14 ms·

There's been discussions where the "next" airport should go in the Seattle region, and the consensus is that nobody wants it. The State Legislature created a co

There's been discussions where the "next" airport should go in the Seattle region, and the consensus is that nobody wants it. The State Legislature created a commission to try and identify some potential sites, but the public backlash was so great that they ended up submitting it's final report with no actual recommendation. One of the interesting ideas (that was proposed even back when SEA was adding it's third runway) is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. I'm doubtful it happens, since that means building a major airport _and_ a new train.

perlgeek 3y ago
> One of the interesting ideas [...] is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. While reading this article, I thought about something like that too. Build an airport quite a while away from the big city, and provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. Make it free for customers. Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  The aforementioned setup nearly always means the closer airport ends up getting upgraded later to meet convenience demands, leaving the newer-but-inconvenient airport out to dry. See: Haneda (HND) vs. Narita (NRT) in Tokyo, Itami (ITM) vs. Kansai (KIX) in Osaka, etc.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Didn't happen with Denver or Hong Kong.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      Or Paris.
  - dwater 3y ago
    In Washington DC, Washington National Airport (WAS) is just across a river from downtown and connected by subway, and Dulles International Airport (IAD) was way out past the exurbs when it was constructed and only just got a subway connection several decades later. IAD gets way more traffic and has as long as I can remember. I'd guess that's because it's not possible to add many more flights to WAS.
    - massysett 3y ago
      This is wrong. Reagan National is DCA, not WAS. Also, DCA handles more passengers than IAD. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/national-airport-passenger-traffic-2022/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/nat...
      - dwater 3y ago
        Sorry, I take the train 10x more than I fly, I mixed up the airport with Union Station.
    - tyoma 3y ago
      Flights to/from WAS are artificially restricted by congress: https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter
    - jaimie 3y ago
      DCA and IAD have their work-load shared due to regulatory action: > The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles (49 U.S. Code § 49109). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport. > Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore. https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-information/dca-reagan-national-slot-perimeter-rules https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-infor...
  - sofixa 3y ago
    Not if the old airport gets closed - like Tegel and Tempelhof were in Berlin, even though the new one next to Schonefeld wasn't ready yet due to it being a fiasco of colossal proportions.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Sure, like in the case of Hiroshima Airport (HIJ) and its predecessor (HIW), but even then most people (not necessarily including the politicians) end up longing for the one that was more convenient.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    When DFW was built Congress passed the Wright Amendment which kneecapped Dallas Love Field (DAL) to only serve domestic and immediately adjacent state travel. Personally I prefer DAL but I can see how DFW would have potentially withered on the vine if it hadn't been passed. I'm happy its finally expired though and now DAL can offer international flights. Although now that there's a Whataburger at DFW one big argument for me for DAL is a bit less strong. When the Silver Line finally gets built, I imagine almost all my air travel will go to DFW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid...
    - avarun 3y ago
      Jesus. I just read the Wright Amendment article and it’s absolutely disgusting the level of regulatory capture and corporate cronyism enmeshed in our government in this country. There is no reason the federal government should be involving itself in these petty airline disputes, and certainly shouldn’t be helping maintain monopolies for reasons as bad as “American Airlines is the largest employer in North Texas”.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        I largely agree with these opinions and dislike the cronyism that is a part of this deal. Looking at it a bit more holistically and seeing the growth of the DFW metroplex from 1980-now though, I think it makes sense for DFW airport to have succeeded. Having the very centralized airport with (theoretically) good rail service to both major cities makes a heck of a lot of sense and have been a good thing for the DFW economy. It would be nearly impossible to build the airport as it is now post that growth, but there's a good chance it wouldn't have survived in the early days given how far out there it was in 1979. So short answer, I hate the cronyism, but many of the positive end goals marketed here ultimately did come true here. And it didn't fully kill DAL or Southwest in the end.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    The issue for Seatac is that it's on a relatively small piece of land and can't really expand. They would definitely just go that route if they could.
