at
https://wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/WAEconomicStudy.htm. Accessed December 2020.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid
25 Ibid.
26 Aviation Biofuels Infrastructure Feasibility Study. Final report submitted to Port of Seattle. November 2019.
27 Ibid
80 FINAL
Final Report
phase screening process, which included identifying suitable properties in the central Puget Sound region,
eliminating those least likely to meet study goals, and further evaluating a short list of six remaining
candidate properties. The evaluation included identifying existing infrastructure connections, current and
future capacity requirements, and property ownership and zoning. For the most feasible properties, the
study completed a comprehensive evaluation and scorecard by developing short- and long-term
infrastructure requirements and associated cost estimates.
The Aviation Biofuels Infrastructure Feasibility Study found three properties (out of the 29 properties
screened) as the most likely to meet the goals of the study and deliver up to 50 million gallons of aviation
biofuel per year (doubling to 100 million gallons after 2025) into the hydrant delivery system at Sea-Tac:
• The Sea-Tac Airport Fuel Farm, either through the existing roadway or the future SR 509 connector,
would meet the goals of the study. The Sea-Tac Airport Fuel Farm options would be the most cost-
effective in the short term and would fulfill existing critical need for fuel receipt and storage that is not
dependent on the Olympic Pipeline.
• The Phillips 66/Olympic Pipeline Renton Terminal has three options that would meet the goals of the
study, including both off-site and on-site blending. The Phillips 66/Olympic Pipeline Renton Terminal
could potentially accommodate receipt and blending facilities for moderate-to-large biofuel volumes
over the long-term.
• The Tesoro Anacortes Refinery was used as a proxy for the Jet-A fuel refineries in Whatcom and Skagit
Counties as the most cost-effective options for receipt and blending of large biofuel volumes over the
long-term.
9.4 WASHINGTON STATE AIR CARGO MOVEMENT STUDY 28
The Joint Transportation Committee of the Washington State Legislature initiated the Washington State Air
Cargo Movement Study to evaluate the current and future capacity of the statewide air cargo system. Air
cargo is a crucial function in the state’s logistics; in 2015, the state’s gross domestic product was
$452 billion when Washington state airports moved $47.6 billion in freight. The objectives of the study
follow:
“educate policy makers about air cargo movement at Washington airports,

explore possibilities for accommodating the growing air cargo market at more
airports around the state, and identify the State of Washington’s interest and role
in addressing issues arising from air cargo congestion.”
The study examined opportunities and constraints at existing airports to meet the increasing demand of air
cargo operations in Washington state. The study relied on input from legislative and agency staff members,
28 Joint Transportation Committee. Washington State Air Cargo Movement Study, Final Report. December 21, 2018.
https://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/AirCargo/JTCAirCargoMovementStudy_FinalReport.pdf
FINAL 81
Final Report
industry representatives, and the largest Washington state airports. The existing conditions and future air
cargo forecast were updated and used as an input to this study.
9.5 ULTRA-HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION
The Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation (UHSGT) study was prepared to review how UHSGT could
provide a fast, frequent, reliable, and environmentally responsible transportation system to connect
Vancouver, British Columbia, to metro Seattle, Washington, to Portland, Oregon. For the purposes of this
study, ultra-high speed is defined as a maximum operating speed of greater than250 miles per hour (mph).
The Washington State Governor’s Office and state legislature asked WSDOT to study UHSGT for enhanced
interconnectivity to better manage population and economic growth potential by maximizing public
transportation benefits. Regional business and government leaders believe UHSGT could also result in
better access to jobs, affordable housing, shared resources, increased collaboration, and economic
prosperity. The study states that, “Ultra-high-speed ground transportation is not intended to replace the
Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail system managed and funded by WSDOT and Oregon Department
of Transportation; it would be an additional travel option and would serve to supplement ridership.” 29
The following three technologies could potentially meet the required operating speed for UHSGT:
• The high-speed rail (steel wheel) technology—based on principles similar to early railways—has a
current maximum speed of 220 mph and a maximum seating capacity of 1,500.
• The magnetic levitation (maglev) main feature is the magnetic field technology that allows the vehicle
to levitate above the guideway without making contact; maglev has a current maximum speed of
270 mph and a maximum seating capacity of 824.
• Hyperloop technology uses magnetic propulsions to carry vehicles through evacuated tubes, and the
concept is to reduce the air resistance to enable high speeds The Hyperloop current maximum speed
was track tested at 200 mph, though this was limited by the length of the test track. The maximum
design speed for Hyperloop is 760 mph with a maximum seating capacity of 28 per capsule. 30
The Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation Business Case Analysis completed in July 2019 demonstrates
that UHSGT would transport over 3 million passengers per year and would support sustainable growth as
a travel mode. 31 The report found that this would increase reliability and capacity compared to highway or
airport options. The report also stated that reliability on high-speed rail services can reach 99% on-time
performance compared to less than 80% for air services. The study suggests that travelers would shift to a
new UHSGT system and away from auto and air travel for 16% to 18% of intercity trips, thereby reducing
29 Washington State Department of Transportation. Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation Study. 2020. Available online at
https://wsdot.wa.gov/planning/studies/ultra-high-speed-travel/ground-transportation-study. Accessed December 2020.
30 Ibid.
31 Washington State Department of Transportation. Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation Business Case Analysis. 2019.
Available online at https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/12/Ultra-High-Speed-Ground-Transportation-Study-
Business-Case-Analysis-Full-Report-with-Appendices-2019.pdf. Accessed December 2020
82 FINAL
Final Report
the regional aviation demand by 500,000 trips per year. 32 Because UHSGT would capture a significant share
of trips within the corridor, this would compete against the need for some highway and airport
improvements, reduce the future need for expanded terminals, and allow new airfield capacity to be more
efficiently deployed in serving longer-distance markets.
32 Washington State Department of Transportation. Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation Business Case Analysis. 2019.
page 45. Available online at https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/12/Ultra-High-Speed-Ground-Transportation-
Study-Business-Case-Analysis-Full-Report-with-Appendices-2019.pdf. Accessed December 2020.
FINAL 83
Final Report
10. Conclusions and Next Steps
The central Puget Sound region plays a pivotal role in aviation in the Pacific Northwest. The aviation system
is a critical part of an ecosystem that supports high paying jobs, housing, and economic development. This
Baseline Study attempted to provide a deeper understanding of the different roles and purposes of aviation
activities at each of the region’s airports, to identify future needs in the central Puget Sound region (King,
Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties), and to set the stage for future planning.
The study found that anticipated growth will affect the quality and level of aviation service. Commercial
passenger service demands, in particular, are expected to exceed capacity in the near future. Even with
currently planned improvements, by 2050 the unmet passenger demand is anticipated to equal the current
operation at Sea-Tac.
The region’s existing airports were reviewed for their potential to play a role in meeting the additional
demand for commercial passenger service in Chapter 4, Airport Needs. None of the airports individually
could meet all or even 50% of the demand. However, as detailed in Chapter 4, Arlington Municipal,
Bremerton National, and Tacoma Narrows Airports could expand and accommodate some of the
commercial service needs and therefore could help meet the growing demand of the region through 2050.
Building one additional major commercial airport to accommodate the full demand would require a
greenfield site. The siting of a greenfield site was outside of the scope of this study. Further analysis would
be needed to understand if there is a viable location to site a greenfield airport that would meet the criteria.
As stated in Chapter 6, Development Scenarios, airlines decide where, when, how often, and what aircraft
to serve airports, not the FAA, airports, or the community. The challenge for policymakers and the region’s
airport owners will be to convince an airline to serve another airport(s), other than Sea-Tac and Paine Field,
even if runways, terminals, etc. are built. The business case must be convincing in order for the airlines to
move an expensive aircraft from a known revenue-producing route to an additional airport(s) in the central
Puget Sound region and be profitable. If there is regional interest in pursuing additional commercial
passenger service at an existing or new airport there are a number of planning, environmental review,
funding and approval steps needed. Section 6.5, Airport Development Process, outlines these steps.
84 FINAL

