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

271–280 of 574 posts

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

#271

Post by throwaway2037 »

michael1999 wrote: post #184

Mirabel was well planned, but was undone by events. Montréal in the 19060s was the undisputed centre of Canada for business, culture, population, sport, politics, and international relations. Canada expected to grow by millions of people, and we expected a large number of them to settle in Montréal. 35 miles was a modest buffer zone anticipating enormous suburban sprawl. The whole project was derailed in the 70s by t…

   > Toronto became a major Jewish city
I am confused by this part. Can you please explain? On the surface, it doesn't read well. Maybe my English isn't so good.

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

#272

Post by dclowd9901 »

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 sounds like basically all of the issues amount to “it was too far away to be convenient.”

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

#273

Post by throwaway2037 »

Duhck wrote: post #197
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 love this idea. Hong Kong has something kinda like this with bag check in town, and then a train to the airport. It's extremely convenient

Are there any other major international airports in the world that have the equivalent setup of Hongkong? For other readers: There is a fast-but-not-high-speed direct train from city centre to the airport. At the city terminal, there are tiny airline checkin booths where you can leave your bags. Magically, they are transported to the airport.

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

#274

Post by mayormcmatt »

niklasrde wrote: post #228
jrockway wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. (…

Arlanda feels like another good example of a "far out" (23 mi) airport that works pretty damn well. 18 minutes on the train.

Arlanda is my favorite major-city airport. I'm not as well-traveled as many, but I've been to dozens and it's my favorite. I've transited between Stockholm, Norrtalje, and the airport in bus, tax, and train, with each being the easiest experience I've had with that respective form of transit.

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

#275

Post by avarun »

vel0city wrote: post #158
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.

When DFW was built Congress passed the Wright Amendment which kneecapped Dallas Love Field (DAL) to only serve domestic and immediately adjacent state travel. Personally I prefer DAL but I can see how DFW would have potentially withered on the vine if it hadn't been passed. I'm happy its finally expired though and now DAL can offer international flights. Although now that there's a Whataburger at DFW one big argument…

Jesus. I just read the Wright Amendment article and it’s absolutely disgusting the level of regulatory capture and corporate cronyism enmeshed in our government in this country. There is no reason the federal government should be involving itself in these petty airline disputes, and certainly shouldn’t be helping maintain monopolies for reasons as bad as “American Airlines is the largest employer in North Texas”.

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

#276

Post by TulliusCicero »

Dalewyn wrote: post #74
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…

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.

The issue for Seatac is that it's on a relatively small piece of land and can't really expand. They would definitely just go that route if they could.

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

#277

Post by dynm »

newhotelowner wrote: post #255
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…

I don't think you ever traveled international or your plane got delayed or cancelled. I don't want to carry 4 big bags in the train when I travel international I don't want to travel 30 miles if my plane get cancelled.

One option would be to have people check in, drop off their luggage, and even go through security in some convenient location in the city center and then take a high-speed train "inside security" to the gate. (Maybe you could even have trains to two different fields.)

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

#278

Post by bilbo0s »

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.

I think you're being willfully argumentative.

ORD is critical not only to travel and commercial interests in the region and nationally, but also to military and national interests globally. I'm not even going to sit here and try to explain to you the geographically strategic nature of Chicago's location to the US because you clearly aren't here to listen to reason. I'll just say that you asserting that suburbanites don't like ORD is not even close to a good enough reason for the rest of us to abrogate the societal contract with military and commercial sense.

If you are displeased with the nature of Chicago's suburbs, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in another metro area? ORD is not going anywhere, but you can go elsewhere if it pleases you to do so.

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

#279

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

bombcar wrote: post #243
yadaeno wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you thinking of Boeing Field? Paine is a tiny little luxury airport with 4 gates.

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

#280

Post by bombcar »

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…

Part of it is people not recognizing "San Diego greenspace" because it's mostly brownspace. San Diego is built on a huge sprawling system of canyons, many of which are parks and have trails, but they're brown and ignored.

https://www.alltrails.com/lists/san-diego-canyons

If San Diego was as wet as some European cities, those would all be amazingly green.

Post reply on HN