- lobochrome 3y ago
  I live in Tokyo where we have both Narita, far out but well-ish connected by train with NEX and Haneda, with direct access to the city. Haneda is vastly more convenient.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I fly into Haneda whenever I can, because even though the train is super convenient, for a train, it’s nicer to just throw your bags in a taxi and head straight to your hotel after 13 hours on a plane.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      I tend to travel pretty light but trains get inconvenient with any amount of luggage. I'm coming into NY by ship after a longish trip, continuing on home by train at the end of May. I came to the conclusion I should take advantage of a not too expensive luggage shipping service because dealing with the luggage was going to be just too big of a hassle.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        That's a key if you want a "rail to plane" setup - if you do it right (read-nobody will do it) you check in for the train with your baggage and your flight at the same time, and give the bags over to a dedicated baggage car that handles everything for you.
        _delirium 3y ago
        Hong Kong recently added this, called In-town Check-in [1]. You can check in and drop your bags at the MTR Hong Kong station when taking the Airport Express. Can even drop off the bags up to a day in advance. Currently only open to Cathay Pacific customers though. [1] https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin.html https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin....
- kiba 3y ago
  Only allow cargo delivery via rail as well. This way this deincentivize road traffic as much as possible.
  - Bene592 3y ago
    Allow only short distance deliveries by truck
  - bombcar 3y ago
    This guy simcities. Original game you could build rail everywhere instead of roads at all :)
- pif 3y ago
  > make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means Absolutely not! High-speed train have many advantages, but serving stations with large, long-term parking lots is not one of them. After all, you don't need to disincentivize the approach: you just need to make it clear that the airport is there to stay, and maybe to grow three-fold, and that noise complaints will never be receivable.
  - kaashif 3y ago
    > noise complaints will never be receivable. But they are always receivable. Complainers will vote, will take control of local government, will lobby state and national government... "Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.
    - lukan 3y ago
      '"Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.' Oh depends, you can always build some gulags and get rid of those annoying elections. It's crazy how quick you are into dictatorship realm, with some harmles sounding ideas taken one step further.
    - pif 3y ago
      > Complainers will vote, will take control of local government And you won't care, because you have surrendered the zone surrounding the airport to a national authority, whose mandate is clearly linked to the mobility and who is not to report to local council.
- newhotelowner 3y ago
  I don't think you ever traveled international or your plane got delayed or cancelled. I don't want to carry 4 big bags in the train when I travel international I don't want to travel 30 miles if my plane get cancelled.
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    My understanding is that in Japan you can have your luggage portered to your hotel separately.
  - dynm 3y ago
    One option would be to have people check in, drop off their luggage, and even go through security in some convenient location in the city center and then take a high-speed train "inside security" to the gate. (Maybe you could even have trains to two different fields.)
    - eitally 3y ago
      That would be fantastic. I'm almost salivating thinking about how appealing that would be in Manhattan (or DC, or even SF).
      - colatkinson 3y ago
        God yeah it's like a hypothetical version of the AirTrain that isn't a huge pain. Last time I flew out of JFK from Manhattan IIRC the easiest way was to do the E or LIRR from Penn to the AirTrain anyway, so might as well streamline the whole shebang.
    - ihaveajob 3y ago
      The Madrid airport offered this service, but it wasn't very popular, nor widely known. You checked in your luggage downtown and hopped on the subway to get to the airport with just your carry-on. I can't find any reference now, so it must have been discontinued.
      - 3y ago
- mst 3y ago
  -I- would be entirely fine with an airport with those transit restrictions. mdk (Shadowcat's resident responsible adult / business person) however has three kids, and two adults trying to wrangle three children as well as luggage makes trains much, much less attractive as an option. So I think "fantastic to imagine, DOA as an idea in practice" applies, I'm afraid.
  - egorfine 3y ago
