Submitted by Bob Warfield.
I am not professionally qualified to advise in the matter of building another international airport to serve the Puget Sound urban realm. But, from what I have read, I am of the opinion that we may be contemplating the “problem and solution” from an isolating perspective, suggesting that the proposed duplication and siting of such facilities at scale warrants a fundamental reconsideration – one informed by altitude and oversight, adaptations required of a warming world. With energy and resource allocations in transformational flux might we address new potentials and limitations affecting not only how we live, travel and communicate, but also how we steward space and nature vital to the environmental wellness that sustains us?
The question at hand is whether anything about Sea-Tac International Airport is so important to the future of Earthbound civilization or national prosperity as to justify duplication with all of its ancillary supporting arrangements, service city and throttling transportation infrastructure. At cost, the proposed six-mile “circle of doom” would mean scraping the life investments of thousands of Pierce County citizens whose family homes, farms, enterprise and cherished aspirations so carefully sought rural location to distance from the very industrial big-city calamity that now darkens their future. One must wonder whether Port of Seattle will contend with Port of Tacoma.
But what I am searching for, and perhaps we all should, is that intersection of conversion where “growth” consumes so much of our natural wealth that another airport becomes figuratively essential to import what we need but can no longer provide. Prime example is the vast and rich alluvial plain south of Renton that now lies beneath rolling concrete and asphalt, as if “anything for IKEA.” Our pursuits of industry challenge conservation of the natural abundance that brought or kept us here to begin with. As a generational species, adapting and claiming right, we are capable of wonder and creative work. But sometimes we lose touch with ourselves or forget that creative work originates in wonder. This Peace of Earth sustains us, imbues our day, our tomorrow, our living outlook from Cascade crest to Pacific shore with starshine embrace and the shared reverence its earliest native habitant.
Washington’s Puget Sound has ten “IATA” airports of commercial capacity. Three are military, five sandwiched by surroundings or otherwise confined. That leaves Sea-Tac and the surprising but remote potential of Bremerton’s (thank you Norm Dicks). Thus Sea-Tac bears the regional mission of proximate aviation gateway.
So, what happens if another Sea-Tac is not built? What other “IATA” hubs or international facilities are now in planning to double by 2050? And would not other means and ways adapt, transportation routing interests and priorities to price-adjust toward less consuming enterprise or realize efficiencies at scale superior to existing convention?
Before lurching forward to satisfy lofty schedules or solidify pre-cast conclusions, further convincing data is plainly due to address necessity. Isolating assumptions confined to doubling Sea-Tac alone, upon which all else appears predicated, are insufficient. Unless it can be shown that the Seattle-Tacoma region (to be defined) accounts at least ninety percent of origin or final destination as a rational basis for determination of projected need, there is no projected need. Where is that shown? There are obviously other established connecting airports and routing options that may efficiently absorb or comparably serve existing or future need.
Flying farther and faster has been an American fixation since Kitty Hawk. But like a snarling rush-hour stalled, whether moving people or stuff, systems concentration without moderation, balance and regulated flow leads to lives diminished by the necessities of its demands. That’s fine if your life’s purpose is a traffic jam. But if from time to time you yearn for just a little tranquility, sound of a silence or a brook, or the site of something wild. It would be nice to know that will remain possible – here. Conversely, taking life as a journey, the wonder of travel is lost when it consists of little more than serial airports and baggage claims.
So, when is more of everything enough? And one might also point out that, while Tahoma is presently silent on the matter, it is a volcano.
With JBLM’s planes and helicopters, Pierce County is inundated with aerial noise, frequently 24/7. McChord has numerous flights leaving at all hours to allow for arrivals at distant ports when they are open/available.
All we need, now, is more noise from another airport and the possible conflicts/accidents with military requirements.
Must have been NOT thought out by the same sources that decided that saving 7 minutes by train, from Portland to Seattle, was worth the expense and inconvenience suffered by many, by going thru thru Lakewood and other cities, at 80 plus mph, rather than along the Sound, where they had travelled many, many years.
This is the sort of thought-provoking commentary which is rarely seen these days. Thank you, Bob Warfield, for your well-crafted point of view!
What’s that saying, “Build it and they will come?” I much prefer, “Don’t build it and they won’t come!”
