Q & A time

A reader (call him E T) writes:

"Why were there no future airport sites listed in the recent state gov commission report? " 

E T refers to the final recommendations of the Aviation Planning Council.  See blog item posted on 4 September, "A New Major Airport?"

Here's our response:  

= = =

Dear [ E T ],

The Aviation Planning Council simply shirked its responsibilities.

They offered two excuses -- feeble, unconvincing excuses -- (1) they in their wisdom had determined that there was no political will to proceed forward with a new facility (not a good reason for failing to consider what sites might be appropriate) & (2) there was no immediately obvious source of funding for construction of a new facility (factually inaccurate, & also irrelevant). 

That's how [we] read what they wrote. See p.6 of the RCAA analysis "A Predictable Failure", the paragraph with the heading, "Step 1 -- no new airports".

(The Council's notion about a "sponsor" for the project is pure baloney not deserving of further discussion.)

You will not find any helpful discussion in the Aviation Planning Council's final document on the subject of cost of a new aviation facility vs. costs of other alternatives. RCAA concluded nearly a decade ago that a whole new airport, on a big campus with ample buffering between airport and other activities, could be built for no more than the Port District would spend for its expansion of Sea-Tac. Nothing has happened to change our views on that.