    Taxi infrastructure is entirely plausible in a project with heavy restriction for private cars. I.e. build all the roads you want but don't make long-term parkings available.
    - mst 3y ago
      Fair point, I was thinking about "cargo traffic only" as in the original though experiment. Coaches with a dedicated luggage section would quite possibly help as well, and it occurs to me that you could have a train with baggage cars ... but having never had to travel with more than one small child I can't say how acceptable those options would be to parents in general.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again. Or go one step further and just put on barriers to block the trains too. Don't let anyone near the airport unless they walk/bike the few miles. That will drive up servicing costs but will dramatically lower congestion. If don't correctly, virtually nobody will ever get to the airport. It can then be closed altogether, thereby eliminating any and all future noise complaints.
  - Reubachi 3y ago
    Seeing thought process is interesting. This would face even greater backlash fro locals/local economy. -No way for business around the development to organically grow. - a built in tourism-choke IE; no reason to use the airport save cargo or business -Jobs funneled to and from the city, not the local area. -millions spent by local taxpayers on two high tech infra projects they see little benefit to.
- Arrath 3y ago
  > run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport Woah, that's a good ways out there
- 7952 3y ago
  That is often the experience already when using a big hub airport. Because by their very nature they draw people in from across a region. And that naturally leeds to congestion and inconvenience. Rail is a help but may not be fast if you don't live close to the right stations. I think hubs are often setup to serve airlines running lots of connecting flight rather than the regional population. They would be happier flying out of a small local airport on a narrowbody and flying direct or connecting elsewhere.
- dboreham 3y ago
  See: DIA
- user_of_the_wek 3y ago
  > provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. They wanted to do that in Munich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU
throwaway48476 3y ago
Paine field is the new seattle area airport.
- subzidion 3y ago
  I don't think they believe Paine Field on its own is going to be able to accommodate the expected air travel growth. Yes, it's serving some commercial air travel now, but the consensus was there needs to be a new airport for all this growth.
- arccy 3y ago
  it barely has any flights anywhere this now
  - dmazzoni 3y ago
    Is there a reason for that? Can it handle more?
    - coryrc 3y ago
      NIMBY
- brewdad 3y ago
  Paine Field would seem to make the most sense but there really isn't much room to expand it. It can probably help in the short/medium term while a new, from scratch airport is built elsewhere.
- RaftPeople 3y ago
  Paine field can't support what is needed and can't be expanded. But it will continue to service a small percent of the overall need. The state has created a new commission to start the new airport site selection process over again, but this time it will just be a recommendation. The previous project that had been going on for many years was site selection and not just recommendation, but their selection(s) pissed off the people and so the whole thing got just got killed recently.
tallanvor 3y ago
It's been 35 years they've discussed that possibility. It's never going to happen. The costs of high speed rail across the mountain are simply too high.
- bombcar 3y ago
  It'd be easier and cheaper to landfill the sound - or do what is slowly happening and start using Paine Field.
bombcar 3y ago
Wasn’t that the idea behind Denver? It’s outside the city by a decent amount (or was when started). I assume proximity to the mountains was also a consideration.
- ghaff 3y ago
  The newer airport is really less convenient to the mountains than Stapleton was. (At least in terms of distance. Not sure about driving time.)
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Ah, I meant that putting the airport farther from the mountains means the planes can take off heading west without circling around. I don't know if it's that far, however.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Stapleton was still east of Denver. I think the siting of DIA was probably more that there was a bunch of flat relatively empty land even further east. It's been a while since I flew into Denver but my recollection is the airport is pretty hell and gone from the city.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - bombcar 3y ago
        It is, but in the last 20 years of visiting now and then, it is much more built up on the way "into town" - it used to be that you'd pass that hellhorse and see nothing for 40 minutes but a sign telling you not to stop for prison hitchhikers. Now there's tons of developments - which is always a problem for these airports. I remember when SEATAC was far outside the city and everyone hated it, now it's crammed in the middle of the Seattle/Tacoma metro area, which is all one big blob city.
      - rconti 3y ago
yadaeno 3y ago
