Aviation System Planning Summary - 1995 Update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region, MTP-16, Sept 1994
Click HERE for graphic.
A. BACKGROUND
The Regional Transportation Plan and Growth Strategy (VISION 2020)
provides for an amendment to include a revised aviation element
based on the work of the Flight Plan Project (1989-92). Further,
federal legislation (ISTEA) calls for airport access as part of the
broad intermodal and multimodal transportation plans now required
at the regional and the state levels. Possible federal legislation
amending the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) might further integrate regional aviation system planning
into the National Transportation System.
This Appendix summarizes recent regional aviation system planning
elements being developed by the Regional Council (e.g., under
Assembly Resolution A-93-03, April 1993) as this relates to the
work of airport operators and the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
B. THE CURRENT SYSTEM
1. The current situation
The needs for commercial aviation in the central Puget Sound region
were researched jointly by the predecessor agency to the Regional
Council, and the Port of Seattle, under an interagency agreement
(the Flight Plan Project). Forecasted regional needs were detailed
in the Flight Plan Phase II Report (June 1991), and in the Flight
Plan Non Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (October 6,
1992), and subsequently have been updated in the Port of Seattle
Master Plan Update to be completed in late 1995.
a. Operational Forecasts. Forecasted aircraft trends are briefly
summarized in Table 1. Aircraft passengers are the total of those
who begin their trip in Seattle (originating), those who arrive
from other airports (arriving), and those who are simply
transferring between arriving and departing aircraft (connecting).
Aircraft operations refer to the total of aircraft takeoffs and
landings. Cargo handling is related to the MTP Freight Mobility
Element.
Table I
AVIATION TRENDS
Measure 1993 2000 2010 2020
Total Passengers (millions) 18.8 23.8 30.6 38.2
Operations (thousands) 339,459 379,200 405,800 441,600
Air Cargo (metric tons)
Sea-Tac Airport 381,541 510,000 680,000 880,000
Boeing Field 22,199 35,249 -- 78,734
(1990)
(Source: Traffic and Operations Report (December 1993), and
Airport Activity Report (1993, p. 21), both Port of Seattle);
and Project II Report, Washington State Air Transportation
Commission, October 1992, A-1).
From Table 1, we can see that the projected passenger count is
expected to double between the years 1993 and 2020. During the same
period the number of operations (the measure most directly related
to runway capacity) increases by less than one-third. This more
moderate trend is due largely to the expected replacement of the
smaller aircraft, especially commuter aircraft, with larger
aircraft.
b. Review of Assumptions. The Flight Plan forecasts, completed in
early 1990, showed greater expected increases than those reported
above (e.g., 524,000 operations in 2020). This work was completed
immediately before airline over-investment and a prolonged national
recession (and other events) combined to visibly affect passenger
airline travel. These factors draw into serious question previously
optimistic projections of air travel growth, at least for the near
term. For example, the total number of operations in 1990 was
355,007 compared to 339,459 in 1993 (also due to more efficient
commuter operations).
Forecasting uncertainties are located in core modeling assumptions
about such factors as trends in personal discretionary income, and
in per capita airplane trips per year. These and other assumptions
are best addressed through modeling combined with tracking of
trends and core assumptions. At the policy level, forecasting
uncertainty calls for a flexible implementation strategy. This is
the approach reflected in Resolution A-93-03 (April 1993). The
General Assembly initiated assessment of possible "insurance
policies" for the future. The action
2
package eventually selected is to be flexible to either more rapid
or slower growth than is indicated by any set of air passenger and
air operation forecasts.
2. The current regional aviation system
a. Facilities. In addition to Seattle-Tacoma Airport, the
regional aviation system includes a large number of general
aviation airports and two military airports. Non-military airports
of national significance in the central Puget Sound region are
listed as part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS). The NPIAS is maintained by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and included in the Washington State
Continuous Airport System Plan (1993, Figure 1-6). These airports
are: Sea-Tac International Airport, Auburn Municipal, Boeing Field,
Paine Field, Renton, Bremerton International, Tacoma Narrows,
Auburn, Arlington Municipal, Crest Airpark, Harvey Field, Pierre
County/Thun Field, Vashon Island, and two seaplane bases (Lake
Washington and Lake Union). Other general aviation airports open to
the public are generally as listed in the 1988 Regional Airport
System Plan (RASP, Table 1).
Military airports are McChord and Gray Army Airfield, both in
Pierce County. In addition the National Guard is under lease until
1998 (and renewable) to use Paine Field in Snohomish
County.
b . Operating environment. Sea-Tac International Airport is the
commercial service airport in the region. The commercial airlines
are privately owned and at the national level were deregulated in
1978. The commercial airlines operate under the protection of the
Interstate Commerce clause. As a general point, intermodal
transportation planning is done within the context of varied
degrees of national deregulation of all modes of transportation--
airlines (1978), the railroads (1980), shipping (1985), and
trucking (remaining intrastate trucking regulations were removed by
federal law in August 1994).
