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

231–240 of 574 posts

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

#231

Post by mdtusz »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #194
TRDRVR wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I thought the main counterexample to that argument was the fact that it has never worked anywhere. From what I've heard, the Olympics have failed to benefit every city that's hosted them except LA, and the reason they were good for LA was specifically that no new infrastructure was built to accommodate them.

Many will disagree with me, but the Vancouver Olympics prompted construction of some things that I would consider vital to the Sea to Sky region - the highway upgrade being the biggest.

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

#232

Post by fasthands9 »

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…

Airports are one thing that the government has to be involved in either way.

You can't just tell airlines to pay for things themselves but then also give every suburb the ability to veto construction on land in other cities.

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

#233

Post by reaperducer »

sumtechguy wrote: post #229
reaperducer wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 int…

I too thought 'international' in the name meant something. Until I worked with a guy who was into gliders. They named the large empty grass field that you had to drive for an hour to get to an 'international' airport. It was basically just enough to get a very small airplane aloft with a glider attached. They thought it was funny they pulled it off.

"International" in the name of an airport signifies that it is certified to receive international flights.

I'm pointing out the use of "International" in airport codes, not names.

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

#234

Post by [deleted] »

throwup238 wrote: post #135
danpalmer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's less about the inner cities and more about the suburbs. In the US there are certainly lots of little bits of curb with plants on, but little in the way of large useful green space. Comparing the LA metro area to almost any European city, it's stark how much more unused or usable green space there is in Europe. The US seems much more binary – you're either in a city, or you're outside one, it's not like t…

Yeah but compare the San Diego metro area just a little south and it’s overwhelmingly full of green space. I live in SD proper and there’s several open space parks within walking distance that are measured in the square miles with tens of miles of trails each, not to mention the recreational parks in every neighborhood and kids parks that are every few blocks. The suburb cities in the county have even more open space…

[deleted]

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

#235

Post by TylerE »

ghaff wrote: post #223
TylerE wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

In town is only convenient if you live in town or are visiting there. Where's the parking? Where's the rental car service? The actual terminals are a pretty trivial part of the total airport area.

Not to be trite, but "people who live here, or people who are traveling here" is sort of their target market.

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

#236

Post by vel0city »

reaperducer wrote: post #217
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.

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 int…

LUV is an airport in Indonesia, Dallas Love Field is DAL. DAL was forced to be a domestic-only airport from the Wright amendment as DFW was way the hell out in the middle of nowhere in '79, nobody would have bothered going out there if they weren't forced to by federal law. American Airlines wanted an airport, and the federal government gave it to them.

And sure, IAH is the bigger international airport in Houston, but it also carries an absolutely massive amount of domestic travel as well. My comment was about having an airport be almost exclusively international travel with few domestic connections.

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

#237

Post by ianburrell »

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…

One problem is that this plan is bad for everyone in the half of metro closer to airport or coming from other direction. They would have to go out of their way. Or the airport would need checkin facilities, then what is the point of the downtown check in.

The other problem is that regular trains are better because they stop at intermediate stations and can run more frequently because serving regular traffic. The Elizabeth Line is better than the Heathrow Express.

The only way I can see it being advantage is the check in and security is done on the train. That would save time, But that would require a train twice the size with pre and post security areas, and luggage space.

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

#238

Post by NegativeLatency »

dividefuel wrote: post #85
rockostrich wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of it is our definition of cities versus metro areas. Boston's population is technically only 650k but Boston proper doesn't even include Cambridge which is like not including one of the boroughs when talking about NYC's population. Granted, we still have a lot less metro areas with over 1 million people but there are still ~50 of them.

Is this something fairly unique to the US or do other countries do this too? that is, having a city boundary that's relatively small compared to the metro area.

The US went really hard on cars and single family housing. Without a lot of older cities in many places the surrounding land was cheap so people spread out (also due to racist zoning laws, “stimulating the economy”, general greed, etc it’s kinda hard to point to a single reason).

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/27/this-is-the-en...

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

#239

Post by nradov »

duped wrote: post #186
nradov wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's untenable about it? The busy airport has been there longer than most people have been alive. People who live in the suburbs knew what they were getting into.

Tell that to the people who lived in the heart of Bensenville that's now a runway.

What's your point? You could say the same thing about almost any major infrastructure project. We can't allow a handful of residents somewhere to veto everything. This is exactly what eminent domain was intended for: as long as they received fair compensation then it's fine.

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

#240

Post by hn72774 »

traceroute66 wrote: post #66
jorisboris wrote: post #24

When building https://randomairport.onrender.com/ I noticed that US and Euro airports always look very different Somehow US airports always seem to be surrounded by densely populated residential areas, even in the direction of the runways, while Euro airports don’t seem to have this problem. And secondly Us airports always seem to take huge plots of land compared to Euro airports. My assumption is that Us cities are…

> US airports always seem to be surrounded by densely populated residential areas The US in general is very densely built up. The distinct lack of green space in US cities is very noticeable to the non-US observer. So I think its more of a case that US airports are surrounded by "less" densely populated areas. > And secondly Us airports always seem to take huge plots of land compared to Euro airports. With the except…

> The US in general is very densely built up

Sprawl might be the word you are looking for. US is only #186 in population density by country. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...

Post reply on HN