The master plan update for the Olympia Regional Airport is merely conceptual. That was the main point that Port of Olympia staff wanted to get across to the public at a question and answer session about the plan on Feb. 26.
The port is updating the master plan as a requirement of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It is a six-chapter document detailing the existing conditions of the airport and recommends improvements to accommodate future aviation demands.
Port staff previously mentioned that adoption of the plan is scheduled for consideration by the Port of Olympia Commission’s in March. But that timeline remains unclear.
If the plan is adopted, individual projects under the plan would still need to get funded, reviewed and approved by the commission.
“With FAA master plans, you're talking conceptually because you're talking about a forecasted future potential need, but no guaranteed need,” said Airport Senior Manager Chris Paolini.
“In our case, we're expecting, based on our forecast about a 1% growth per year in aviation operations. But that's a forecast. It may not happen. … It’s not a ‘if you build it, they will come’ situation essentially. It's a ‘if they come,’ this is how we could possibly respond to that demand.”
Still, members of the community are concerned over what the updated master plan could eventually lead to since the port is considering the return of commercial air service.
The port is reserving 55 acres of land for such use, according to the preferred layout plan of the master plan. Blocks of land are also reserved for two general aviation departments, one for smaller aircraft used for personal use and training, and another department for personal or business-type aircraft.
Some people have been imploring the port to pursue an environmental impact statement (EIS) before adopting the plan.
But the port issued a “mitigated determination of non-significance” on Feb. 6 which means it would not need an EIS.
Asked by a community member during the Q&A why the port decided to go this route, staff tacked back to the master plan being conceptual.
“If we were to do an environmental impact statement right now, it'd be purely speculative,” Port Executive Director Alex Smith said.
“If we do get commercial service again off in the future, like, what size planes would they be? We don't know any of the kind of stuff to really do an effective analysis and give people the accurate information about what the environmental impacts would be,” she continued.
“It's essentially a timing issue. If we do get down the road to where there's more concrete actions that we know are going to happen, then absolutely we'll be doing that kind of an environmental analysis.”
Staff also used the Q&A to reiterate that the port does not support the idea of handling traffic from Seattle–Tacoma International Airport.
“Neither port leadership nor other leadership of the surrounding communities have any desire for our airport to become a SeaTac 2.0 or even a reliever airport for SeaTac,” said Paolini said, adding that concerns about the issue have resurfaced.
He described such comments about the issue as being "residual" concern from 2019 when a state-appointed body, called the Commercial Aviation Coordination Commission, was looking at existing airports and new sites to help relieve SeaTac.
Community member Jan Witt pointed out that a new version of the same body, now called the Commercial Aviation Work Group, is continuing to evaluate options and found Olympia Regional Airport could take 15% of SeaTac flights based on the findings of a feasibility study.
Paolini acknowledged the study but insisted without support from the community, the port would not go down that path.
He also mentioned the airport is incapable of becoming a reliever for SeaTac even if the port wanted to, according to a 2022 commercial service feasibility study.
“This study finds it extremely unlikely and infeasible,” Paolini said.
He did clarify what is “potentially feasible” in terms of having commercial air service is in the form of electric and hybrid aircraft, which is not yet commercially available, and a maximum of eight operations (four arrival and four departures) of a 75-passenger aircraft.
“That's what we would likely see about 10 to 15 years from now … assuming there was demand for it, that the population in Thurston County grew enough to support that,” Paolini said.
Smith also mentioned that commercial service will not occur unless there is a commitment from a commercial airline.
Still, some community members said they are not supportive of the return of commercial service and asked whether the public would have a say when the time comes.
This concern tied in with other questions about who has the final say about the airport as the port is obligated to fulfill certain grant requirements from the FAA. Port staff also said there are several limitations as to what they can do can since the FAA has a deed on the airport land.
She also said the port would have to get Part 139 Airport Certification, which is required for commercial service by the FAA.
“There's a lot of process that we would need to go through … so I think there's a lot of opportunities for the elected officials to weigh in and for the public to weigh in on that,” Smith said.
Paolini also opposed the idea that people are not supportive of having commercial service, saying the port conducted a yearlong survey in 2019 that found the “number one priority” for the airport was the return of commercial service.
However, Witt opposed the statement claiming around 250 people have expressed concerns in writing about the airport having the service.