Demand management and system management approaches (e.g., pricing
structures, and airport gate controls) to airline service growth
are constrained by the Interstate Commerce Clause, and by the
strong voice of the airlines in protecting their current economic
interests.
Impacts of any new facilities serving growing commercial airline
activity in the central Puget Sound region are certain to result in
litigation. But despite the Interstate Commerce Clause of the
United States Constitution, state regulatory authority under the
delegated police power also may become a factor in addressing
limitations on facility siting.
c. System management. Airports serving commercial, general
aviation, and military operations are separately owned and
operated. Airspace and air safety are controlled by Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). Sea-Tac International Airport and
Boeing Field have closely coordinated operations due to the
intersection of the respective runway extensions (and aircraft
flight tracks). This may affect options for a possible third runway
at Sea-Tac Airport (This issue may be addressed by the FAA in
modeling work it is doing in technical support of the Port of
Seattle's site-level Master Plan Update).
3
Overall transportation system management discussions include
consideration of (a) high speed rail (a) possible alternative for a
small share of north-south commuter airline travel), (b) improved
navigational equipment and system wide airspace utilization, (c)
telecommunications as an alternative to air travel especially for
business passengers, and (d) a general concern over the large share
that commuter airline operations are of total arrivals and
departures at Sea-Tac Airport.
Note: Commuter operations consumes 38 percent of the
operational capacity at Sea-Tac (down from 43 percent),
while accounting for 8 percent of the total passengers
(half of these are transfer passengers to and from the
major airlines). The forecasts shown on Table 1 reflect a
projected reduction of commuter operations to 27 percent
of the total operations.
The commercial air travel demand pattern shows periods of seasonal
and daily peak use. Annually, peak commercial use is in the month
of August (when daily passengers are 145 percent of the average
annual daily level). Daily peaks are in the morning, at noon (the
greatest peak) and in the early evening. The noon peak is governed
in part by our hour-distance from departure airports in the midwest
and overseas. The morning and evening peaks overlap general
commuter peak travel in our region.
d. Current capacity. Commercial air transportation for the region
and much of the state is served by Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport. The efficient capacity of Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport, determined by a selected standard of average delay for
each arrival and departure, is roughly 380,000 operations (arrivals
and departures) annually. This annual figure could be greater, but
is affected by weather about 40-45 percent of the time. Inclement
weather reduces capacity by forcing arriving planes into a single
file runway approach.
In addition to runway and airspace capacity, airport capacity is
also bounded by airport terminal capacity and ground access
capacity. These three constraints (airspace, runway, and
terminal/ground access) will be addressed as appropriate in the
airport Master Plan Update, and in several modal elements of the
regional MTP, respectively.
C. ACTION PLAN
1. Current Regional Policies
Current regional policy consists of a series of recommendations for
commercial and general aviation. These are presented in the 1988
Regional Airport System Plan prepared by the predecessor agency to
the Regional Council. Acting on and modifying these recommendations
is the more recent Resolution A-93-03 discussed above. VISION 2020
anticipates amendments such as the recent Resolution, and
completion of the further work called for in the Resolution:
4
"No new airports will be assumed. The Regional Air Carrier
System Plan is being developed separately and will be amended
into the Growth Strategy and Transportation Plan upon
completion. Any new airport and its attendant impacts will be
evaluated as part of that amendment process. The air carrier
plan will reflect the results of this regional plan update in
any recommendations that are made." (VISION 2020 FEIS,
Assumptions, p. 7).
And,
"Refine VISION 2020 based upon collaboration among all
agencies in the region in order to assure a common vision.
Refinements will recognize parallel planning by other public
and private agencies, including ports and emerging county wide
growth management efforts" (VISION 2020 Growth and
Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region,
Summary Policy No. 6 (of 6), October 1990, endorsed by the
Regional Council, March 1992).
2. Current Activities
The Regional aviation system needs are being addressed through
parallel actions of the Regional Council and the airport
owner/operators (especially for Sea-Tac International Airport,
Boeing Field, and Paine Field). A major point of closure,
established under Resolution A-93-03, is completion of both the
Airport Master Plan Update by the Port of Seattle, and the
feasibility assessment for a complementary major supplemental
airport, undertaken by the Regional Council and the Washington
State Department of Transportation. Independent review panels have
been appointed by the Transportation Secretary (WSDOT) to evaluate
three cross-cutting questions: demand management and system
management, noise reduction at Sea-Tac Airport, and the
effectiveness of a possible new major supplemental airport
(possibly combined with management actions) in eliminating the need
for a third runway at Sea-Tac Airport.
