Fly_yhm From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 1686 posts, RR: 9 Posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
If you could move your local airports location where would you move it too and why?
My 2 local airports yhm I would move down to the Harbor front in Hamilton to replace all the steel mills and it would avoind hearing the people in Ancaster Ontario Bitch about it. Also I like waterfront airports the are neat such as BOS. Also it would be closer to the downtown and better highways.
YYZ to the otherside of toronto near Oshawa or Whitby. So its farther from YHM.
Where will you spend eternity? He,s more real then you think!!!!!
AC340 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1887 times:
As a fan of spotting, and as a Mississauga resident, I think it would be absolutely horrible if they were to move YYZ to another location, like Whitby or Oshawa. Keep it where it is...let's move Hamilton closer to the city instead of out in the middle of nowhere. I think by the water front would be good, but we do need the steel industry. So I say, keep them where they are.
Moekha786 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1677 times:
ORD is smack dab right in the middle of the chicago metro area, the city is east, and the nimby's are west, it is completely surrounded. It would have been perfect if it was in the south side of town by the lake, that way there would be no nimby's to cry, half of the flight paths would go over the lake, and the south side of chicago wouldn't be such a ghetto.
Travatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2174 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Well, my local airport is ATL, and it's fine. HOWEVER, the airport I grew up pasted to the fence of watching aircraft is Farmington, NM (FMN). If it were my choice, I'd close both FMN and DRO (Durango, CO) and build one airport between the two cities (45 miles apart) to serve both communities as they've discussed for nearly 25 years. Then there'd be some real action.
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5278 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1567 times:
STL is fine where it is though I would love to see it expand northwards so we could have four paralells of which 3 could be used simultaneously. Should have the 3rd one up an running in a couple of years.
Spark From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
I think that we should have built a large airport serving the Bay Area in Pleasanton-Dublin area, which is about 30 miles from San Francisco, in the 80's. It wasn't all that developped, and would have offerred room for expansion. It also has good weather, and wouldn't have weather related delays. (Moving it further east would cause fog delays).
Unfortunately, the area has since developped, and NIMBY folks would have a point. There currently isn't a good place to put an airport built specifically to serve the entire bay area. SFO and SJC have limited expansion possiblities, and flight paths need to be limited due to noise concerns.
If I were elected Bay Area Airport Zhar, I would expand OAK into the main airport in the region, and have SFO and SJC become the regional airports (kind of like SJC and OAK now).
Of course another option is to have Travis AFB become a large international airport (like Narita), becoming California's primary longhaul airport. (Ain't gonna happen, but it's a thought).
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1475 times:
ATL is in a fairly good location, good access to three Interstate highways (I-75, I-85, I-285), rapid transit line that goes all the way to the northside of town, and it's centrally located in the region. On the other hand, the airport is not ideally situated for a lot of people. When the airport originally opened, the majority of people in the Atlanta area lived in the city itself, or in one of the trolley suburbs like Inman Park, Druid Hills, Virginia-Highlands, Decatur, and East Point; so the airport really wasn't too far from the majority of the residents of Atlanta. Since the 1970s, the population growth has been primarily concentrated in the northern suburbs of Atlanta (north Fulton County, Cobb County, Gwinnett County, Forsyth County, and Cherokee County) and areas that were being considered for the location of a replacement airport ended up where all this development sprung up. When a site in northern Fulton County was being considered in the late 60s and early 70s for the airport, the area was still rural farmland; today, the area is full of neighborhoods, office parks, and retail stores. One of the original sites proposed for the Atlanta Airport back in the 1920s was to the southwest of town, but was not considered because of a large hill on the site, and the navigation technology was not up to the challenge. The site of the former Naval Air Station in Chamblee was considered as well, but the government in DeKalb County got a hold to the land before the City of Atlanta could, and is now the current site of Peachtree-DeKalb Airport. There really isn't a suitable site in the Metro area for the airport, other than some of the smaller airfields in Atlanta. The decision to build it in Hapeville was the best decision that could have been made, since basically, only a minimum amount of work was require to establish it originally.