— by Bea vonTobel, former ORS Port Manager–
First, a little history
- Since the first FAA grant was authorized in 1975, total federal dollars invested in the Orcas Island Airport have totaled $8,836,631.00.
- Between 2007 and 2017, WSDOT/Transportation funding has totaled $253,309.00.
- Total investments: $9,089,940.00.
- Current port-leased hangars total 37 plus two commercially-leased hangars and one additional land lease (FedEx).
- Tiedown spaces include 30 grass tiedown spaces and 23 tarmac spaces.
And now, some past and future predictions
Historic and forecast data for Orcas airport show extremely modest upward trends. Looking at historical tiedown numbers, a large number of annual tarmac rentals decreased when 14 new hangars were constructed soon after 2000, and those tarmac tiedown numbers appear not to have increased, especially after the economic downturn in 2008.
General transient visits to the airport have increased in the last 2-3 years. Income from those visits should be available in monthly financial statements and would indicate current trends.
Enplanement data is based on data submitted by commercial operators serving the airport. Over the last 20 years, both enplanements and commercial operations have reported slight decreases. Current FAA 20-year forecast estimates show 3.1% increase in enplanements, and .87% increase in commercial operations.
Instrument approach/departure (IFR) activity to ORS (the airport) has increased as the result of the completion of instrument (GPS) approaches to both Runways16 and 34. There is no easy way to discern whether that activity is due to commercial, transient or based-aircraft activity.
With the FAA estimate for a 3.32% increase in based aircraft when compared to a 2.48% increase in population over 20 years, conclusions might be drawn re future residents.
Observations and opinions
1—It would be great to extend the east boundary of the airport north from the present corner of the rotating beacon to Mike Parnell’s property boundary.( Parnell’s property lies just north of Dick Griot’s and Larsons’s properties, which are the two properties just north of the airport’s property on the east side. Parnell’s property is also just south of Brandt’s Landing property line. So, in order, south to north, it’s port, Griot, Larson, Parnell, Brandt’s Landing—on the east side.)Land purchase would be needed to accomplish this.
2—It would also be great to purchase land on the west side of the airport to allow the south stub of taxiway A2 to be extended to and connected with the south end of Aviator Dr, and thus to taxiway B1. This would provide aircraft access to the port’s westside property and eliminate back-taxiing on the runway.
Neither of these items would satisfy the FAA runway-parallel taxiway separation requirements, but that would be another item to discuss and perhaps modify. It would, however, provide the port with land to develop which could provide an additional income stream for future growth.
3—The terminal is in need of an update. Its current location is wonderful, as arrivals can deplane, walk through two doors and have immediate access to ground transportation. Its location is what makes arriving at ORS such an informal and pleasantly unusual experience. It would be great to replicate that experience in a more modern and Orcas-like facility.
4—Much has been said about the mention of a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility. We talked about it as far back as 2009. Having a seasonal facility, shared with Brandt’s Landing, made sense when we were discussing it. Both pilots and boaters would have a way to come here without having to land/dock first in Bellingham or Friday Harbor. During those discussions, a price upwards of $100,000 was the starting point for construction of a facility, with personnel costs additional. The operative word here is seasonal.
5—There has been mention of additional vehicle parking. The port owns developable land, and if ‘event’ parking is needed, options are available to allow that to be a private-public partnership venture.
Well, that’s the view from where I sit. I tend to like Alternative 1 with the modifications noted above.
Thank you Bea for this information
This is a lot better than swapping comments back and forth ! What We all need to know ?
1, What prompted this recent airport plan proposal ?
2. The public should get a clear picture ?
3. Scare tactic are unreliable ?
4. Is future growth a need or a wish ?
My family has kept a small boat at Brandt’s Landing marina since the 1970’s. I do NOT think that it would be “great” at all if any marina spaces were to be sacrificed so that the airport could be expanded to the east.
I did not mention anything about disturbing the present configuration of Brandt’s Landing.
Thank you Bea for this history! Much appreciated.
No mention of projected noise levels and property values on adjacent properties. Nothing should go forward until these two very important issues are discussed and understood.
Bea— I would be really pleased if eastward expansion of the airfield could be done without troubling the access to Brandt’s harbormaster shak & the NW float. That is one question which I hope will be answered at the public meeting planned for Thursday. Proposed Alternatveves 3 & 4 clearly eliminate that access; the impact of Alternative 2 as shown in the Master Plan map is far less clear.
Interesting history, Bea; thank you for some background on the grant monies. How much of these $9+ million in grants come from the National Program for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grants?