The 1988 Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) includes chapters on
general aviation (including discussion of helicopters and tilt-
rotor, etc.). Since 1988, national forecasts and recent trends show
little or no growth in general aviation needs. General aviation is
expected to grow by one percent per year at Paine Field and at
Boeing Field (Project II Final Report: Air Transportation Demand,
Aviation Industry Trends, and Air Capacity in Washington Through
2020, Washington State Air Transportation Commission, p. 4-27).
With regard to helicopter and tilt-rotor opportunities, the
Regional Council has a role in presenting helicopter aviation
system issues and options to local land use agencies (responsible
for possible siting actions).
3. Regional Alternatives
From the Flight Plan Project resulted in General Assembly action
calling for and defining an "insurance policy" which can be
implemented as needed, and only to the degree that it is needed.
Resolution A-93-03 identifies the insurance policies as: Sea-Tac
Airport, expanded through capital investment; or a range of
multiple airport systems involving Sea-Tac Airport in
5
conjunction with either small complementary regional airport(s) or
one large supplemental airport (the "preferred alternative"). The
multiple airport system alternatives may or may not involve capital
investment at Sea-Tac.
The regional preferred alternative involves possible actions at
Sea-Tac International Airport and a feasibility assessment for a
major supplemental airport. The possible major supplemental airport
is defined as providing one runway initially, but as expandable to
two runways as the need may arise. The Regional Council, in
cooperation with the WSDOT, initiated a feasibility assessment for
a possible large supplemental airport within the four-county
region. Screening of potential sites (Phase 1) was completed on
September 22, 1994, and it was concluded that local governments did
not wish to pursue detailed studies at particular sites. A complete
feasibility assessment would have addressed three factors in all--
siting options, cooperation between current and new airport
operators, and conditions necessary to involve the private (and
deregulated) airlines. Results from the Phase I assessment effort
(and possible follow-up decisions), the Master Plan Update, and
results from the independent review panels, could lead to later
amendments to the 1995 MTP Update.
3. Proposed Regional Policies
a. Background
Since the mid-1960s the regional planning agency has prepared
technical studies and plans to meet regional aviation needs. Most
recently, these include the Regional Airport System Plan (adopted
in 1988), the Flight Plan planning project (completed in the Flight
Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued in October 1992),
and concluding the Regional Council's Flight Plan Decision Process,
the adoption of Resolution A-93-03 (April 29, 1993).
Separate from these regional aviation efforts, the regional agency
adopted the broad VISION 2020 Growth Management Strategy and
Transportation Plan (adopted in October 1990). As noted above
(section C-1), VISION 2020 deferred to the results of the
continuing Flight Plan planning and decision process. In 1993
VISION 2020 was superseded by refined Multi-county Growth
Management Policies completed under the new state Growth Management
Act (GMA, 1990-1). The Multi-county Policies work toward
concentrated development, growth boundaries, and activity centers,
and multimodal transportation projects and programs, but do not yet
directly address regional aviation.
b. Surface Access:
To provide access to airports through the regional planning
process, and in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) to take
into account aviation improvements in terms of their potential
impact on surface transportation needs that are directly addressed
in the MTP.
The ISTEA does not assign airport planning to metropolitan planning
organizations. Instead, it emphasizes the need to ensure linkages
among various modes of transportation, and access to airports along
with access to other important intermodal
6
terminals must be considered as part of the planning process
(Federal Register, October 28, 1993, page 58058).
Under the GMA, local transportation plans are to include an air
transportation facilities "inventory" (WAC 365-195-325 (2)(d)(i)).
The scope of the Regional Transportation Planning Organization's
discretion in aviation planning is unclear, although special
district plans governing essential public facilities, are to be
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city or county (WAC
365-195-340(2)(b)(iv)). We should notice that our role is weak
enough that the Air Transportation Commission included in its
legislative recommendations a requirement for Regional
Transportation Planning Organizations to include an aviation
element in their respective metropolitan transportation plans.
Local responsibilities are passive. No local plan (city or county)
may preclude the siting of essential public facilities (WAC 365-
195-340(l)(c)). Similarly, the relationship to multi-county
policies is unclear.
C. Collaboration: (1) To participate with the state and other
lead agencies, in consultation with stakeholders, to understand and
resolve long-term regional aviation needs, and if appropriate, to
work with state and local agencies to develop and apply siting
criteria and procedures for a second commercial airport.
This policy commits the Regional Council to work in cooperation
with the state in aviation, as a matter of "state interest", with a
broader circle of responsible local governments and in consultation
with community stakeholders. The hierarchy of issues to be
addressed, in different ways, is first, the size and timing of
needs within the region, second, regional strategies for packaging
solutions that are responsive to all agency responsibilities and
affected parties (for example, Resolution A-93-03 itself), and
third, criteria such as those developed and used during the Flight
Plan Decision Process (see item C-5, below), and procedures for
later siting a possible second commercial airport region.
