Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is it so hard to build an airport?

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 574 posts

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#211

Post by sofixa »

TRDRVR wrote: post #170
vel0city wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like exceptionally poor planning. Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights? It should have been the nexus for domestic travel to connect to the big hop to Europe, meaning it should have had a ton of domestic routes as well feeding it.

It's the main counterexample to 'The Olympics are good because they force the development of infrastructure that otherwise wouldn't get built' argument. Many of the weird choices about that airport was made so it would be open and useful for the 1976 Olympics. The location was closer to Montreal (but father from Ottawa) in part to make the international arrival experience better for the fans (not for the long-term us…

> It's the main counterexample to 'The Olympics are good because they force the development of infrastructure that otherwise wouldn't get built' argument.

> Many of the weird choices about that airport was made so it would be open and useful for the 1976 Olympics. The location was closer to Montreal (but father from Ottawa) in part to make the international arrival experience better for the fans (not for the long-term users of the airport). The plan was 'International flights in time for the Olympics and Domestic flights a couple of years later' as a way to 'show off to the world.'

That's just poor and short sighted planning, nothing specific for the Olympics. Paris for instance isn't making any such short term infrastructure decisions, only rushing to finish some stuff before the Olympics (e.g. line 14 to Orly, while failing others like line 15 South which was supposed to be ready but won't).

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#212

Post by masklinn »

ghaff wrote: post #101
Dalewyn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The aforementioned setup nearly always means the closer airport ends up getting upgraded later to meet convenience demands, leaving the newer-but-inconvenient airport out to dry. See: Haneda (HND) vs. Narita (NRT) in Tokyo, Itami (ITM) vs. Kansai (KIX) in Osaka, etc.

Didn't happen with Denver or Hong Kong.

Or Paris.

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#213

Post by samtho »

duped wrote: post #145

Airlines should go build their hubs in a better geographical location than major cities, like O'hare. And pay for it with their own money. At ORD for example, something like half of all the air traffic are connecting flights. There's a bit of money to be made by gate fees, but the pressure on the surrounding suburbs (I don't even know if the neighbors even get those fees, since the airport is technically within Chica…

Why would an airline have any business in acquiring, getting approved/zoned, and constructing an bespoke airport close to a major metro that would presumably only benefit that airline? Airlines already operate at razor thin margins, specialize in only the transporting aspect, and would not be the best party to oversee the development of airfields and airports. Additionally, companies other than the major airlines use an airport, from cargo carriers (large jetliners to “FedEx feeder”-type routes), private operations like NetJets, and even privately owned and operated aircraft all use it.

This is solidly the domain of a local company, collective, or a local municipality that understands this business and every aspect of it. Airlines are happy to pay usage fees (landing fees, gate fees, leasing) to specifically not deal with airport operations unrelated to their own fleet and operations.

We need to find ways to improve the process from initial concept, terminal layout, retail spaces, and public ground transport that connects to the city center.

Also, usually the airport is there before homes were built so every owner in the flight path made the decision to live there.

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#214

Post by kirubakaran »

Ekaros wrote: post #139
walthamstow wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another one: just 7000 people live in the City of London

And Vatican has population of 524... With Rome's metropolitan area being 4,3 million... But maybe that is stupid comparison.

Vatican also has 5.9 Popes per square mile, highest in the world

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#215

Post by ghaff »

rayiner wrote: post #198
lobochrome wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Tokyo where we have both Narita, far out but well-ish connected by train with NEX and Haneda, with direct access to the city. Haneda is vastly more convenient.

I fly into Haneda whenever I can, because even though the train is super convenient, for a train, it’s nicer to just throw your bags in a taxi and head straight to your hotel after 13 hours on a plane.

I tend to travel pretty light but trains get inconvenient with any amount of luggage. I'm coming into NY by ship after a longish trip, continuing on home by train at the end of May. I came to the conclusion I should take advantage of a not too expensive luggage shipping service because dealing with the luggage was going to be just too big of a hassle.

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#216

Post by bombcar »

londons_explore wrote: post #180
vel0city wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like exceptionally poor planning. Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights? It should have been the nexus for domestic travel to connect to the big hop to Europe, meaning it should have had a ton of domestic routes as well feeding it.

