Guest Editorial: Concerns re Port Master Plan Sent to Port Commissioners

— by Tim Blanchard —

To the Commissioners of the Port of Orcas:

Please consider the following comments for the Port of Orcas Airport Master Plan:

GENERAL

1. I am a full-time resident of Orcas Island who has owned property here since 2000 and who has lived here for more than ten years.

2. I use the airport frequently, both for business and pleasure connections on Kenmore and San Juan Airlines.

3. I depend on UPS (Aeronautical Services) and FedEx for business correspondence and for items that can only be purchased off-island.

4. To date, we have been fortunate enough not to have required air evacuation for ourselves, our family or guests, but subscribe to both services and consider their availability critically important to island residents, one of the many trade-offs we make in choosing to live on a rural island rather than in an urban area.

5. I have concerns about both the public communications used by the Port in this process, and about many of the changes that are being proposed for your consideration.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION/PARTICIPATION ISSUES

I believe that this project is yet another example of the provision of the minimum mandated public process by government entities in our community. I understand that some Commissioners are puzzled why so few people showed up for the first two meetings. Islanders, while very concerned about protecting their community, are also busy living life and frequently working hard just making ends meet. A person cannot be multiple places at the same time and must triage the demands of competing public processes. Accordingly, government entities should take steps to advise people as early as possible of the potential consequences of a proposal – not simply that a periodic planning process is happening and not in fine-print legal notices. In this case, the notices should have stressed the potential for the proposed expansion of the airport to have dramatic impacts on the community. Identifying controversial issues clearly and early is important to avoiding the problem of misinformation flying about and panicked rhetoric that we frequently experience in San Juan County.

CONCERNS REGARDING THE CHANGES UNDER CONSIDERATION

I believe that the “safety” argument for rerouting Mount Baker Road is misplaced and over-weighted. A fundamental aspect of rural life and rural character is recognizing and promoting individual responsibility and enabling people to take safety precautions that they see fit based on their evaluation of the risks. It is impossible to eliminate all risk, and people who choose to live in remote and/or rural areas must accept additional risks for the opportunity to do so. We have all concluded that additional risk is reasonable to get to live where we do. In our community, we have invested in first responder capacity far superior to the capacity in most other rural areas of our size. That is an appropriate response to addressing some of the additional risk inherent in rural living. Adopting proposed safety measures that require damaging the character of our community is not reasonable. Accordingly, in my opinion, adding instrument approach systems was reasonable, but re-routing Mt. Baker Road as proposed, or any changes requiring traffic signals, should be a non-starter.

The current situation at Mount Baker Road is a perfect example of this concept in practice. If anyone believes that driving through the RPZ on Mount Baker Road is too dangerous, alternative routes are already available to them. The School District could decide to re-route its bus if it determined that to be an appropriate safety precaution. Indeed, just as we expect of every pilot, we expect every driver, bicyclist, pedestrian, or equestrian on the public way to maintain appropriate situational awareness and exercise appropriate caution based on the circumstances they encounter. People should recognize that they are the crossing flight path and that there may be low flying aircraft at Mount Baker Road and are free and expected to proceed with appropriate caution in the circumstances.

New is not always better. Plans for a shiny new airport terminal might be consistent with the vision of airport planners and consultants, but fail to consider the important role the current terminal and its surroundings, even including the “sardine can” motif of the Aeronautical Services building, play in introducing visitors to our rural community. For many visitors, arriving at the Eastsound Airport is their first contact with our rural island community and those first impressions set the tone and influence visitors’ expectations for their visit. Most visitors to Orcas are seeking to get out of town and away from the city to relax for a while. Arrival at the Eastsound terminal lets them know that Orcas is not just another suburban place with its cookie-cutter commuter airport or perhaps a theme-park rendition of a rural community, but the real thing—organic, yet functional.

Please do not disregard the value of first impressions. Indeed, how many airport terminals are things that people, young and old alike, talk about when they get back to the city and tell their friends about “what they did last summer.” Arriving at the Eastsound Airport — viewing the airport during the downwind, on approach, and pulling up to the terminal– is one of those Orcas experiences that people talk about years later (like walking out to Indian Island at low tide, seeing an eagle from Mountain Lake, or driving by Cascade Lake). First impressions matter and our rural character is what brings visitors and new neighbors to Orcas. Please take care to protect these experiences for future generations of islanders and their visitors.

Design Elements/Results That Should Be Non-Starters

1. Any changes (physical or operating policy/procedure) that would result in a curtailment of Kenmore service to Orcas Island. Many islanders, including full-time islanders, depend on Kenmore to enable us to live and work in the community. Nothing should be done to CURTAIL the operation of Caravans and similar planes.

2. Any changes (physical or operating policy/procedure) that would result in a limitation of air evacuation services for our community. It seems unlikely that the existing airfield cannot support those functions.

3. Any changes (physical or operating policy/procedure) that would result in a significant curtailment of UPS (Aeronautical Services) or FedEx services to our community.

4. Any changes that will require changes in ground transportation away from the airport that are “to be determined in the future.” If there are to be impacts on ground transportation, they should be addressed now. It is difficult to overstate the impact roads and road design have on a place. The feel of a place can be change instantly from rural to urban by changes in a road, and changes in roads are very difficult to reverse.

5. Any re-routing of Mount Baker Road to North Beach Road, especially via Enchanted Forest Road. Changes in Enchanted Forest or North Beach Roads to accommodate additional traffic from Mount Baker Road would irreparably harm the rural character of Eastsound and Orcas. Such changes would also result in a net increase in safety-risks in the affected areas due to the increased risk of traffic accidents, which, of course, are far more likely to occur than an aircraft-motor vehicle accident on current Mount Baker Road south of the runway.

6. Any change that could result in requiring a traffic signal on Orcas. We must avoid creating a situation that would require the urbanization of our community and traffic lights unavoidably change the character of an intersection and impose an urban contrivance interrupting the organic flow of a place. It might not be possible to avoid traffic signals forever, but we should do our best to design projects to avoid the need for them. (Please remember number 4, above, when considering this item.)

Thank you for considering these comments.