An effective multi-county or state method for dealing with
facilities serving essential public facilities does not now exist.
This policy proposes collaboration with others to develop a
specific site-banking process for a major supplemental airport.
And further, (2) to work with the state and with local land use
authorities to regionally address possible local helicopter
services as parts of a regional system. The system (a) would
generally distinguish and, in different ways, serve varied user
groups ( public use versus emergency medical, law enforcement or
large scale emergency response), (b) would involve a network of
locations and routes, and where appropriate, (c) would be
integrated into intermodal facilities.
Specific public safety uses might meet greater public acceptance
than passenger service or the needs of corporate travelers. Public
safety uses are emergency medical service, law enforcement and
emergency response (e.g., medical support and large scale air
7
delivery of supplies). If public use heliports are needed and
locally accepted, multimodal planning should address intermodal
facilities, and routes along current freeway corridors (noise
corridors). Implementation should consider site level restrictions
on times of operation, location and use. For example, some of these
restrictions would preclude funding from the Federal Aviation
Administration.
The state's Puget Sound Heliport System Plan (still in draft form)
will recommend a role for the Regional Council in helping the state
work with local land use authorities to consider a heliport system
for the region. The Regional Council would help frame the issue and
foster informed discussions. The above policy folds this
recommendation into our pending MTP actions (December 1994). The
state must also address heliport "needs" and solutions in its
multimodal plan, but this is on a time scheduled staggered after
our work. Approval and siting of actual facilities is clearly a
local responsibility and is not compromised.
A possible outcome of the proposed regional policy, and possible
local actions, might be a pattern of designated emergency landing
areas to be used in the event of a major earthquake. Systematic
designation of sites in advance would improve efficiency and reduce
confusion in the event that airport delivery of supplies or
emergency personnel ever became necessary. In terms of public use
helicopter sites, the region might find that helicopter mobility is
essential in attracting some kinds of investment and jobs to the
region. If this is true, then helicopter service should not be
dismissed as simply an elitist convenience after the fact.
d. Coordination: To work with lead agencies to ensure that
commercial aviation planning and general aviation planning are
addressed as regional systems. Commercial aviation links this
region and state to other regions and nations. Commercial aviation
and regionally significant general aviation planning should be
compatible with:
(a) Each other,
(b) The multimodal regional transportation plan including the
mobility of freight and goods,
(c) Regional economic strategies, and (d) broader growth
management planning under state legislation.
This policy acknowledges that commercial and general aviation needs
are interrelated. Commercial aviation solutions should not impinge
on general aviation services, and collaborative management of the
system of aviation airspace and facilities can continue serve the
needs of both commercial and general aviation. This policy also
refers indirectly to GMA interactive planning requirements (and SHB
1948) and the required test for consistency between regional plans
and county-wide policies, to the related guidelines and principles
(to be cooperatively developed by July 1995), and to the Regional
Council's certification process for local transportation plans
(December 1996).
Further, the draft policy places regional aviation within an
economic development context
8
looking outside of the region, as well as a regional growth
management context with regard to actual facility siting and
mitigation. Finally, it applies the broadened transportation
planning perspective defined by ISTEA (1 99 1) and the state
Transportation Policy Plan (1993), to now serve both the mobility
of persons and the mobility of freight and goods.
5. Regional Decision Criteria
Five broader issues served as Regional Council decision criteria in
preparing and adopting Resolution A-93-03. These were carefully
defined in an attachment to a regional decision matrix used during
the Regional Council decision process ("Flight Plan Decision
Criteria: Definitions February 18, 1993). The five Decision
Criteria are listed (but not fully defined) here.
a. Adequate capacity (annual service volume, and daily weather
issues). Options for solving long term needs are not easily
separated from periodic loss of capacity at Sea-Tac Airport due to
weather. Construction options at Sea-Tac Airport can address the
current weather-related need, but in doing this, might compromise
the search for longer term solutions involving other sites.
Resolution A-93-03 directly addressed this tradeoff through the
dual-track decision approach (namely, site-level analysis at Sea-
Tac Airport, and feasibility assessments for a complementary site
possibly located in the four-county central Puget Sound region).
b. Other. In addition to capacity concerns, the remaining four
regional criteria developed and applied during the Regional Council
Decision Process (spring 1993) are as follows.
Environmental factors: the natural and human environments,
especially noise impacts, congestion, and property values.
Economic factors: long-term employment and project financing,
i.e., funding, above.
Implementation/governance: the aviation system, addressed by
the Washington State Air Transportation Commission, and site-
level implementation, e.g., siting of a major supplemental
airport.
Growth management planning.
Note that three of these criteria are each divided into two
important parts. These five decision criteria will continue to be
useful to the region in approaching issues researched in the
continuing regional and site level studies.
9