A full video recording of the Q&A is available at YouTube. The Q&A also touched on concerns about a land lease with Swire, which is a Coca-Cola bottling company, noise pollution and other issues about living near an airport, impact of the airport on gopher habitat, the use of unleaded gas and other issues.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
SecondOtter
It is interesting that a yearlong survey in 2019 found that the number one priority for the airport was a return of commercial service. I never saw said survey.
I've lived in Tumwater for almost thirty years, saw two commercial airlines try to use ORA as a base and both went broke. Yet this so called survey says 'we' want to try it a third time? I don't ever remember seeing this survey. Who did? Aviation types? Was it sent to the people whose homes are at the end of the runways? Homeowners who will deal with daily operations over their homes? We get too many private aircraft circling circling circling over our homes every time the sun shines. I guess the schools at the airport are incapable of flying to an uninhabited area in which to train pilots on how to circle. And I thought the concept of flight was to go from point A to point B in a straight line!
Let's try that survey again, this time instead of cherry picking who gets it to those of us who will be affected by not only the operations but all the mess involved...eminent domain, environmental damage to the air, noise, congestion, traffic, lowered property values that mean that the revenue from property taxes will have to be made up by other taxes...try selling a house at the end of the runway.
If you want to see what it will look like, just go to Seatac, the desperately poor residential area at the end of Sea Tac airport. You can't give those homes away. No one wants to live next to an airport of any size.
Friday, March 7 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
Aviation demand forecasts are the opposite of conceptual. Forecasts are predictions, best estimates of what we think will happen. It's an estimate using actual data on population growth. Conceptual, by contrast, means ideas not bounded by data. As such, the term "forecast" and "conceptual" are mutually exclusive.
Given that the FAA requires master plans to accommodate aviation forecast demand, and given that this particular master plan has, according to the Port, "conceptual" elements, it suggests to me that this plan has in mind development far in excess of aviation demand forecasts. In other words, pork. The commissioners should ask staff to remove the pork and keep only what's needed for the actual aviation demand forecasts.
As for the argument that commuter airlines may not materialize here, I think that is not the proposal we should be focused on. In trying to figure out what Port staff are aiming for behind closed doors, one should look instead at air cargo distribution centers and plans for many new warehouses in Tumwater through companies like Panattoni and Swire. The demand for air cargo capacity has skyrocketed due to the growth of online retailers. E-commerce (e.g., Amazon) is creating a huge desire for more air cargo capacity around the country. The draft Plan would enable the Olympia Airport to become a regional air cargo distribution center. This would result in a dramatic increase in air ultrafine particulate matter (UFP) and noise pollution in our county. Cargo flights would likely be occurring at all hours.
Some say that would bring jobs. But we're not suffering from an unemployment problem in this county. Moreover, warehouse jobs are typically not good jobs. Amazon warehouses drain local economies because they take more money out than they put in. Virtually all the warehouse jobs are temporary at Amazon, with no opportunity to become permanent. Read this well-researched and eye-opening article to see just how bad warehouse distribution centers can be on a local economy and tax base, given the fact that semis tear up roads and require millions of dollars of road maintenance (not to mention all the impacts to Tumwater's drinking water and salmon runs in the Deschutes River. The airport sits on the aquifer that supplies (1) most of Tumwater's drinking water and (2) significant instream flows in the Deschutes): https://newrepublic.com/article/152836/elwood-illinois-pop-2200-become-vital-hub-americas-consumer-economy-its-hell
Saturday, March 8 Report this
Southsoundguy
There is no demand for this. It’s just a scheme for the port and some developers to make a bunch of fake money. If any local official supports this they do not have the communities interests in mind and should be considered a threat to our way of life. They want to turn us into the Kent Valley so they can make a buck.
Saturday, March 8 Report this
PamelaJHanson
Well, Otter, Kramer and Guy seem to have covered most of the issues. So, I am left with feeling the need to give out thank you's to everyone involved so far, once again, on an ongoing basis over the years, both in front of and behind the scenes and before, during and after meetings whether on or off the written or video record. The level of frustration that some feel on the behalf of others that are raising or taking care of families, their health, and working to keep housed is a burden shared by only a small portion of people in Thurston County. Those that do, along with the very much appreciated media, frequently experience push-back of some sort along the way. Let's give everyone a round of applause for what seems to be a very temporary success. Because, the Commercial Aviation Work Group, even if they have or have not seen automated cargo lifts without security inspections of cargo, is obviously one to watch regarding their interactions with the Port.
