| ▲ | JCM9 a day ago |
| Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people, precisely to limit casualties during an event like this. Industrial would be permitted while residential and commercial use is not. Scarily there are communities that have ignored such logic and permitted dense residential development right next to an airport. |
|
| ▲ | silisili 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| UPS actually bought and destroyed thousands of homes near their end of the airport about 20 years ago, under the guise of 'noise', but realistically for expansion of warehousing. Now, I guess I feel slightly less upset by that (my childhood home was one of them). |
| |
| ▲ | Ferret7446 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Both can be true at the same time (or all three if you include safety in addition to noise). | | |
| ▲ | silisili 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | True, but rather doubtful. UPS has owned that part of the airport for longer than I've been alive. As a kid, yeah sometimes a plane comes over but nobody really seemed to care. Fast fwd 15 years and now the city is telling us how unsafe it is to live there, passing out studies about how airplane noise will ruin your life, etc. And they made the buyout 'optional', knowing they'd railroad the holdouts, which they did. They'd tear down every house and the road leading to your house as they went, until the holdouts gave in. All of a sudden my neighborhood is gone. And that awful, noisy, unsafe to live in place...is full of workers in cheap steel warehouses. I guess it's more safe for them. Many people may not realize, but UPS and Ford absolutely own Louisville. If either says jump, the city government will ask how high? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Moto7451 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Jets are also simply too loud for homes under the takeoff path in standard use. There’s what amounts to a ghost town next to LAX due to this and the history of the airport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_del_Rey,_California Burbank Airport has quiet hours and has left a bunch of commercially zoned area under that takeoff path. I’m in Atlanta now and they bought up a lot of land around the airport when redeveloping it and do similar zoning tricks for the buffer. One of the buffer zones is the Porsche Experience. It’s loud as heck when you’re on the part of the track closest but not bad where the corporate HQ and paddock is |
| |
| ▲ | jcurbo 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's wild, I was in LA recently for work and drove by that area and wondered what was up with the street grid. I figured it must be something like this given the airport. | |
| ▲ | tharkun__ 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I just looked that up (Atlanta) on https://noise-map.com/ and man, that's way not enough zoning tricking in my book. Not that it's much different in other cities (or countries). | |
| ▲ | fortran77 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I grew up 3 miles (as the crow flies) from JFK Runway 31 R / 13 L in Cedarhurst, New York https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Cedarhurst,+NY+11516/John+F.... | |
| ▲ | duped 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Meanwhile, ORD is surrounded by residential areas and they're building a new tollway perpendicular to the runways | | |
| ▲ | caseyohara 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | MDW immediately came to mind as an airport closely surrounded by neighborhoods. I've always wondered what it's like to live in one of those neighborhoods. Is it a perpetual nuisance or do you get used to it? | | |
| ▲ | tharkun__ 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not at MDW but there are plenty such places and yes, some people do "get used to it". But there are studies that show that you increase health risks from such levels of noise even if you get used enough to it so that you can sleep through them. Search for increases in problems of cardiovascular health from car and plane noise. And some people just won't really get used to it. I've lived near airplane noise and I never got used to it. I also don't sleep better with white noise. I sleep worse. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rpcope1 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's amazing that towns don't see this sort of thing and think "huh maybe it's not a good idea to put apartments right on top of an airport", but I guess they don't. Longmont is in trouble with the FAA because they OKed a bunch of apartments right at the end of Vance Brand that would be right in the path of aircraft struggling to gain altitude out of the airport. Naturally there's a vocal contingent of people around here that think this is the airport's problem and not the town or greedy developers, and that all the airports (except DIA) should be shut down. |
|
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can always come up with some pretext to justify things by ignoring the other side of the equation. How many lives do the man hours spent commuting, or toiling away to afford higher rents waste? IDK how the math pencils out, but an attempt ought to be made before drawing conclusions. |
| |
| ▲ | Retric 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | None? Nobody puts airports inside city centers and metro areas don’t just have dense urban housing. The common solution in many land strapped cities is for airports to rout aircraft over water often by building airports on reclaimed land. What generally gets areas in trouble is locations that used to be a good get worse as aircraft get larger and the surroundings get built up. The solution is to send larger airplanes to a new airport, but it’s not free and there’s no clear line when things get unacceptably dangerous. | | |
