Congested airports in need of a new runway:

KRSW
KSAN
KEWR
KJFK
KBOS
KDAL
KDCA

SAN has absolutely no room whatsoever for a new runway. The same applies to probably all of those.

Ft Myers has plenty of room.

The only way to add a runway at DCA is to fill in part of the Potomac River. That is not going to happen.

Plus, DCA and some of the others will be below sea level in 50-100 years. So will be the cities they serve.

Color me alarmist

They always talk about building a 4th runway in ANC that is completely unnecessary.

KORD has 1 more east/west to be added and then some will decommissioned.

KDFW has a north / south on the west side in the long term plans.

I don't know where one would be added it KDAL, not that one is needed with the gate cap.

DCA has no room due to lack of real estate and highly restricted airspace.

KJFKSPOTTER wrote:

Congested airports in need of a new runway:

KRSW
KSAN
KEWR
KJFK
KBOS
KDAL
KDCA

All of those require either expensive landfill operations, probably all of them in either natural reserve (JFK) or otherwise impossible locations (Potomac River, DCA) or massive demolition projects to make room for another runway.

Obviously, nothing of that sort is going to happen.

TPA was supposed to get a 3rd parallel in the Old Master plan that was since removed in the 2013 Master Plan. TPA has the space for it next to the Veterans Exressway on the west side of the field, eventually I think TPA will get it.

It will also help in all the noise complaints from the stupid people in South Tampa that complain when the East parallel runway is in use with takeoffs going South, would force that traffic to the westside and out over the Bay with a new 3 parallel.

KCLT

12,000ft

ATL is planning to construct a 6th runway sometime in the next decade.

SFO.

I know I know, never going to happen.

My guess is DEN. It was built in mind to have something crazy like 15 runways (not exaggerating)! A seventh runway is at the top of the short term shortlist on DEN's master plan.

Is the third runway (north/south) at DAL ever used?

dfwjim1 wrote:

Is the third runway (north/south) at DAL ever used?

If it hasn't occurred already, 18-36 at DAL is slated to close. Plans are for conversion into a taxiway.

It seems like there are very few major airports in the country with the available land area to build a new runway. CLT, DEN, DFW, IAD immediately come to mind. Of those 4, with the exception of maybe DFW need more gate space than runways.

Interestingly, one of the proposals in OGG's master plan calls for a new, parallel runway to the east of the current main runway (2/20). I have seen many a news story locally explaining that OGG's current main runway has never had a reconstruction since it was built in the 40's-50's. It is now crumbling. Hawaii DOT, who maintains all Hawaii airports has kept it in service by doing patchwork fixes. I remember reading that the FAA has told HDOT that OGG will not receive any further federal aid for patchwork fixes. They will only give funding for a completely rebuilt runway. This leaves OGG is quite a quandary. The smaller runway (5/23) is only 4,990 ft long and would be unable to accommodate flights to the mainland while the main runway is being redone. Airlines would need to halt all mainland flights completely or operate them as a tag-on from HNL for several months until the main runway could be extended. The other proposals are to extend (5/23) to the current length of (2/20) then re-pave (2/20) or build a completely new runway parallel to (2/20).

77H

BTVB6Flyer wrote:

TPA was supposed to get a 3rd parallel in the Old Master plan that was since removed in the 2013 Master Plan. TPA has the space for it next to the Veterans Exressway on the west side of the field, eventually I think TPA will get it.

It will also help in all the noise complaints from the stupid people in South Tampa that complain when the East parallel runway is in use with takeoffs going South, would force that traffic to the westside and out over the Bay with a new 3 parallel.

I don't know, it just doesn't seem very urgent. As a frequent user of TPA, I can't think of a time I've had more than four planes in line for takeoff or an inbound hold except when there was a heavy storm on top of the airport. I have no insight on the veracity of noise complaints, but I doubt they're enough to significantly impact planning.

Is this addition or replacement cause KRDU is in line for a replacement... which is new, technically since they plan to move it... I think it's going from 10,000 to 12,000

intotheair wrote:

My guess is DEN. It was built in mind to have something crazy like 15 runways (not exaggerating)! A seventh runway is at the top of the short term shortlist on DEN's master plan.

I believe that their plan is to have 4 new runways by 2030.

BTVB6Flyer wrote:

TPA was supposed to get a 3rd parallel in the Old Master plan that was since removed in the 2013 Master Plan. TPA has the space for it next to the Veterans Exressway on the west side of the field, eventually I think TPA will get it.

