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

291–300 of 574 posts

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

#291

Post by mst »

perlgeek wrote: post #63
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…

> 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- would be entirely fine with an airport with those transit restrictions.

mdk (Shadowcat's resident responsible adult / business person) however has three kids, and two adults trying to wrangle three children as well as luggage makes trains much, much less attractive as an option.

So I think "fantastic to imagine, DOA as an idea in practice" applies, I'm afraid.

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

#292

Post by bombcar »

KineticLensman wrote: post #246
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 d…

Making a runway longer only lets bigger planes land.

To really expand an airport, you need to add parallel runways, and that is a ton of land.

And if you have too many parallel runways, you end up with too much time spent taxiing around.

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

#293

Post by throwaway2037 »

acdha wrote: post #65
bradley13 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, this is classic NIMBYism. I understand: we live in a very quiet area, and would certainly oppose something that would dramatically change that. However, what I do not understand are the people who move next to an existing airport, and then complain about the noise. We used to live near a major, international airport. Planes flew overhead. That noise was implicitly factored into the price we paid, and we certain…

When I lived in San Diego, I worked near the military airport now known as MCAS Miramar. My coworkers and I were honestly stunned by the people who sued after moving in nearby claiming that they had no idea the place they filmed Top Gun would be that noisy.

A better idea: Tear down the old MCAS Miramar and build housing and parks. Rebuild the airbase in Nevada or the California desert. Yes, it was bad planning to allow so many residences to be built near an airbase, but too late to undo it now.

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

#294

Post by throwaway2037 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #57
bell-cot wrote: post #2

Long & interesting...but a pretty good tl;dr; is: "NIMBY's are why we can't build any major infrastructure any more".

It's a strange piece. Most of the obstacles to airport construction that it describes are nullified by the other obstacles that it also describes. Airports can't handle the liability they incur because imposing airport noise on housing is a regulatory taking. But also, if you build an airport at such a remove from the city that no housing suffers, housing gets built out toward the airport. Except of course, it's not…

   > HKG is separated from Hong Kong by the ocean.
Most would say the Victoria Harbour. Do you say that Manhattan is separated from Brooklyn by the ocean? No.

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

#295

Post by brewdad »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #84
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 the new seattle area airport.

Paine Field would seem to make the most sense but there really isn't much room to expand it. It can probably help in the short/medium term while a new, from scratch airport is built elsewhere.

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

#296

Post by Symbiote »

11101010001100 wrote: post #251
benjymo wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is (in theory). There is a via rail track and stop < 1 km away.

That's inadequate. I don't want to drag my luggage around the front of the terminal looking for the shuttle bus to the station, wait for it to arrive, figure out paying for the bus (if it isn't free), then wait for a train.

The railway line should go underneath the airport terminal building. If that's not possible, a covered walkway is OK. Many significant European airports are like this.

If a connection on medium/long distance trains isn't realistic, at least there should be a metro (or whatever the 'best' transport the city has, e.g. light rail).

Compare:

Mirabelle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=45.679722&mlon=-74.03861...

Vienna: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/48.1155/16.5329

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

#297

Post by mikestew »

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…

One of the interesting ideas (that was proposed even back when SEA was adding it's third runway) is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there.

That would have been an interesting idea before the railroad right-of-way was turned into a multi-use trail. There's another rail corridor that goes through Stampede Pass, but I don't know that it would be usable for "high-speed rail" (nor do I know that it even goes anywhere useful).

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

#298

Post by KineticLensman »

dabeeeenster wrote: post #269
KineticLensman wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

Heathrow has had the Heathrow express train for years and years, and now also has the Elizabeth line; both very quick to get into C London.

> Heathrow express train for years and years, and now also has the Elizabeth line; both very quick to get into C London.

Yes, my mistake. Haven't tried the Elizabeth line. These do help if you are travelling to / from London but getting to Heathrow from the South West remains challenging. My nearest station is Brockenhurst (which although small is on a London mainline). It's 80 miles by road, or by rail, a 2h 10 minute journey (with typically 2 to 4 changes, longest is 2 hrs 40 mins) that would cost £87 (!) travelling tomorrow off-peak. Not fun with suitcase.

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

#299

Post by TylerE »

ghaff wrote: post #260
TylerE wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So now you'll have the in-city checkin version and the in-airport checkin version? Because you definitely need parking and rental cars somewhere convenient. "Here" means a greater area serviced by a large airport which is a lot more than a city. There probably would even be a market for an in-city bag drop service. But it wouldn't replace people driving to the airport.

If the airport wasn’t way outside town, many of those people wouldn’t need to park, as they could just take public transit or an Uber, and the same would also mean that many people traveling in won’t need to rent a car.

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

#300

Post by asdff »

bombcar wrote: post #87
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…

Wasn’t that the idea behind Denver? It’s outside the city by a decent amount (or was when started). I assume proximity to the mountains was also a consideration.

What is a bit interesting to think about Denver was that rocky mountain arsenal closed in 1992 about the same time as stapleton in 1995. They ended up spending about 2 billion to clean up the rocky mountain arsenal to make it a wildlife refuge and meet all those standards, and spent five billion on Denver international airport. I'd imagine the environmental cleanup would have been substantially cheaper if they just devoted that swath of land (much nearer to downtown Denver actually) for the airport and devoted the swath of unpolluted land Denver airport presently sits on for a wildlife area, maybe one that won't end up being hemmed on all sides by Denver suburbia in time like the present rocky mountain arsenal. There is nothing but empty fields east of dia until you hit Omaha or Kansas City, so wild populations wouldn't be trapped in the preserve so much like they are in these nature preserves surrounded by urban areas and busy roads.
Post reply on HN