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

531–540 of 574 posts

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

#531

Post by klabb3 »

asdff wrote: post #349
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…

European cities are nicer about having a manicured park but not an actually useful park beyond sitting with a book or a smoke perhaps. LA metro area (and a lot of american style in general) parks are chock full of amenities europeans would be lucky to have. For example look at Pan Pacific Park. Three baseball fields. A soccer field. A rec center. Playgrounds. A couple tennis courts. A public pool. A library branch. A…

Overall, agreed. Some nuance:

> […] but not an actually useful park beyond sitting with a book or a smoke perhaps

Yes, and grass to play improvised football or things like it.

> chock full of amenities europeans would be lucky to have

Not really, because European social life is not organized-activity-oriented. At least nowhere near my perception of American life (8y in CA).

In Europe, you meet first (let’s hang out, meet at a cafe, in the park) and then roam around and maybe do something spontaneous. In many cases, this involves mixed ages (kids playing, grandparents etc).

> Bathrooms

Yes. To be fair, I think it depends on how urban it is. In bigger parks like Golden Gate Park SF, the homeless don’t bother to go that far. If you have bathrooms near urban centers they tend to get misused and scare away regular folks anyways.

> To act like the greenspace is not available or unusuable doesn't speak to what is actually there for use today.

The green space in the US wins overall (again based on mostly CA), if you commit to the car ride to get there. In fact, if you count the national/state parks it might be best in the world.

In terms of green space integrated into urban life, I would say Europe is way better. In the US you can’t easily “integrate” green space that way into car-centric urban sprawl, because everything is already compartmentalized and divided and driving distance afar from other parts.

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

#533

Post by Miiko »

dynm wrote: post #277
newhotelowner wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

30 years ago that was an option in Almaty (was extremely convenient for me, as we lived literally 2 block from there). You could check in, drop baggage, go through security and then ride on a bus directly to the plane. Same in Moscow, not sure about other cities (did not fly to other locations back then).

However, this was only partial solution, as it worked for departures only, not arrivals.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Алматинский_аэровокзал

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

#534

Post by kalleboo »

dynm wrote: post #277
newhotelowner wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

This is an option in Hong Kong https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin....

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

#535

Post by erikpukinskis »

acchow wrote: post #326
treflop wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan is well known for violent political clashes. There is still a very obvious house in the middle of Narita Airport that you can see when flying in or out. There are roads to it underneath the airport.

This is shocking to me https://www.cbsnews.com/news/narita-airport-farm-takao-shito... "The best outcome would be for the airport to shut down," he said. "But what's important is to keep farming my ancestral land." I imagine most countries would just use eminent domain?

I mean, it’s not even in the middle. It’s on the edge. On the opposite side of the airport is “The Museum of Aeronautical Sciences”. I don’t see any particular moral reason why that should exist instead of this persons farm.

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

#536

Post by pests »

refulgentis wrote: post #526
pests wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotta start somewhere, and I'm sure it means way more to him that it does to you. 100 years is a lifetime, do you never get worked up at all? Why bother, such a short lifespan we all live.

This is a whole other level than "worked up" - speaking of lifetimes - 12 people have died over it . Did you read it?

We're talking about a guy and his ancestral home. Is he the reason 12 people died?

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

#538

Post by duped »

bilbo0s wrote: post #376
duped wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reply is quite rude. I didn't say we should tear up ORD, I was pointing out the flaws with expansion. And every government except Chicago seems to be in agreement with that, which is why the Peotene project exists.

No, every suburban politician is in agreement with it and have demanded a study for a boondoggle go forward to placate entitled suburbanites like yourself. This exact plan has been tried, and failed, in many cities around the world. The only places it worked are places with high-speed rail. Does Chicago have high-speed rail? The problem in this country is that we coddle lefties and righties even when they have ideas…

It's not "entitled" to be against things that negatively impact oneself and don't provide any benefit. I think skepticism of expansion in the name of progress or to make it easier for companies to make profits without contributing back to the communities they negatively affect with their growth is reasonable. Particularly in Chicago, where capital investment in infrastructure at the expense of the communities they displace has a history of entrenching social and political problems (for example, Lake Shore Drive cutting off the lakefront, the Eisenhower, Edens, and Kennedy expressways demolishing communities and segregating what's left). Building things up is not always a net good.

Twenty years ago, they decided to bulldoze a community to relieve ORD's growing traffic instead of investing in the Peotene airport. And now, there is nowhere left for ORD to grow. There's nowhere for Midway to grow. If we've accepted that Chicago is a hub for air traffic, it needs to go somewhere that can handle it - and the choices are the south suburban project (for which the land is already secured, and there's political support from the state, feds, and local government), or the Dupage airport. There's less money and interest involved in the latter. The other choices are Rockford, Gary, and Milwaukee - all of which have stagnated as passenger and cargo destinations.

Expanding ORD is a political fight between DuPage and Cook county, and the only city that's truly in favor of it is Chicago and Cook County - because they're not impacted by it, and they get the gate fees and sales taxes at the terminals. Meanwhile, Will County is inviting the development, and they need it! The south suburbs have stagnated for decades, and could use the investment. The western suburbs and near west side don't need more air traffic. Particularly when the growth the airlines want is not to ferry more passengers into the area, but to move them through to other destinations, and to handle more cargo.

And it's not just "entitled" suburbanites that are against expansion at O'Hare. United and American have said they want the expansion of Terminal 2 and the O'Hare 21 project halted because the increased gate fees that fund it are making it uneconomical to use ORD as a hub. When even the market rejects expansion, we need to look to alternatives - and the south suburban airport is the best candidate, particularly for cargo.

What I'm saying is that this isn't rampant pork barrel spending, or "coddling" people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's our elected government listening to what their constituents want without caving to industry demands, or the tax priorities of a singular community. Keep in mind, half of the population of metroland Chicago isn't in the city. They have voices that should be heard too.

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

#539

Post by wolverine876 »

refulgentis wrote: post #527
wolverine876 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if you or I get worked up about their land, it matters if they get worked up about their land and their heritage.

They haven't owned the land since before WWII, and they yadda yadda over why they weren't allowed to buy, reasons are related to military and took place during WWII.

> they yadda yadda

They are talking about their lives and families, which they know intimately and on which much of their life depends. I don't know anything about them. Now if they talked about me, about whom they know nothing, then they'd be yadda yaddaing if you take my meaning.

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

#540

Post by refulgentis »

wolverine876 wrote: post #539
refulgentis wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They haven't owned the land since before WWII, and they yadda yadda over why they weren't allowed to buy, reasons are related to military and took place during WWII.

> they yadda yadda They are talking about their lives and families, which they know intimately and on which much of their life depends. I don't know anything about them. Now if they talked about me, about whom they know nothing, then they'd be yadda yaddaing if you take my meaning.

No. That's not what I said or close.

Trying again: they were banned from buying land for reasons that are politely obscured, beyond it relating to their actions in the Japanese military during WWII.

Post reply on HN