It will also help in all the noise complaints from the stupid people in South Tampa that complain when the East parallel runway is in use with takeoffs going South, would force that traffic to the westside and out over the Bay with a new 3 parallel.

TOTALLY unnecessary IMHO. They could use 1R-19L a little more as well as 10-28

Biged wrote:

Ft Myers has plenty of room.

I agree. There's no FBOs there, so barely any general av or business jet traffic.

303dk wrote:

intotheair wrote:

My guess is DEN. It was built in mind to have something crazy like 15 runways (not exaggerating)! A seventh runway is at the top of the short term shortlist on DEN's master plan.

I believe that their plan is to have 4 new runways by 2030.

That's amazing! But I agree with the comment above that, like others, DEN probably could use more gates rather than a new runway in the near term. Now that the UA operation is even bigger and more heavily banked than before, it's a daily occurrence that UA uses all of the gates in B and the common use gates in A (even for domestic flights). I hope they bump out the other side of B as rumored, but to its full capacity, and I hope that DEN builds concourses D and E as originally designed rather than the other half-baked terminal ideas.

phlwok wrote:

I don't know, it just doesn't seem very urgent. As a frequent user of TPA, I can't think of a time I've had more than four planes in line for takeoff or an inbound hold except when there was a heavy storm on top of the airport. I have no insight on the veracity of noise complaints, but I doubt they're enough to significantly impact planning.

I don't think it needs it, well not yet, but maybe 10 years or so, it's possible. With the planned Airside D and obvious future growth, I could see a need for it.

The noise issues makes the papers here about every month, obviously that's not a reason to build a runway, but it could have some swing for airport board officials.

A few years ago there was a plan hear at EWR for a third runway, it would have invloved moving back concourse B and pretty much being where the current taxiway that is parellel 4L/22R. I remember seeing it in the Star Ledger(local Nj paper) it had rederings and everything, I don't know what happened to that plan.

intotheair wrote:

303dk wrote:

intotheair wrote:

My guess is DEN. It was built in mind to have something crazy like 15 runways (not exaggerating)! A seventh runway is at the top of the short term shortlist on DEN's master plan.

I believe that their plan is to have 4 new runways by 2030.

That's amazing! But I agree with the comment above that, like others, DEN probably could use more gates rather than a new runway in the near term. Now that the UA operation is even bigger and more heavily banked than before, it's a daily occurrence that UA uses all of the gates in B and the common use gates in A (even for domestic flights). I hope they bump out the other side of B as rumored, but to its full capacity, and I hope that DEN builds concourses D and E as originally designed rather than the other half-baked terminal ideas.

DEN has began the gate adding process. They just upgraded generators this month so they can begin adding 8-9 gates on the east side of Concourse A.

ORD is definitely in need of more than just a runway. They have enough space, and have already built plenty of runways. The airport is still congested as hell, and I think the only way to fix that is with more gates. They are adding to T5 and expanding T2 potentionally.

CLT is getting a fourth parallel in 2021/2022. (And a bunch of gates beforehand!)
How often does a new runway get built in the US? It doesn't seem like it makes the news often...

IS there a way for SAN to build perhaps a parallel runway by filling in land that is now water?

Possibly building reclaimed land into the bay, for a parallel runway that will be on the opposite side of the terminals?

KJFKSPOTTER wrote:

IS there a way for SAN to build perhaps a parallel runway by filling in land that is now water?

Add to the list of never going to happen. The navy has a large operation on San Diego harbor. Building into the harbor would severely impact the harbor. The only way San Diego Airport grows is by moving to Miramar.

This has been studied many times over the years as part of SAN redevelopment planning and the idea has been discarded every time. (There may still be some historical plans involving this idea at SAN.org; try searching the ADP and archives at that site.)

bb

As I mentioned in your other runway thread, San Diego Harbor is home to a very large Naval port. The entrance of which is right next to the airport. Beyond the Navy and enviromental issues, a runway in the harbor would bring aircraft right over the highrises of downtown San Diego.

Again, the only only way San Diego gets an additional runway is by building out Miramar.

77H

highly unlikely at BOS, they have 2x 10K ft runways (4R/22L and 15R/33L) along with 2 7K footers (4L/22R and 9/27) which gives them most options they need. Focus right now by Massport are the Terminal Buildings. B is getting a facelift and some adjustments with the consolidation of AA/US sections and E badly needs it and there is a 2 phase expansion set. Massport has nothing in its capital plans through 2020 and the last time they added a runway (14/32) it ended up being a white elephant and is primarily used as a decing pad and just add to insult to injury a hotel is built at one end so it can be only used as a single direction.
I would love them to extend 9/27 to 10K, but that would require infilling the harbor and pissing off East Boston, which trust me you are better off not doing.
BOS's issue is not runway capacity, it's terminal capacity, movements overall are well down since early 2000's levels as a massive shift away from regional flying has taken place, despite record passenger throughput. Can't see this even being on Massport's radar until 2030 at the very earliest

alggag wrote:

Does DAL really need another runway considering the gate restriction?

No. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which DAL has more than 30 operations in an hour. They could do that with one runway and have two at their disposal.

...and to think in 1954 the land at Miramar was offered to the City of San Diego for $1 for use as an airport, but it was considered too far away from the city.

As stated before anything in the bay will not work due to the building in downtown San Diego, the need of a deep water harbor for the Navy and others. The redevelopment of the former rental car area is also on the horizon which would continue to block the airport from the bay as well.

There was a rumor ISP would extend rheir runway to 8/9K ft. Before the scandal. Speaking of moving. EYW should move to NQX.

jfkflyer wrote:

Congested airports in need of a new runway:

KRSW
KSAN
KEWR
KJFK
KBOS
KDAL
KDCA

Although RSW has plenty of room, they really don't need a second runway. I've flown in and out of RSW for years and never have had an issue with delays due to congestion. I've never been more than #2 or #3 in line for departure. Locally, most of the corporate and private traffic operate out of FMY (Ft. Myers Page Field), APF (Naples), MKY (Marco Island), and to a lesser extent PGD (Punta Gorda), so even a general aviation runway isn't needed at RSW.
.
.

rajincajun01 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

303dk wrote:

I believe that their plan is to have 4 new runways by 2030.

That's amazing! But I agree with the comment above that, like others, DEN probably could use more gates rather than a new runway in the near term. Now that the UA operation is even bigger and more heavily banked than before, it's a daily occurrence that UA uses all of the gates in B and the common use gates in A (even for domestic flights). I hope they bump out the other side of B as rumored, but to its full capacity, and I hope that DEN builds concourses D and E as originally designed rather than the other half-baked terminal ideas.

DEN has began the gate adding process. They just upgraded generators this month so they can begin adding 8-9 gates on the east side of Concourse A.

Oh, is that so? The only definite plan that I thought was happening was the one to tack on two more jetways to the end of B.

Not a totally new runway but 5-23 at PVD goes from 7200' to 8700' Fall 2017. In the midst of construction now after moving a 4 lane state highway out of the way.

https://www.flydenver.com/sites/default ... ochure.pdf

Which runway is the most likely runway to be built next at Denver International Airport?

intotheair wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

That's amazing! But I agree with the comment above that, like others, DEN probably could use more gates rather than a new runway in the near term. Now that the UA operation is even bigger and more heavily banked than before, it's a daily occurrence that UA uses all of the gates in B and the common use gates in A (even for domestic flights). I hope they bump out the other side of B as rumored, but to its full capacity, and I hope that DEN builds concourses D and E as originally designed rather than the other half-baked terminal ideas.

DEN has began the gate adding process. They just upgraded generators this month so they can begin adding 8-9 gates on the east side of Concourse A.

Oh, is that so? The only definite plan that I thought was happening was the one to tack on two more jetways to the end of B.

That's what I heard the plan was as well, Originally I heard it was a concourse add on, then downgraded to just the two jetways and not the concourse add on, I prefer the concourse add on as 2 additional jetways at the end will do little to handle the congestion at B concourse

ytib wrote:

...and to think in 1954 the land at Miramar was offered to the City of San Diego for $1 for use as an airport, but it was considered too far away from the city.

As stated before anything in the bay will not work due to the building in downtown San Diego, the need of a deep water harbor for the Navy and others. The redevelopment of the former rental car area is also on the horizon which would continue to block the airport from the bay as well.

Is it possible that Miramar could be developed into a large commercial airport that would handle international and long distance domestic flights along with all cargo operations at SAN with SAN just handling regional/west coast flying? Is the San Diego area large enough to support two commercial airports?

dfwjim1 wrote:

ytib wrote:

...and to think in 1954 the land at Miramar was offered to the City of San Diego for $1 for use as an airport, but it was considered too far away from the city.

As stated before anything in the bay will not work due to the building in downtown San Diego, the need of a deep water harbor for the Navy and others. The redevelopment of the former rental car area is also on the horizon which would continue to block the airport from the bay as well.

Is it possible that Miramar could be developed into a large commercial airport that would handle international and long distance domestic flights along with all cargo operations at SAN with SAN just handling regional/west coast flying? Is the San Diego area large enough to support two commercial airports?

