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

241–250 of 574 posts

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

#241

Post by bombcar »

ghaff wrote: post #215
rayiner wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a key if you want a "rail to plane" setup - if you do it right (read-nobody will do it) you check in for the train with your baggage and your flight at the same time, and give the bags over to a dedicated baggage car that handles everything for you.

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

#242

Post by bombcar »

kiba wrote: post #98
perlgeek wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the interesting ideas [...] is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. While reading this article, I thought about something like that too. Build an airport quite a while away from the big city, and provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. Make it free for customers. Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport…

Only allow cargo delivery via rail as well. This way this deincentivize road traffic as much as possible.

This guy simcities. Original game you could build rail everywhere instead of roads at all :)

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

#243

Post by bombcar »

yadaeno wrote: post #144
subzidion wrote: post #52

There's been discussions where the "next" airport should go in the Seattle region, and the consensus is that nobody wants it. The State Legislature created a commission to try and identify some potential sites, but the public backlash was so great that they ended up submitting it's final report with no actual recommendation. One of the interesting ideas (that was proposed even back when SEA was adding it's third runw…

Paine Field is about 35 mins away from Seattle and serves airline traffic as of a few years ago.

Paine Field is also unnaturally large for a "little suburban airport" because it's the site of the largest building in the world, because it's a Boeing assembly plant.

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

#244

Post by duped »

samtho wrote: post #213
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…

I think you misunderstand my comment.

Airlines should not be building a "bespoke airport close to a major metro" that only benefits that airline. They should be building their hubs in the middle of nowhere and serve only connecting flights out of them, because it's the fact that the hubs are in the metros that cause problems.

When half of the traffic through the airport isn't destined for the metro, then half the traffic doesn't need to be going through it.

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

I don't want to respond to this because I think it misses that opposition to airport expansion isn't just "planes loud." There is not a place in west suburban Chicagoland unaffected by the expansion of O'hare. It is not just about the flight paths.

The airlines don't even want it anymore.

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

#245

Post by bombcar »

tallanvor wrote: post #80
subzidion wrote: post #52

There's been discussions where the "next" airport should go in the Seattle region, and the consensus is that nobody wants it. The State Legislature created a commission to try and identify some potential sites, but the public backlash was so great that they ended up submitting it's final report with no actual recommendation. One of the interesting ideas (that was proposed even back when SEA was adding it's third runw…

It's been 35 years they've discussed that possibility. It's never going to happen. The costs of high speed rail across the mountain are simply too high.

It'd be easier and cheaper to landfill the sound - or do what is slowly happening and start using Paine Field.

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

#246

Post by KineticLensman »

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…

> 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

London Heathrow is entirely hemmed in by surrounding urban areas. Flights landing at Heathrow fly directly over central London (with great views of iconic buildings).

It is technically possible to extend the runways somewhat but actually doing so is a planning / political nightmare. Heathrow is located just inside the M25 (the main London orbital motorway) immediately adjacent to the junction of the M25 and the M4 (the busy motorway that goes West from London). So not only is Heathrow virtually impossible to expand, it's in an area known for its horrendous rush-hour traffic. It does have a railway connection to central London, but this is a partially underground line with multiple stops (every few minutes in practice). Journeys to Heathrow from most places in the UK can be horrendous.

Gatwick, London's second airport, is ~30 miles South of the city, and does have reasonably fast rail connections. Gatwick does have space for a new runway, but lots of factors have prevented this.

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

#247

Post by ghaff »

patwolf wrote: post #117
jdnenid wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did it not occur to you that there would be noise from airplanes if you live that close? Or is it more of an airstrip where only ultra light aircraft depart?

Half the city is within 5 miles of the airport. I've lived in places much closer and never experienced the noise before. The difference was being in the flight path. I'll also add that my perception of the distance to the airport was skewed by the fact that it's a 15 mile drive to the terminal entrance, but only 5 miles as the crow flies.

At least large parts of Boston are within 5 miles of Logan Airport. But I can say from personal experience that there are specific locations that are stop-conversation levels of aircraft noise which is not true of the city as a whole.

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

#248

Post by ryandrake »

joncrocks wrote: post #175
ryandrake wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called “coming to the nuisance”[1] and in most jurisdictions the complainers have no case. I’m sure it doesn’t stop them from trying though. Reid-Hillview airport[2] in San Jose has been there since the 1930’s, long before anyone who currently lives there, yet is constantly under attack by residents and threatened with closing. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/coming_to_the_nuisance 2: https://en.m.wikipedi…

How many planes were taking off in 1930 vs. today? If you bought a residence in 1930, are you never allowed to complain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#As_metaphor

I think if you bought a residence near the existing airport, any time after said airport was built, knowing full well there is an airport there, you should not be able to complain that there is an airport there.

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

#249

Post by bobthepanda »

jrockway wrote: post #200
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…

Montreal isn't the only city that failed with a too-far-away airport. Tokyo built Narita against much local opposition (they still check your ID before you're allowed inside the airport, to make sure you're not an angry local resident), and the opposition resulted in not being able to build the transport link they wanted (the Narita Shinkansen). The result is a good hour wasted on conventional rail to get to Tokyo. (…

Haneda is bigger, but not big enough to take on Narita’s 2019 42 million additional pax.

Most large cities have more than one airport anyways. London has like six, New York has three, Beijing has two, etc.

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

#250

Post by proggy »

jrockway wrote: post #200
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…

Montreal isn't the only city that failed with a too-far-away airport. Tokyo built Narita against much local opposition (they still check your ID before you're allowed inside the airport, to make sure you're not an angry local resident), and the opposition resulted in not being able to build the transport link they wanted (the Narita Shinkansen). The result is a good hour wasted on conventional rail to get to Tokyo. (…

Eh, I get all that, but Narita is still quite useful as a transfer hub for passengers traveling between North America and East Asia. Haneda’s gate capacity is also a limiting factor, Narita is a necessary companion airport to soak up excess passenger demand.
Post reply on HN