Paine Field is about 35 mins away from Seattle and serves airline traffic as of a few years ago.
- patch_cable 3y ago
  And it is so much better I routinely pay hundreds more to fly out of Paine Field.
- jethro_tell 3y ago
  Its hit or miss if you can get the flight you need or of there and it always costs more from what I can see.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Paine Field is also unnaturally large for a "little suburban airport" because it's the site of the largest building in the world, because it's a Boeing assembly plant.
  - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
    Are you thinking of Boeing Field? Paine is a tiny little luxury airport with 4 gates.
    - mikestew 3y ago
      Maybe you've got them reversed? I've never been to Boeing Field, but I've been to Paine, and... "Paine Field is home to the Boeing Everett Factory, the world's largest building by volume..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paine_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paine_Field
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Exactly. Paine Field is tiny as a commuter airport, but it's got huge tracks of land (it's more than half the size of SEATAC and has a 9000 ft runway).
Izikiel43 3y ago
The other problem was that the legislature restricted the commission of where they could look for a new place, it had to be less than X amount of people and other restrictions. In theory there was a good place for an airport if those restrictions were removed
mikestew 3y ago
One of the interesting ideas (that was proposed even back when SEA was adding it's third runway) is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. That would have been an interesting idea before the railroad right-of-way was turned into a multi-use trail. There's another rail corridor that goes through Stampede Pass, but I don't know that it would be usable for "high-speed rail" (nor do I know that it even goes anywhere useful).
balderdash 3y ago
What’s comical is how hard it is to get to many urban US airports - why their isn’t the equivalent of the Heathrow express to serve New York city’s three airports is absurd
jamwil 3y ago
Sure would be nice to just pop out to the Gorge for an afternoon of music though!
resonantjacket5 3y ago
> There's been discussions where the "next" airport should go in the Seattle region, and the consensus is that nobody wants it. The State Legislature created a commission to try and identify some potential sites, but the public backlash was so great that they ended up submitting it's final report with no actual recommendation. The commission was hampered by rules that stated they couldn't look into increasing the existing airports capacity. "Survey responses also conveyed members’ views on what kind of options the Legislature permitted them to consider — the 2019 legislation prohibited considering sites in King County, or those near military bases. Some members noted that those constraints hindered their search efforts, with some doubting whether it’s possible to have a new airport operational by 2040." https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/state-panel-exits-with-a-final-message-washington-needs-a-new-airport/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/state... The "next" airport is basically just expanding SeaTac. There's plans to add a second terminal in SAMP https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/180530-SAMP-Presentation-Public-Meeting.pdf https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/1805... And then even WSDOT's project for the new 509 extension is to allow freight traffic to reach the seatac airport. Outside of that the other regional airport to be used is king county international airport -- even back in 2005 southwest looked into using it. Paine field, while it has the capacity is not where the demand is for passengers. Secondly, I don't think many people realize the bottleneck for SeaTac airport is not just passenger traffic but freight traffic. It's why the airport commission keeps choosing sites south of Seattle aka Pierce County or Thurston County because it's close to the port of tacoma. They aren't going to choose Paine field.
- throwway120385 3y ago
  Paine field is already loud as hell all the time so I'm glad it's a non-starter.
- danielodievich 3y ago
  I regularly fly to SFO from Paine field, it is 20 more minutes drive for me from Mercer Island but the experience of the airport is worth it. The lobby that is like a nice W, no security lines whatsoever, and seeing all the green pickle birds being assembled is really nice. I'd fly other places if they were offered. The place can handle a lot more traffic but yeah, the freight isn't going to go there...
nojvek 3y ago
Make Paine field airport bigger and accept international flights. I love that airport. It should be bigger and is north enough that it has its own population. Also US needs to build more high speed rail. We are over-reliant on airports.
shados 3y ago
Consider how the FAA handled the Nextgen project and continually gaslight anyone negatively impacted over the last 10 years, I would be against any airport built within 10 miles of where I live too. Not surprising people would be against it. It doesn't have to be so bad, but it is.