Ideas of split ops involving Miramar and Lindbergh have been mentioned and discussed over the years. One idea was that WN would remain at Lindbergh Field, and everything else would head up the 15 to Miramar. Unless WN some day starts interlining, them being at a separate airport could make sense. (Kind of like their plan a few years ago of moving their ops to Boeing Field in SEA while everyone else stayed at SEA/TAC.)

I don't really think any sort of local/short haul and long haul/intercontinental split would be practical. IF Miramar were to actually happen some day, I think SAN could potentially become a minor hub for a carrier or 2, so connections from long haul arrivals to short haul (intra-state travel) connecting flights might be desirable -- something that 2 airports wouldn't really allow.

bb

The clear answer to this question is DTW.....

SANFan wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

ytib wrote:

...and to think in 1954 the land at Miramar was offered to the City of San Diego for $1 for use as an airport, but it was considered too far away from the city.

As stated before anything in the bay will not work due to the building in downtown San Diego, the need of a deep water harbor for the Navy and others. The redevelopment of the former rental car area is also on the horizon which would continue to block the airport from the bay as well.

Is it possible that Miramar could be developed into a large commercial airport that would handle international and long distance domestic flights along with all cargo operations at SAN with SAN just handling regional/west coast flying? Is the San Diego area large enough to support two commercial airports?

Ideas of split ops involving Miramar and Lindbergh have been mentioned and discussed over the years. One idea was that WN would remain at Lindbergh Field, and everything else would head up the 15 to Miramar. Unless WN some day starts interlining, them being at a separate airport could make sense. (Kind of like their plan a few years ago of moving their ops to Boeing Field in SEA while everyone else stayed at SEA/TAC.)

I don't really think any sort of local/short haul and long haul/intercontinental split would be practical. IF Miramar were to actually happen some day, I think SAN could potentially become a minor hub for a carrier or 2, so connections from long haul arrivals to short haul (intra-state travel) connecting flights might be desirable -- something that 2 airports wouldn't really allow.

bb

Keeping an old airport open while building a new greenfield one only sabotages the new investment. Look no further than the legal mess that plagues DAL and DFW, the high operating costs of IAD over DCA, or at worst, the complete abandonment of YMX over YUL. I only hope that if SAN ever looks to build a new passenger airport that they follow DEN's lead of building the new one to last forever and having bulldozers on the runways of the old one hours after the last flight departs. Lindbergh Field's location also seems like it would make a great spot for redevelopment.

I don't know but if you had maybe $10billion you could trade North Island for SAN and have two runwways.

I know IND has a 3rd parallel runway planned for FedEx. I-70 was shifted to make room to build the new runway. Just don't know when IND plans on pulling the trigger on this.

aviationaware wrote:

All of those require either expensive landfill operations, probably all of them in either natural reserve (JFK) or otherwise impossible locations (Potomac River, DCA) or massive demolition projects to make room for another runway.

Obviously, nothing of that sort is going to happen.

The main problem is that these airports are located within the city boundaries. This leaves no room for expansion and causes all kind of other restrictions.

In New York for example, would it be an idea to tear down all three major New York airports and build a new big New York airport just outside the city, let's say at the location of the Alpine Scout Camp. Add some fast connections to the city and it solves a lot of problems.

Here in Europe a lot of cities got their airports outside the city boundaries, sometimes quite far outside. Milan Malpensa for example is about 30 miles from the city of Milan. Nobody in Milan is bothered by it, aircraft noise is far away and there is plenty of room for the airport to expand. Still with fast connections the travel between the airport and the city is just as fast as if the airport was located right next to the city like the much smaller Milan Linate. From some places in Milan Malpensa is easier and faster to reach, despite the fact that Linate is closer.

If any airport in the USA is going to get a new runway it'll be an airport that has room for it. City-locked airport don't have that room and therefor can't grow any further. Their growth will be at alternative airports further from the city.

intotheair wrote:

My guess is DEN. It was built in mind to have something crazy like 15 runways (not exaggerating)! A seventh runway is at the top of the short term shortlist on DEN's master plan.

DEN ultimate plan is to have 12 runways. 4 N/S on east side, 4 N/S on west side, 2 E/W on NE side, and 2 E/W on SW side. I have a large foldout map from the DIA folks from just after construction began showing how it would look after all was said and done with the full layout.

There is another solution. Use bigger aircraft and then only the terminals need to be expanded, and that takes a lot less room.

Just to take one example, there are 19 flights per day from PHX to LAX. Does anyone need more frequency than that ?