PSRC - Regional Aviation Baseline Study Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSRC - Regional Aviation Baseline Study Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSRC - Regional Aviation Baseline Study Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Aviation Baseline Study

Final Report May 2021

Final Report May 2021

The Regional Aviation Baseline study is funded by a grant from the

Regional Aviation Baseline Study | Final Report May 2021

2. Study Overview ............................................................................................................... 4

3. Existing Conditions and Aviation Demand Forecast ........................................................11

4. Airport Needs ................................................................................................................18

5. Assessment of System Requirements .............................................................................33

6. Development of Scenarios .............................................................................................39

7. Evaluation of Airports for Scenarios ...............................................................................49

8. Public Engagement ........................................................................................................72

8.7 ONLINE OPEN HOUSE ................................................................................................................................... 77

9. Related Studies ..............................................................................................................79

10. Conclusions and Next Steps ...........................................................................................84

1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.2 COMMERCIAL AVIATION COORDINATING COMMISSION

1.3 COVID-19 IMPACTS ON AVIATION

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

Following this introduction, the report is organized as follows:

• Chapter 2 provides an overview of the study.

• Chapter 8 summarizes the study public engagement process and findings.

2.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

2.2 STUDY ORGANIZATION

2.2.1 Project Sponsors/Management Team

2.2.2 Technical Working Group

Participating organizations included the following:

2.3 STUDY AREA AND AIRPORTS

2.3.1 Agency Jurisdiction

2.3.2 Hierarchy of Airports

In sum, the study area includes the following:

Among the civilian facilities are the following:

2.4 STUDY SCOPE

Table 2-2. Airports in the Study Area

2.5 STUDY PHASES

The study included the following key phases:

3. Existing Conditions and Aviation Demand Forecast

3.1 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM

3.1.1 King County

3.1.2 Snohomish County

3.1.3 Pierce County

3.1.4 Kitsap County

3.2 TRENDS AND FORECASTS BY AVIATION SECTOR

3.2.2 General Aviation

3.2.3 Air Cargo

3.3 KEY MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS

4.1 BENCHMARK EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE BY AVIATION SECTOR

4.1.1 Multi-Airport City Analysis and Conclusions

Figure 4-1. Enplanements by Airport (2017)

Source: Federal Aviation Administration Enplanement Data, 2017

Figure 4-2. Airline Departures by Airport (2017)

Source: Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Activity System, 2017

4.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

4.1 COMMERCIAL SERVICE

• Recent Air Traffic Control/NextGen Capacity Improvements at Sea-Tac:

• Future Air Traffic Control/NextGen Improvements at Sea-Tac:

4.1.3 Multimodal Access

4.2 AIR CARGO

Figure 4-4. Air Cargo Terminal (Hong Kong)