| ▲ | nostrademons 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | San Jose does. You can, in theory, walk to downtown from the airport; it's about an hour and a half via pedestrian trail: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zhZdA5tWGAKunM2e8 (This is widely considered a misfeature of San Jose - it limits the height of buildings in downtown San Jose to 10 stories because the downtown is directly under the flight path of arriving flights, it limits runway length and airport expansion, and it means that planes and their noise fly directly over key tourist attractions like the Rose Garden and Convention Center. If we ever had a major plane crash like this one in San Jose it would be a disaster, because the airport is bounded by 101 on the north, 880 on the south, the arriving flight path goes right over downtown, and the departing flight path goes right over Levi's Stadium, Great America, and several office buildings.) | | |
| ▲ | Retric 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There’s roughly a mile of roads, green spaces, and river between the airport and downtown San Jose which an absolutely identical accident would impact. It’s not very wide, but pilots aren’t going to aim for buildings if they can help it. So while downtown being in the flight path is a risk there was some method to the madness which caused that alignment. | | |
| ▲ | jonas21 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | San Diego's airport, on the other hand, has the a bustling restaurant district, an interstate with frequent bumper-to-bumper traffic, and a dense residential neighborhood all within a mile off one end of the runway -- and a popular shopping area, an elementary school, and a high school within just over a mile from the other end. In addition, the terrain rises in both directions (so sharply on one side that planes can't use ILS when landing from that direction). | | |
| ▲ | DiggyJohnson 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The fact that San Diego operates essentially downtown with a single runway is a marvel, even if it does cause issues. I hope they get the tram extension one day. | |
| ▲ | Retric 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Agreed, and clearly there’s a bunch of much safer options. The north island air station base is close and almost comically better. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Johnny555 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Las Vegas Airport is very close to the strip, surrounded by residential neighborhoods and hotels about 1/4 - 1/2 mile from the airport, and UNLV university is about 1000 feet in a straight line from one of the runways. | |
| ▲ | bdamm 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | San Jose Airport's walkability and bikability is actually wonderful and I always take the opportunity to walk or bike there when flying into SJC. |
| |
| ▲ | Arainach 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >None? Nobody puts airports inside city centers and metro areas don’t just have dense urban housing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_International_Airport It's hard to project growth. Things build right up to the limit of the airport for convenient access, then the area grows and the airport needs to grow - and what do you do? Seattle-Tacoma is critically undersized for the traffic it gets and has been struggling with the fact that there's physically nowhere to expand to. | | |
| ▲ | eitally 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Congonhas (the original Sao Paulo airport) is right in the middle of the city. There was a significant crash there in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054 | |
| ▲ | Retric 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Zoning is one option to direct growth, but you can move airports. Chicago is right next to a Great Lake and there’s relatively shallow areas ready to be reclaimed etc. Obviously you’re better off making such decisions early rather than building a huge airport only to abandon it. Thus it’s called urban planning not urban triage. | | |
| ▲ | Arainach 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Move them to where? Cities large enough to merit an airport generally either have development which has expanded around them or physical features not conducive to development (mountains, lakes, etc.). It's easy to say "just build bigger elsewhere" but unless you go dozens of miles out and add hours to every trip to/from the airport there's no options. And no, "just fill in every body of water" is not an option. It doesn't work at all in many cases, is hilariously expensive in all cases, and has enormous environmental impact. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m specifically suggesting using reclaimed land if they relocated the airport because the cost seems to work out for Chicago, though obviously an in depth analysis is necessary. Still just looking at the depths combined with lakes not having the downsides of open oceans makes it promising. Unfortunately we’re talking about a huge airport so moving anywhere gets incredibly expensive. The ultimate reason so many cities use land reclamation for airports is open water does not lose property value by being near the airport. Thus a given greater metropolitan area regains not just the physical land of the airport but the increased property value from all that land that’s no longer next to an airport. |
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Zoning is one option to direct growth My magic crystal ball named "the past 50yr of history" says it is unlikely to be the success you envision. | |
| ▲ | DiggyJohnson 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There’s a real convenience to an airport not being 50 minutes away |
|
| |
| ▲ | matt-p 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In all honesty most countries in europe have at least one airport in a city centre. I mean look at lisbon, RKV, BHD/LCY (even glasgow,LHR to some extent), BMA, NCE. | |
| ▲ | gwbas1c 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The common solution in many land strapped cities is for airports to rout aircraft over water. That works in costal areas, but not inland. There's no large body of water near the Louisville airport. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Ohio River is a large body of water fairly close if someone was going to relocate Louisville airport. | | |