perlgeek 3y ago

> One of the interesting ideas [...] is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. While reading this article, I thought about something like that too. Build an airport quite a while away from the big city, and provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. Make it free for customers. Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again.

Dalewyn 3y ago
The aforementioned setup nearly always means the closer airport ends up getting upgraded later to meet convenience demands, leaving the newer-but-inconvenient airport out to dry. See: Haneda (HND) vs. Narita (NRT) in Tokyo, Itami (ITM) vs. Kansai (KIX) in Osaka, etc.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Didn't happen with Denver or Hong Kong.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    Or Paris.
- dwater 3y ago
  In Washington DC, Washington National Airport (WAS) is just across a river from downtown and connected by subway, and Dulles International Airport (IAD) was way out past the exurbs when it was constructed and only just got a subway connection several decades later. IAD gets way more traffic and has as long as I can remember. I'd guess that's because it's not possible to add many more flights to WAS.
  - massysett 3y ago
    This is wrong. Reagan National is DCA, not WAS. Also, DCA handles more passengers than IAD. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/national-airport-passenger-traffic-2022/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/nat...
    - dwater 3y ago
      Sorry, I take the train 10x more than I fly, I mixed up the airport with Union Station.
  - tyoma 3y ago
    Flights to/from WAS are artificially restricted by congress: https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter
  - jaimie 3y ago
    DCA and IAD have their work-load shared due to regulatory action: > The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles (49 U.S. Code § 49109). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport. > Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore. https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-information/dca-reagan-national-slot-perimeter-rules https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-infor...
- sofixa 3y ago
  Not if the old airport gets closed - like Tegel and Tempelhof were in Berlin, even though the new one next to Schonefeld wasn't ready yet due to it being a fiasco of colossal proportions.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Sure, like in the case of Hiroshima Airport (HIJ) and its predecessor (HIW), but even then most people (not necessarily including the politicians) end up longing for the one that was more convenient.
- vel0city 3y ago
  When DFW was built Congress passed the Wright Amendment which kneecapped Dallas Love Field (DAL) to only serve domestic and immediately adjacent state travel. Personally I prefer DAL but I can see how DFW would have potentially withered on the vine if it hadn't been passed. I'm happy its finally expired though and now DAL can offer international flights. Although now that there's a Whataburger at DFW one big argument for me for DAL is a bit less strong. When the Silver Line finally gets built, I imagine almost all my air travel will go to DFW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid...
  - avarun 3y ago
    Jesus. I just read the Wright Amendment article and it’s absolutely disgusting the level of regulatory capture and corporate cronyism enmeshed in our government in this country. There is no reason the federal government should be involving itself in these petty airline disputes, and certainly shouldn’t be helping maintain monopolies for reasons as bad as “American Airlines is the largest employer in North Texas”.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I largely agree with these opinions and dislike the cronyism that is a part of this deal. Looking at it a bit more holistically and seeing the growth of the DFW metroplex from 1980-now though, I think it makes sense for DFW airport to have succeeded. Having the very centralized airport with (theoretically) good rail service to both major cities makes a heck of a lot of sense and have been a good thing for the DFW economy. It would be nearly impossible to build the airport as it is now post that growth, but there's a good chance it wouldn't have survived in the early days given how far out there it was in 1979. So short answer, I hate the cronyism, but many of the positive end goals marketed here ultimately did come true here. And it didn't fully kill DAL or Southwest in the end.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  The issue for Seatac is that it's on a relatively small piece of land and can't really expand. They would definitely just go that route if they could.
lobochrome 3y ago
I live in Tokyo where we have both Narita, far out but well-ish connected by train with NEX and Haneda, with direct access to the city. Haneda is vastly more convenient.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
- rayiner 3y ago
  I fly into Haneda whenever I can, because even though the train is super convenient, for a train, it’s nicer to just throw your bags in a taxi and head straight to your hotel after 13 hours on a plane.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I tend to travel pretty light but trains get inconvenient with any amount of luggage. I'm coming into NY by ship after a longish trip, continuing on home by train at the end of May. I came to the conclusion I should take advantage of a not too expensive luggage shipping service because dealing with the luggage was going to be just too big of a hassle.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      That's a key if you want a "rail to plane" setup - if you do it right (read-nobody will do it) you check in for the train with your baggage and your flight at the same time, and give the bags over to a dedicated baggage car that handles everything for you.