This is one of the most beautiful areas of the country in so many ways. The mountain ranges, the ocean, lakes, rivers, the climate, the natural resources, and we need to protect them. Our cities now are being overrun with more apartments being build everywhere. Yes…apartments, not houses. Why? Because you can squeeze so many more people in a small space. Our roads are crowded now. What are they going to be like when these apartments are occupied???
PLEASE…DON’T BUILD IT!
Your article brings to mind that there is no way to make I-5 any bigger, and it’s already heavily trafficked. It’s not just a new airport, but all the supporting heavily concrete infrastructure that is required.
As Pat points out, this area is beautiful, and that beauty is worth preserving. What’s more, I’ve never understood why Washington State and Pierce County don’t value and invest more in the Hwy 7 corridor to Mt. Rainier National Park as part of the recreational destination that it truly is. Where is the vision? Why not expand Sprinker? Add a leisure centre? (We have NO swimming pool here) Buy that 80 acres of wetland talked about for a homeless village and instead use it for a bird sanctuary? There is sooo much that could be done!
I will be sharing this opinion piece with my family and friends who live in areas that will be severely impacted if this airport is built. Mr. Warfield challenges all of us to examine, “When is more of everything enough?”. Is this airport really a necessity? Thank you to the writer for sharing his questions, encouraging us to pay attention, and pointing out that the balance between progress and protecting our environment for the well-being of future generations requires serious attention.
HERE’S THE KICKER – How will SEA.2 connect with SEA.1, and just which airlines are prepared to buy into this project at scale to sustain it, even if it cost nothing to build, and who’s going to run it? SERIOUSLY. For fun, “Google” Greenfield Airport, then try to imagine a world that has come to terms with “Climate Change.” … and don’t forget our volcano.
Be well. bob w
All good points to be considered, but the big picture is much more complex.
I read a sticker on a stopsign once that said, “If you had enough, would you recognize it?”
I thought about that for a long time before selling my business to my employees, so they could have an opportunity and I could have a life.
I was raised on a farm where planning and efficiency were absolutely necessary for one’s ability to exist without going broke. It was simply our way of life and it worked.
In the city, people often times drive around for little to no reason at all, with little to no prior planning.
Convenience of urban living makes people unaware of what comes in from “outside” to make that lifestyle possible.
Imagine if we all had the carbon footprint of the jet-setting World Economic Forum folks in Davos Switzerland, who are saving us from climate change.
We would have to build several airports.
So before we discuss any further about things like prosperity for ALL, maybe we should consider what that would actually look like.
Ahhh but don’t worry, the WEF has your travel and all other freedoms corralled in their globalist planning, which is actually poverty for all – except them.
New airport good/bad? No airport good/bad?
A better comprehensive question would be: Are we making the best and most efficient use of what we already have in regards to travel?
I know that if we had to tap or insert a driver’s license at the pump, which was loaded with proof of insurance and registration, there would be far fewer cars on the road today.
Of course some peopleu would cheat, but it would be less convenient.
In parts of Europe, insurance is included in every liter of fuel, but that doesn’t prevent suspended drivers from driving.
The more congested it gets around here, the more I enjoy the comfort of my home, while planning fewer and more-meaningful trips, both on the road and in the air.
A high speed rail system, initially between Bellingham and perhaps as far south as Salem–or farther, has been discussed from time to time. I wonder if such a system might take some of the pressure off both Sea Tac and I-5. Shouldn’t we be taking a comprehensive look at the whole transportation picture, and not just a piece of it?
Much of Europe is already engaged in developing high speed rail. Granted, rail transportation is not suitable for a trip to Japan or Europe, and passengers wouldn’t be traveling at 500mph, but speeds approaching 200mph “aren’t that bad.” it could save much of the hassle of getting to and through the airport and all that air travel involves…This country made a national priority effort to establish the Interstate highway system, and perhaps it should be considering a more environmentally friendly approach to fast interstate transportation.
High speed rail should produce less pollution (climate impact) and could be less expensive for passengers than other means of travel, at least once it was established.
I wonder too if another airport might be looking at yesterday’s technology rather than looking toward the future. Granted, such a rail system, if feasible, would require broader vision and effort than simply applying the band aid of another airport.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566