The aim of the NPIAS is to integrate aeronautical, military, and post office uses of airspace. I don’t think it’s “scare tactics” to mention this to the Public, who are “wondering what it’s all about,” and want to ask questions about it, since all this grant money our airport is taking comes with strings attached; strings that the general Public knew nothing about all along, until suddenly we are faced with expansion of the airport along with “incompatible” surrounding land uses, including high density low-income housing. So I would be really pleased if we put a moratorium on further progress with an environmental review or EIS or any forwarding of this project until the Public really understands the impacts on our surrounding communities and the environment – which includes noise, traffic issues, pollution,
I’m combing through the FAA website’s many levels, including taking a look at the AIP grants. I’d like to see the monthly airport financials from 1975 to present; where can we find those?
All of it leaves me with many more questions than answers. What’s also not answered here, or realized by the Public, is that a B-2 airport looks very different from the B-1 airport we now have; and with many more conditions that are required to be met; and that 10,000 enplanements per annuum will re-categorize our airport into a Primary airport from a Non-Primary airport: Again – what will these monies the Port is taking force us to go along with – against Public will?
Thank you Bea for the recap and opinion. It really helps bring public input more up to speed. What alternative do you think is best for Mt. Baker road. No matter what alternative is chosen it remains in violation of the RPZ? I’m tending towards a stop light while planes are on approach.
Best,
Clark Cundy
Remember that the B-1 is high subsonic whereas the B-2 is quite stealthy…would a stealthy airport be quieter?
A stop light? Are you kidding?
Given the apparently serious proposal to close Crescent Beach Road to create a park, Mount Baker becomes more and more important. It was already somewhat messed up by that jog in the middle. Now it gets all tangled by the Airport?
Peg,
The other choices presented are that the segment of Mt. Baker road by the airport runway would be removed and if you were to come from Lovers Lane a new road intersection would be constructed in the wetlands just north of the Rental shop, via a rounder that would spin off a road spur NE towards the old dog park, and another connection N along the existing Lovets lane to the corner where you could go to the Office Park or turn left up the hill towards Camp Orkila. Below is from the Port of Orcas webpage under Master Plane then ORS alternatives very bottom of doc.
Just off the south end of the runway, Mt. Baker Road encroaches into the RPZ for Runway 34. This encroachment is an existing condition. It is not a result of any of the development alternatives discussed, nor does it have anything to do with standards for runway or taxiway dimensional criteria. The RPZ has been in place for many years, and Mt. Baker Road presents a serious safety issue within it due to the potential that an obstacle, such as a tall semi-trailer or a school bus, could be on the road just as an airplane full of people is on low approach to the runway. Figure 9 shows options for relocating Mt. Baker Road outside of the RPZ. Actual design of the roadway and any necessary traffic control or flow control would be determined during the design process of the roadway. Other options to resolve the conflict include moving the runway and its RPZ to the north, which would require property acquisition, or implementing measures to stop traffic while aircraft are on approach. Such measures could include signals and crossing guards, similar to those found at railroad crossings, which would be activated when an aircraft is on approach to the runway. Such measures have been successfully installed at other airports.
Guess I’m not flying home this week, as it’s too dangerous.
No need for a traffic light. Here’s the solution from Placencia, Belize after they had the same problem and a small plane hit a truck on take off and tumbled into the water. I was there! They just put a flagger with a checkered flag by the end of the runway and have a gate they manually lower on the road when needed. It has been 100% effective so far. I tried to insert a photo but couldn’t figure out how to do that, but I can e-mail it to anyone who wants to see this in action.I’ll try e-mailing it to Maggie…
Hmmm…
I dunno…
Maybe Runway 34 should be extended eastward, instead of southward.
This would leave Mt. Baker Road intact, but it would require planes landing from south to north to make a hard right turn during the landing process, just as they touch down at the eastern end of Runway 34.
Shouldn’t be too difficult. Right?
Naaaahh…
I have a concern about any additional development in proximity to the airport.
The area clearly lacks proper transportation connectivity. This is true for airport development plan alternatives as well as the Eastsound subarea plan. Particularly where light industrial intersects and mingles with residential development. How many uses and occupants is it safe to shove into our dead end streets. Our UGA lacks appropriate road interconnectivity. Unlike the local fire Marshal I find it appalling to suggest planning exit passageways through neighboring private properties appropriate means to move people or traffic in emergencies. A proper permitting process will consider the exit passageway permittable only if it gains escape by means of public ways. Expanding our airport must require suitable means of escape or expansion is a simple not in this neighborhood thank you. The same is true to county planners or permit reviewers when considering mixed use development of any kind where sea view street is concerned. This is simply a bad idea. This situation needs to be corrected we have a UGA centered and built Originally on a large wetland, a large part of it subject to potential liquefaction in a significant earth shake event, and the fuller the UGA becomes the more likely a catastrophic event will cost in more lives lost. I do not suggest we move Eastsound but stuffing it seems awfully ridiculous. The growth boundaries should be carefully expanded with roadway interconnectivity and public safety in mind.
Neal–a full-time flagger and gate on Mt. Baker Rd.? Now you’re just trying to make us giggle.
And I missed the roundabout! Orcasites are all eager to have one of THOSE on the island to keep up with the mainland trends.