      - _delirium 3y ago
        Hong Kong recently added this, called In-town Check-in [1]. You can check in and drop your bags at the MTR Hong Kong station when taking the Airport Express. Can even drop off the bags up to a day in advance. Currently only open to Cathay Pacific customers though. [1] https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin.html https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin....
kiba 3y ago
Only allow cargo delivery via rail as well. This way this deincentivize road traffic as much as possible.
- Bene592 3y ago
  Allow only short distance deliveries by truck
- bombcar 3y ago
  This guy simcities. Original game you could build rail everywhere instead of roads at all :)
pif 3y ago
> make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means Absolutely not! High-speed train have many advantages, but serving stations with large, long-term parking lots is not one of them. After all, you don't need to disincentivize the approach: you just need to make it clear that the airport is there to stay, and maybe to grow three-fold, and that noise complaints will never be receivable.
- kaashif 3y ago
  > noise complaints will never be receivable. But they are always receivable. Complainers will vote, will take control of local government, will lobby state and national government... "Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.
  - lukan 3y ago
    '"Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.' Oh depends, you can always build some gulags and get rid of those annoying elections. It's crazy how quick you are into dictatorship realm, with some harmles sounding ideas taken one step further.
  - pif 3y ago
    > Complainers will vote, will take control of local government And you won't care, because you have surrendered the zone surrounding the airport to a national authority, whose mandate is clearly linked to the mobility and who is not to report to local council.
newhotelowner 3y ago
I don't think you ever traveled international or your plane got delayed or cancelled. I don't want to carry 4 big bags in the train when I travel international I don't want to travel 30 miles if my plane get cancelled.
- throwway120385 3y ago
  My understanding is that in Japan you can have your luggage portered to your hotel separately.
- dynm 3y ago
  One option would be to have people check in, drop off their luggage, and even go through security in some convenient location in the city center and then take a high-speed train "inside security" to the gate. (Maybe you could even have trains to two different fields.)
  - eitally 3y ago
    That would be fantastic. I'm almost salivating thinking about how appealing that would be in Manhattan (or DC, or even SF).
    - colatkinson 3y ago
      God yeah it's like a hypothetical version of the AirTrain that isn't a huge pain. Last time I flew out of JFK from Manhattan IIRC the easiest way was to do the E or LIRR from Penn to the AirTrain anyway, so might as well streamline the whole shebang.
  - ihaveajob 3y ago
    The Madrid airport offered this service, but it wasn't very popular, nor widely known. You checked in your luggage downtown and hopped on the subway to get to the airport with just your carry-on. I can't find any reference now, so it must have been discontinued.
    - 3y ago
mst 3y ago
-I- would be entirely fine with an airport with those transit restrictions. mdk (Shadowcat's resident responsible adult / business person) however has three kids, and two adults trying to wrangle three children as well as luggage makes trains much, much less attractive as an option. So I think "fantastic to imagine, DOA as an idea in practice" applies, I'm afraid.
- egorfine 3y ago
  Taxi infrastructure is entirely plausible in a project with heavy restriction for private cars. I.e. build all the roads you want but don't make long-term parkings available.
  - mst 3y ago
    Fair point, I was thinking about "cargo traffic only" as in the original though experiment. Coaches with a dedicated luggage section would quite possibly help as well, and it occurs to me that you could have a train with baggage cars ... but having never had to travel with more than one small child I can't say how acceptable those options would be to parents in general.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again. Or go one step further and just put on barriers to block the trains too. Don't let anyone near the airport unless they walk/bike the few miles. That will drive up servicing costs but will dramatically lower congestion. If don't correctly, virtually nobody will ever get to the airport. It can then be closed altogether, thereby eliminating any and all future noise complaints.
- Reubachi 3y ago
  Seeing thought process is interesting. This would face even greater backlash fro locals/local economy. -No way for business around the development to organically grow. - a built in tourism-choke IE; no reason to use the airport save cargo or business -Jobs funneled to and from the city, not the local area. -millions spent by local taxpayers on two high tech infra projects they see little benefit to.
Arrath 3y ago
> run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport Woah, that's a good ways out there
7952 3y ago
That is often the experience already when using a big hub airport. Because by their very nature they draw people in from across a region. And that naturally leeds to congestion and inconvenience. Rail is a help but may not be fast if you don't live close to the right stations. I think hubs are often setup to serve airlines running lots of connecting flight rather than the regional population. They would be happier flying out of a small local airport on a narrowbody and flying direct or connecting elsewhere.
dboreham 3y ago
See: DIA
user_of_the_wek 3y ago
> provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. They wanted to do that in Munich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU

throwaway48476 3y ago

Paine field is the new seattle area airport.

subzidion 3y ago
I don't think they believe Paine Field on its own is going to be able to accommodate the expected air travel growth. Yes, it's serving some commercial air travel now, but the consensus was there needs to be a new airport for all this growth.
arccy 3y ago
it barely has any flights anywhere this now
- dmazzoni 3y ago
  Is there a reason for that? Can it handle more?
  - coryrc 3y ago
    NIMBY
brewdad 3y ago
Paine Field would seem to make the most sense but there really isn't much room to expand it. It can probably help in the short/medium term while a new, from scratch airport is built elsewhere.
RaftPeople 3y ago
Paine field can't support what is needed and can't be expanded. But it will continue to service a small percent of the overall need. The state has created a new commission to start the new airport site selection process over again, but this time it will just be a recommendation. The previous project that had been going on for many years was site selection and not just recommendation, but their selection(s) pissed off the people and so the whole thing got just got killed recently.

tallanvor 3y ago

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

bombcar 3y ago
It'd be easier and cheaper to landfill the sound - or do what is slowly happening and start using Paine Field.

bombcar 3y ago

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

ghaff 3y ago
The newer airport is really less convenient to the mountains than Stapleton was. (At least in terms of distance. Not sure about driving time.)
- bombcar 3y ago
  Ah, I meant that putting the airport farther from the mountains means the planes can take off heading west without circling around. I don't know if it's that far, however.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Stapleton was still east of Denver. I think the siting of DIA was probably more that there was a bunch of flat relatively empty land even further east. It's been a while since I flew into Denver but my recollection is the airport is pretty hell and gone from the city.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bombcar 3y ago
      It is, but in the last 20 years of visiting now and then, it is much more built up on the way "into town" - it used to be that you'd pass that hellhorse and see nothing for 40 minutes but a sign telling you not to stop for prison hitchhikers. Now there's tons of developments - which is always a problem for these airports. I remember when SEATAC was far outside the city and everyone hated it, now it's crammed in the middle of the Seattle/Tacoma metro area, which is all one big blob city.
    - rconti 3y ago

yadaeno 3y ago

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

patch_cable 3y ago
And it is so much better I routinely pay hundreds more to fly out of Paine Field.
jethro_tell 3y ago
Its hit or miss if you can get the flight you need or of there and it always costs more from what I can see.
bombcar 3y ago
Paine Field is also unnaturally large for a "little suburban airport" because it's the site of the largest building in the world, because it's a Boeing assembly plant.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  Are you thinking of Boeing Field? Paine is a tiny little luxury airport with 4 gates.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    Maybe you've got them reversed? I've never been to Boeing Field, but I've been to Paine, and... "Paine Field is home to the Boeing Everett Factory, the world's largest building by volume..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paine_Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paine_Field
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Exactly. Paine Field is tiny as a commuter airport, but it's got huge tracks of land (it's more than half the size of SEATAC and has a 9000 ft runway).

Izikiel43 3y ago

The other problem was that the legislature restricted the commission of where they could look for a new place, it had to be less than X amount of people and other restrictions. In theory there was a good place for an airport if those restrictions were removed

mikestew 3y ago

One of the interesting ideas (that was proposed even back when SEA was adding it's third runway) is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. That would have been an interesting idea before the railroad right-of-way was turned into a multi-use trail. There's another rail corridor that goes through Stampede Pass, but I don't know that it would be usable for "high-speed rail" (nor do I know that it even goes anywhere useful).

balderdash 3y ago

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

jamwil 3y ago

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

resonantjacket5 3y ago

> There's been discussions where the "next" airport should go in the Seattle region, and the consensus is that nobody wants it. The State Legislature created a commission to try and identify some potential sites, but the public backlash was so great that they ended up submitting it's final report with no actual recommendation. The commission was hampered by rules that stated they couldn't look into increasing the existing airports capacity. "Survey responses also conveyed members’ views on what kind of options the Legislature permitted them to consider — the 2019 legislation prohibited considering sites in King County, or those near military bases. Some members noted that those constraints hindered their search efforts, with some doubting whether it’s possible to have a new airport operational by 2040." https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/state-panel-exits-with-a-final-message-washington-needs-a-new-airport/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/state... The "next" airport is basically just expanding SeaTac. There's plans to add a second terminal in SAMP https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/180530-SAMP-Presentation-Public-Meeting.pdf https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/1805... And then even WSDOT's project for the new 509 extension is to allow freight traffic to reach the seatac airport. Outside of that the other regional airport to be used is king county international airport -- even back in 2005 southwest looked into using it. Paine field, while it has the capacity is not where the demand is for passengers. Secondly, I don't think many people realize the bottleneck for SeaTac airport is not just passenger traffic but freight traffic. It's why the airport commission keeps choosing sites south of Seattle aka Pierce County or Thurston County because it's close to the port of tacoma. They aren't going to choose Paine field.

throwway120385 3y ago
Paine field is already loud as hell all the time so I'm glad it's a non-starter.
danielodievich 3y ago
I regularly fly to SFO from Paine field, it is 20 more minutes drive for me from Mercer Island but the experience of the airport is worth it. The lobby that is like a nice W, no security lines whatsoever, and seeing all the green pickle birds being assembled is really nice. I'd fly other places if they were offered. The place can handle a lot more traffic but yeah, the freight isn't going to go there...

nojvek 3y ago

Make Paine field airport bigger and accept international flights. I love that airport. It should be bigger and is north enough that it has its own population. Also US needs to build more high speed rail. We are over-reliant on airports.

shados 3y ago

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