| ▲ | WorldMaker 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Ohio River is a mile wide at Louisville, but that still doesn't wide enough to classify it "large body of water", especially because it is a river that moves relatively quick for its width and then hits falls/rapids just downstream of Louisville. But also there's a lot of urban and suburban development you'd have to displace to even consider moving the airport near the Ohio River for most miles both up and down stream of Louisville. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Tradeoffs. Physical land under the airport is lost either way, but land near the old airport becomes more useful where the river itself couldn’t have buildings in either situation. Thus moving it near a river or other large body of water is a long term net gain. As to a crash, ditching into an industrial area isn’t significantly worse for the passengers than ditching into a set of rapids, but the rapids are far better for the general public. | | |
| ▲ | WorldMaker 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be fair to this specific airport, the industrial area South of the airport is almost entirely UPS Airlines facilities. The safety hazard posed by the UPS Airlines flight crash was primarily to UPS Airlines warehouses and warehouse workers. They made their own tradeoffs in this case of what they placed close to their own runways (including apparently they had a fuel recycling plant not far from the crash line that made firefighting more complicated). Sure it's still very different from a large body of water, but it's also certainly not like the land was entirely a general usage industrial area either. Had the crash happened in a different direction there might be other complaints, sure, but even airports with large bodies of water neighboring them only generally neighbor a side or two. |
| |
| ▲ | johann8384 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not even a mile wide here. The widest spot I measured just east of the falls was 0.75, at Utica it is 0.34 and at Westport it's 0.39. |
| |
| ▲ | mywittyname 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think effectively damming (alternatively, rerouting) the Ohio River is a solution to relocating an airport in Louisville. That's a wildly ambitious undertaking compared to most other land reclamation projects. Yeah, the terrain around Louisville poses a challenge for placing an airport, but they could do like Cincinnati does, and have their airport located across the river. Or place it between Frankfurt and Louisville. Or do like Pittsburg and make the terrain flat enough for an international airport. |
| |
| ▲ | wongarsu 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Inland it can work if you have a river. London City Airport would be an example |
| |
| ▲ | ilamont 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Nobody puts airports inside city centers Taipei Songshan, Boston Logan and the old Hong Kong Kai Tak to name a few. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Boston Logan is surrounded by water to the point only one end of a single runway isn’t aimed directly at water soon crosses water. The city center requires crossing a bridge. Taipei is a little worse but its only runway is going next to a river here and aimed at a park on each side. Hong Kong Kai Take would be a solid example except it closed in 1998 because of how the city grew. Look at maps from 1950 and it doesn’t look like a bad location for a small airport. | | |
| ▲ | ilamont 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The city center requires crossing a bridge. It actually requires using tunnels or a boat. I used to drive a cab and the I93 + Callahan/Sumner tunnel route was hellish. The Big Dig helped a lot, although sometimes that can get pretty backed up too. > Look at maps from 1950 and it doesn’t look like a bad location for a small airport. Generally, airports that are close to major urban centers were developed prior to 1950, including all 3 examples named. Songshan was opened during Taiwan's colonial period as the “Matsuyama Airdrome” serving Japanese military flights (https://www.sups.tp.edu.tw/tsa/en/1-1.htm). For bigger cities with these old central airports, larger airports were opened later in many cases. I don't think that will ever happen in Boston, although satellite airports in neighboring states like "Manchester-Boston" or TF Greene in Rhode Island try pretty hard. |
|
| |
| ▲ | vel0city 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Nobody puts airports inside city centers and metro areas don’t just have dense urban housing Ever see Dallas Love Field? https://maps.app.goo.gl/A94EdexYwfpyeMxa7 Lots of airports are pretty much immediately adjacent to their city centers. |
| |
| ▲ | chronciger 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | Thorrez a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Probably also due to noise. |
| |
| ▲ | SilasX 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah I was going to say, that sounds like a much more salient reason not to live near an airport than the possibility of that rare crash. |
|
|
| ▲ | pksebben 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Fresno here. If this had happened at FAT (FYI now? We have dumb names) the casualties would've easily hit three digits from initial impact, and then whatever else burned afterwards because CA==tinderbox. |
| |
|
| ▲ | pkulak 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Midway comes to mind: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GRUXJVdUPQMWkZNU6 |
|
| ▲ | andrepd 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The pollution and noise probably has health effects many times more significant than the sum of extremely rare crashes like these. |
|
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people Queens, NY has entered the chat… |
| |
| ▲ | chronciger 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Queens, NY has entered the chat… You’re correct, but at least LaGuardia airport generally has takeoffs over water. LaGuardia aircraft landings may happen over dense apartment buildings, but less likely for catastrophic damage (glide path, less fuel, engines are <10% throttle, etc) | | | |
| ▲ | globular-toast a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some of the larger townships in Cape Town are right in the flight path too. Not many white people there either. |
|