Sunday, March 9 Report this
SecondOtter
Thank you, Pamela. I sometimes feel as if not enough people are willing to stand up against plans like this. I am not a conspiracist but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And this da very ugly duckling. For all the reassurances from the Port of Olympia, it still feels feel as if they're patting me on my silly head and saying there, there dear don't you worry, you'll be dead by the time this all comes to pass.
When we were fighting the first go round of "Let's Make a New Mega Airport" I had a very long conversation with Rob Hodgman, the 'senior aviation analyst'. Remember, the CACC was gaslighting Seattle and the legislators. Their public relations people came up with a gaslighting phrase, 'greenfields'. They made it sound as if Thurston County had seven square miles of empty, barren, unused land. Not a word was said about the thousands of homes, private property, farms, parks, businesses, schools, etc. that would all be condemned by eminent domain and destroyed. Nope.
I finally got Hodgman to define what was meant by "green fields". To him and the airport planners for the mega airport and now Olympia Regional Airport, quote, 'green fields" means "Anywhere there isn't an airport." unquote.
Does a greenfield, then, mean places like Bellevue, where the wealthy live? Any chance of their homes being condemned? Welllllllllllll
Another thing he said was "you have to understand that someone is going to have to draw the short straw."
I said, "That's only fair when EVERYONE in Washington has to draw straws, not just Thurston county."
to which he said, well, yeah.
He also said that Yakima has expressed interest in an airport. Currently, if you live in Yakima and want to fly, you have to add another day to your trip just to get to SeaTac. But...........the FAA and airlines don't want to build in Yakima, because they'd have to put in an awful lot of infrastructure ...a big six lane highway over the mountains and through the scablands, install power transmission towers, find a landfill capable of accomodating a giant airport, ind a water source that's not already claimed by the residents in Yakima never mind Yakima Training Center, etc
They have that here, although Hawks Prairie can barely accomodate what Thurston county produces NOW. All that infrastructure would be paid for by........guess who? Yup. You, me, and everyone in Thurston county.
Interestingly, Hodgman, who owned property in Rainier, sold it and moved during the backlash to the mega airport.
Who is pushing this? Big business AND Seattle. Amazon, for instance, put in a huge warehouse not more than a mile down 93rd, with full intentions of using Olympia's Regional Airport it as their tax payer funded private cargo jet airport. Then after destroying yet another pasture with a monster pair of warehouses, they abandoned it. One of the warehouses is now being leased by a paint company but the other is still vacant.
And, just the other day, the Port of Olympia is going to allow the bottleing plant to come in and steal our water. Yes, steal. And then sell it back to us at five bucks a bottle.
We have to keep up the fight. The port of olympia, the FAA, the fatcat CEO's need to understand that we will not take this.
Sunday, March 9 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@SecondOtter, THANK YOU for that important information. I will add that the replacement for the Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC), which is called the Commercial Aviation Working Group (CAWG), is mandated by the legislature to "consider alternatives to additional aviation capacity." But from what I could tell during CAWG's meeting on Friday, not a single voting member of CAWG (and maybe not a single nonvoting member too) has expertise in, or a focus on, high-speed rail. High-speed rail is how Yakima could get its airport. But in the big picture, it's also how we reduce the reliance on airplanes. CAWG, like CACC, seems to suffer from industry capture (like the FAA does). The special interests (developers) get their own people in positions of influence so as to ensure continued profit for the aviation industry, at the expense of the greater good.
Monday, March 10 Report this
SecondOtter
Thank you, Ms. Kramer.
I think that the big STOP sign to high speed rail is are the railroad companies such as BNSF. They are VERY JEALOUS of 'their rail lines". I lived in Europe for seven years and the railroads there have priorities: Human transport is FIRST and cargo second. Consequently the railroads are well run and in most...not all...fairly well maintained. (you do NOT want to ride a train in India.)
Whereas here in the US, human transport is something the railroad companies are forced to provide, and only one company, AMTRAK, funded by the government, is allowed to do so. And human transport is secondary in priority. WAY secondary. Amtrak is grudgingly allowed to use the tracks, and probably only becasue the government subsidizes the companies.
I've even heard the excuse for no high speed rail is 'they 'can't get the land' for new tracks....but if you look at Japan, they have high speed rail elevated over their highways. And in cities like Chicago, the "El" (slang for elevated) goes many places right over the roads.
I agree with you, high speed rail is the best bet, and the technology for low pollution trains is already in use.
Monday, March 10 Report this