Why do America's busiest airports keep getting bigger instead of getting company? A look at the last time any major U.S. city actually built a new one, and why that stopped.
Looking at the chart of passenger volume per year reminded me how fantastic flying was in 2020. Whole sections of aircraft to myself, breezing through security, oh it was wonderful.
I suspect that the benefit of building new airports ~an hour drive out of a city isn't going to be evenly distributed among the people who live in the city vs in the exurbs. Not never, but very rarely do I fly into an urban airport and stay in the city in which I landed. I usually have an ~hour drive to get *out* of the city to my actual destination. We might see the effect that exurban airports serve mainly those customers while the urban airports continue to serve travelers whose final destination is actually in the city. (Which, even then, often takes ~an hour to get to the city center anyway.)
Wouldn't an airport in the exurbs also be pretty bad for most people in the exurbs, since much of the exurbs will be further away from the airport than the city and might even have to drive through the city to get to the airport? There is a reason to put things where density is.
Land is cheap out there, and the airport is only nominally in Manassas. It's basically at the intersection of two state highways. I assume most people wouldn't drive through the town to get there.
I do remember HOA covenant impact of having an airport nearby. This was a little place near Martinsburg, WV, though within the national capital region. It may have been exacerbated by the fact that the airport in question had an ANG component flying transport aircraft out of it, but there were height limits on housing and insurance impacts. It reduced property values in the area because we were directly underneath one of the inbound runways.
My father was a lit specialist at a large insurer back in the 70s and 80s. He had quite a few stories about fuel dumps and blue ice associated with JFK impacting ground underneath the runways. A lot of wishy-washy claims that got paid anyway because it was too much of a PITA for the insurer to rule out.
So I can see why people wouldn't want to be anywhere near an airport, completely leaving out the noise, which is not inconsequential. Probably explains the bits that your article doesn't necessarily explain.
I’m guessing the Manassas airport is designed not for travelers/visitors TO DC, but for the hundreds of thousands of federal workers and contractors who live in suburban Virginia and now won’t have to trudge into DC for travel FROM the DC region for work.
This reminds me of the studies predicting 4 hour average morning commutes in NY/NJ by 2000. It didn’t happen despite minimal highway construction because demand adjusted and engineers figured out new ways to optimize existing supply. Likewise, LAX is has long been highlighted as capacity constrained, but LA now has five airports and the regional planners at SCAG say that they could increase travel by ⅔ without new runways or changing noise ordinances that restrict 2 of the 5. And that isn’t even considering the 4 other airports in Southern California none of which are at capacity. Sure, I like a shiny new airport in the middle of town as much as the next guy. But that doesn’t make it the efficient solution, whatever efficient means in this case.
Much easier sell to have more planes over existing routes and houses versus telling a whole new group of people they are gonna get air traffic over their house
I have flown through Mexico City’s new airport, locally known by the acronym AIFA (pronounced AYE-fah), and it is really nice. And they just finished building a commuter train from that airport into Mexico City, that connects with the city’s massive subway system (which costs less than 35¢ to ride!). Unlike the United States, Mexico is building new airports in several cities throughout the country. Some of them serve smaller population regions. For example. an airport will be near Ensenada, which is about 60 miles south of San Diego, which will help domestic tourism in the Valle de Guadalupe, a popular wine-growing region.
Montreal looked at the growth in air travel in the 1960s and picked the Denver solution, building a big (and huge) airport far from the city to replace the existing one in Dorval (a close in suburb).
They built the airport (Mirabel-YMX), but never followed through on all the plans. It eventually withered and died - the last commercial flight was in 2004 and the terminal was demolished in 2016.
They expropriated a ton of land, planning to build a very huge airport. The terminal used "people movers" (à la Dulles). There were long-term plans for *a lot* of expansion.
The plan was a new highway from Montreal to Ottawa through the airport to draw passengers from Ottawa as well (it now exists, but it didn't open until after the airport closed). The new airport was so far away and Dorval so handy that by the time YMX opened, plans changed and Mirabel ended up handling only international flights and charters.
There were plans for a new highway from the Dorval area and train service from both the city and the Dorval airport. The trains never happened and the highway was built halfway. A greatly expanded Dorval airport will finally get light rail service to downtown Montreal in 2027.
In it's dying years, the Mirabel management adopted a White Elephant as a self-deprecating logo
China builds the 3 gorges damn. California can’t lay a mile of railroad track. No new airports. Face it, 20th century was the US century. Its history. I love the country but we have become content. And fooled by dumbass politicians who do nothing meaningful.
You should look at what happened to many of the people who got resettled for the damn. Lots of forced resettlements, people whose compensation ended up reaching them due to corruption. Not fun! We go too far in the other direction but I'm glad the government cannot just take my home and some apparatchik pockets my compensation.
I am aware of “resettlement”. I had friends who lived near ohare during recent expansion. They all got paid above market. They may not have all wanted to sell, but the country has to balance the greater good as well. Complicated problems and seldom a perfect answer. But both extremes are what we have now. China is a different animal so I would not compare the relocation to the US. My point is we seem to be unable to do anything. If you want to be scared , look at our ship building capability compared to Korea or China. Thanks Reagan.
Looking at the chart of passenger volume per year reminded me how fantastic flying was in 2020. Whole sections of aircraft to myself, breezing through security, oh it was wonderful.
I suspect that the benefit of building new airports ~an hour drive out of a city isn't going to be evenly distributed among the people who live in the city vs in the exurbs. Not never, but very rarely do I fly into an urban airport and stay in the city in which I landed. I usually have an ~hour drive to get *out* of the city to my actual destination. We might see the effect that exurban airports serve mainly those customers while the urban airports continue to serve travelers whose final destination is actually in the city. (Which, even then, often takes ~an hour to get to the city center anyway.)