"exceptionally poor planning" is common in big projects like this. As soon as the design/planning teams gets big enough that there are many people who barely know eachother, they start competing to the detriment of the whole... Nobody wants their part late/over budget, so they do things to screw other parts of the project just so their part isn't late or over budget.

You also have large groups of various entities brawling over it, and you end up with compromises - where compromise means nobody is happy about anything.

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#217

Post by reaperducer »

vel0city wrote: post #148
sofixa wrote: post #126

> And an airport can’t be too far from a city and remain useful, since travelers need to access the city, workers need to be within commuting distance, and so on. In Canada, Mirabel airport was built 35 miles from Montreal, surrounded by a 79,000 acre buffer zone to prevent any issues of incompatible land use. Mirabel was expected to replace Dorval (today Montreal-Trudeau) as Canada’s main eastern airport, but, in pa…

That sounds like exceptionally poor planning. Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights? It should have been the nexus for domestic travel to connect to the big hop to Europe, meaning it should have had a ton of domestic routes as well feeding it.

Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights?

It was a pretty common urban planning concept for a large city to have one airport devoted mostly or entirely to domestic flights, and one mostly or entirely for international flights.

   New York domestic: EWR
   New York international: JFK
   New York freight: LGA
   Chicago domestic: MDW
   Chicago international: ORD
   Houston domestic: HOU
   Houston international: IAH
   Dallas domestic: LUV
   Dallas international: DFW
   Paris international: CGD
   Paris international: ORY
   Washington domestic: DCA
   Washington international: IAD
Notice how some airports (IAD, IAH) specifically have "International Airport" in their codes.

It worked fine for a very long time until the airlines optimized into the hub-and-spoke system we have today, where connecting flights has become normalized.

Because people think now it's normal to have connecting flights all the time, the domestic airports have added international flights, and vice-versa.

What was once orderly and predictable has become very messy, and had a number of other side-effects.

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#218

Post by benjymo »

sofixa wrote: post #126

> And an airport can’t be too far from a city and remain useful, since travelers need to access the city, workers need to be within commuting distance, and so on. In Canada, Mirabel airport was built 35 miles from Montreal, surrounded by a 79,000 acre buffer zone to prevent any issues of incompatible land use. Mirabel was expected to replace Dorval (today Montreal-Trudeau) as Canada’s main eastern airport, but, in pa…

It also should be connected to the national rail network so long distance trains go there directly. It greatly reduces time to switch trains when you're not directly from the nearest city.

Vienna did this with their airport.

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#219

Post by pbsladek »

Symbiote wrote: post #193
pbsladek wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expensed the taxi. It was 1am. Train another 2-2.5 hours.. It’s Japan. Obviously I knew about the train lol. Their trains are awesome!

That must have been an unusual situation, as Narita closes at 23.00.

It was. Been back other times in the morning and afternoon and took the train. Easy peasy.

Re: Why is it so hard to build an airport?

#220

Post by TylerE »

ghaff wrote: post #202
TylerE wrote: post #192

Has anyone ever tried to build an airport where the terminals and actual flight ops area was miles away (noise, etc). Basically I'm picturing something like an urban train station (plus TSA, and customs) that would be located downtown. This is where you'd have check-in, security, baggage claim, etc. After clearing security, you'd get on some sort of rail transit (monorail, maglev, subway, whatever, doesn't matter THA…

I'm not sure what you'd really gain. As it is, you can check-in online and I'm mostly just going straight to TSA Pre-check. It's all a trivial part of the airport infrastructure. And there are a bunch of reasons to have gates that you actually board the planes from.

Convenient drop off in town instead of having to drive 45 minutes, and then pay to park your car. By placing all the security stuff at the 'town end', that would also allow for things like lounges, etc. The actual terminals could be very compact since you wouldn't head out there until it's almost time. Could use a small-vehicle people mover type system... imagine scanning a boarding pass when you get on the vehicle, and instead of dropping you at a central station, it dropped you right at your gate?
Post reply on HN