What's at stake in airport-for-land deal

The Port of Seattle and King County announced plans Tuesday to give the county ownership of a 47-mile suburban train line and the port control of Seattle's secondary airport, which is now county-owned. The stakeholders need to tread carefully.

Consolidating management of the region's airports makes sense. Currently no fewer than four governments control the major airports closest to Seattle, leading to competition that doesn't benefit taxpayers or travelers. Look at King County's attempt last year to lure Southwest Airlines from port-owned Sea-Tac, a move that would have added to road traffic and hindered the airport's regional role.

Unfortunately the latest plans may waste the valuable rail corridor, a 100-foot-wide swath that could easily accommodate a multi-use path alongside a commuter rail operation for much of its length. King County Executive Ron Sims seems focused on ripping up the rails to build a bike path, which would be a personal legacy, according to an earlier press release, but wouldn't significantly improve the region's mobility. Instead, retooling the train corridor could dovetail with Sound Transit plans for light rail and buses to serve job centers on the Eastside, and with additional commuter trains south of Seattle. Parcels that don't fit could be sold to help pay development costs.

Those details seemed far away during the announcement Tuesday. When asked what the deal would cost, according to the Seattle P-I, Sims said: "A lot. Wow, I don't think we've ever...I don't even know how to start counting. Hundreds of millions of dollars."

There are still many pieces that need to come together for the deal, which also involves other property and rail lines. But the focus needs to be on improving the mobility of the region and on getting long-term value for taxpayers, not the vanity of another bike path.

Comments

[jim]

What's the rationale then for not using the corridor for mass transit? It'd be too expensive? Not pretty enough? Tracts of land like this hardly ever come along and although I love trails, we NEED trains and want trails.

[Frank Bruno]

I agree. I wonder if this is an easy way to buy the corridor now and figure out what to do with it later? Maybe that's the reason for the sketchy details.

I'd be curious how close the alignment runs to actual population centers. it seems like it more-or-less follows the 405 from Redmond to Bellevue, which is encouraging.

[RD]

"Consolidating management of the region's airports makes sense."
I completely disagree. The port has turned Sea-Tac into an expensive place to operate an airline due to the mandatory airport fees. Without competition to force the port to focus on operational efficiency instead of showcase picture window projects, we will never see the port move towards becoming an efficient operation. I would personally really like the chance to fly southwest out of another nearby airport be it Boeing Field or Everett. Every time I fly out of a smaller California airport I remember how much more efficient the time from parking to gate (and vice versa) can and should be.

[Brad Meacham]

The rail line essentially parallels I-405 from Renton to Kirkland, before veering to Woodinville and Snohomish County. It's an incredibly valuable corridor because demand is growing and 405 isn't going to get much wider. The line goes right past the area considered for a new Sonics stadium.

Let me clarify the comment about "consolidating management" of the airports. Sea-Tac is already competing with PDX and YVR. This region agreed to invest in one major airport with the third runway, new terminals and light rail. Why undercut that taxpayer investment? Some commercial flights at Paine Field would relieve some road traffic but wouldn't hurt Sea-Tac like a major operation at Boeing Field.