Great post this week! Lots of food for thought
I yearn for airports like San Diego, nestled right in the city
SJC or SFO are your airports then…
I've never been to SJC, but SFO is like 30 minutes away from downtown San Francisco. SJC looks really close on a map at least.
Wouldn't an airport in the exurbs also be pretty bad for most people in the exurbs, since much of the exurbs will be further away from the airport than the city and might even have to drive through the city to get to the airport? There is a reason to put things where density is.
Land is cheap out there, and the airport is only nominally in Manassas. It's basically at the intersection of two state highways. I assume most people wouldn't drive through the town to get there.
I do remember HOA covenant impact of having an airport nearby. This was a little place near Martinsburg, WV, though within the national capital region. It may have been exacerbated by the fact that the airport in question had an ANG component flying transport aircraft out of it, but there were height limits on housing and insurance impacts. It reduced property values in the area because we were directly underneath one of the inbound runways.
My father was a lit specialist at a large insurer back in the 70s and 80s. He had quite a few stories about fuel dumps and blue ice associated with JFK impacting ground underneath the runways. A lot of wishy-washy claims that got paid anyway because it was too much of a PITA for the insurer to rule out.
So I can see why people wouldn't want to be anywhere near an airport, completely leaving out the noise, which is not inconsequential. Probably explains the bits that your article doesn't necessarily explain.
There are pros and cons of both. As Tom Sowell would say, there are no solutions, only trade-offs
I’m guessing the Manassas airport is designed not for travelers/visitors TO DC, but for the hundreds of thousands of federal workers and contractors who live in suburban Virginia and now won’t have to trudge into DC for travel FROM the DC region for work.
Maybe, but I have a feeling they'll like get a low cost carrier like Avelo or Allegiant flying to vacation destinations.
The terminal renderings are generously giving them 4 gates.
This reminds me of the studies predicting 4 hour average morning commutes in NY/NJ by 2000. It didn’t happen despite minimal highway construction because demand adjusted and engineers figured out new ways to optimize existing supply. Likewise, LAX is has long been highlighted as capacity constrained, but LA now has five airports and the regional planners at SCAG say that they could increase travel by ⅔ without new runways or changing noise ordinances that restrict 2 of the 5. And that isn’t even considering the 4 other airports in Southern California none of which are at capacity. Sure, I like a shiny new airport in the middle of town as much as the next guy. But that doesn’t make it the efficient solution, whatever efficient means in this case.
I think your last line hits the nail on the head.
I was going to guess NEPA...
Much easier sell to have more planes over existing routes and houses versus telling a whole new group of people they are gonna get air traffic over their house
As someone who grew up in NOVA and now lives in DC, "No offense, Manassas" made me laugh out loud
I sincerely appreciate it when people read the article closely enough to catch those little jokes.
I have flown through Mexico City’s new airport, locally known by the acronym AIFA (pronounced AYE-fah), and it is really nice. And they just finished building a commuter train from that airport into Mexico City, that connects with the city’s massive subway system (which costs less than 35¢ to ride!). Unlike the United States, Mexico is building new airports in several cities throughout the country. Some of them serve smaller population regions. For example. an airport will be near Ensenada, which is about 60 miles south of San Diego, which will help domestic tourism in the Valle de Guadalupe, a popular wine-growing region.
Not in the US, but...
Montreal looked at the growth in air travel in the 1960s and picked the Denver solution, building a big (and huge) airport far from the city to replace the existing one in Dorval (a close in suburb).
They built the airport (Mirabel-YMX), but never followed through on all the plans. It eventually withered and died - the last commercial flight was in 2004 and the terminal was demolished in 2016.
They expropriated a ton of land, planning to build a very huge airport. The terminal used "people movers" (à la Dulles). There were long-term plans for *a lot* of expansion.
The plan was a new highway from Montreal to Ottawa through the airport to draw passengers from Ottawa as well (it now exists, but it didn't open until after the airport closed). The new airport was so far away and Dorval so handy that by the time YMX opened, plans changed and Mirabel ended up handling only international flights and charters.
There were plans for a new highway from the Dorval area and train service from both the city and the Dorval airport. The trains never happened and the highway was built halfway. A greatly expanded Dorval airport will finally get light rail service to downtown Montreal in 2027.
In it's dying years, the Mirabel management adopted a White Elephant as a self-deprecating logo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montr%C3%A9al%E2%80%93Mirabel_International_Airport
What a fascinating history! Thank you for sharing this.
Does it make more sense to build a new airport or expand an existing one? Atlanta as a case study.
Pretty sure this is it
When was DIA built? Wasn’t it after that?
once upon a time a community lobbied for a large project like an airport because of the jobs it would provide the community.
nimby
China builds the 3 gorges damn. California can’t lay a mile of railroad track. No new airports. Face it, 20th century was the US century. Its history. I love the country but we have become content. And fooled by dumbass politicians who do nothing meaningful.
You should look at what happened to many of the people who got resettled for the damn. Lots of forced resettlements, people whose compensation ended up reaching them due to corruption. Not fun! We go too far in the other direction but I'm glad the government cannot just take my home and some apparatchik pockets my compensation.
I am aware of “resettlement”. I had friends who lived near ohare during recent expansion. They all got paid above market. They may not have all wanted to sell, but the country has to balance the greater good as well. Complicated problems and seldom a perfect answer. But both extremes are what we have now. China is a different animal so I would not compare the relocation to the US. My point is we seem to be unable to do anything. If you want to be scared , look at our ship building capability compared to Korea or China. Thanks Reagan.
I think it's less about "contentment" and more about specific choices we made to limit growth.