FAA: More Capacity Needed To Handle Future Growth

[question everything]

Source: Aviation Week

FAA: More Capacity Needed To Handle Future Growth

May 16, 2007

AviationNow

By Benet Wilson/Aviation Daily

Some of the U.S.'s busiest airports and metropolitan areas -- among them Atlanta, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Diego and Las Vegas -- will require additional capacity, which could see new airports in the next two decades to address an expected flood of passengers, said Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters.

FAA's "Future Airport Capacity Task" report found that 14 airports and eight metropolitan areas nationwide will need new capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth in air traffic through 2025. But building a handful of new airports won't be enough, Peters warned.

The new report shows that by 2025, 15 metropolitan areas won't have the ability to handle demand for flights unless they move forward with planned improvements. And in places like the San Francisco Bay area, New York, Boston and Los Angeles, where existing airports are hemmed in by urban development, the report concludes these metropolitan areas will have to find better ways to use existing, smaller or underused air fields.



Read more: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aviationdaily&id=news/FAA05167.xml&headline=FAA:%20More%20Capacity%20Needed%20To%20Handle%20Future%20Growth

[havocmom]

1. Not if airlines, FAA, TSA, DHS keep pissing off passengers

And especially not if the greedy fat cats keep squeezing American workers.... Who's gonna fly airlines when only the rich can fly, and they own or charter their own?

[Up2Late]

2. They also need some New Thinkers to get on this problem too, like...

...Why build another big Airport in the Atlanta Metro? We already have FIVE (5) active Runways!

Why not move some of that "Hub" traffic to one of the South Carolina, Tennessee or Alabama Airports and expand one or more of those?

[question everything]

3. Or why not invest in high speed rails

connecting airports that are less than 500 miles apart?

These days, even for a one hour flight one has to be in the airport extra two hours. Boarding a high speed train would achieve the same thing and would eliminate the need for more runways.

[Up2Late]

4. Oh, that's completely out of the question as long as the American Oil Cartel runs this country.

That would most likely lower Petroleum consumption silly. :silly:

How would they still be able to claim that even $3.00 per gallon Gasoline doesn't effect demand if they actually gave American's a transportation alternative?

Any type of Electric train would be logical, but that would ruin every thing "Big Oil" has worked for decades to put into place.

Have you ever tried to take Amtrak from Orlando to Atlanta? I have. To do that, you have to go to Washington D.C.!!!

[UNCLE_Rico]

5. Considering the likely ramifications of Peak Oil...

And the fact that more and more signs are emerging that support the idea that WE ARE AT peak oil RIGHT NOW (or just past, even) ...

Building more airport capacity strikes me as one of the STUPIDEST WASTES of our dwindling resources I can possibly fathom.

Or, perhaps the article forgot to mention the underlying impetus for this action is the likelihood that many of the airports we have now are going to be underwater at some point fairly soon anyway.