Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX
The downtowns are 74 miles apart and the suburbs of each city are even much closer, with two growing cities in between.
Why do you say regional airports are no longer being built?
If that's not an option the city should consider building a large hub airport somewhere in the metro. There are smaller metros than San Antonio that have large sized hub airports that have a smaller population and economy. San Antonio may be losing out on economic opportunities because of its airport.
Kelly AFB would have been a good option if it were available but new airports are being built all over the world and not only if an existing airfield is available.
The city creating an incentive program to secure more flights will be helpful but it is just slapping a band aid on the problem, the airport is landlocked and just not big enough for a metro the size of San Antonio.
A new airport will have to be taken seriously now or in the near future and it is great that city officials are considering such a project.
|
Paul, I appreciate your contribution to this forum. But, dude, your homerism is, indeed, clouding reality and your better judgment. Please, just sit back, take a deep breath and think all of this through...
- 74, 75, 78, 80; the 6-mile difference in miles apart is negligible and inconsequential to the overall status of this part argument. Should a regional airport be placed exactly between San Antonio and Austin, it would still be more than twice the distance from a city center than DFW is from central Dallas & central Ft. Worth.
And, let’s be fair to the other cities occupying space between SA and Austin - there are more than “two growing” cities between San Antonio and Austin. New Braunfels and San Marcos are just the two largest…for now.
- Yes, major “regional” airports are no longer being built. In fact, I don’t think one has been built (in at least North America) in the past 25-30+ years.
- City size does not exactly correlate to the size of its airport. It never has. Regarding those cities you suggest that are smaller in both size and economy (when compared to SA) that have larger/busier airports - can you provide us with some examples?
- Should SA be “losing out” on economic opportunities, San Antonio International Airport is definitely not the sole cause of the problem! It might be the last excuse for some to go elsewhere, but it is not the overriding problem.
- Kelly’s not available? Is the city not trying to develop Port San Antonio there? Is there not a runway available to businesses associated/located at Port San Antonio? Why can’t the city find some creative way to develop the roughly 2,000 acres in conjunction with a new airport facility?
We, as a community, are going to have to think outside the box when the time comes to developing a new airport for San Antonio. One cannot simply point at a map and say: “Let’s put it there.” It’s never that simple. Take a look at the situation in San Diego. They actually do need a new airport and they have moved forward with that plan very little in over the past 15-20 years. It’s not easy!
Residents may want easy access to an airport, but, I can assure you they do not want to live next to one. Included among the many reasons why, it will dilute the value of residential property. So, building a new SAT northeast of San Antonio (along or near I-35) will never happen. People will vote against it in a heartbeat. However, we may have something to discuss should the Feds shutter Randolph in the future.
Should SA develop a new airport, do not expect our airfares to decrease. More than likely, they will increase, as the cost for construction is passed down to the passenger (you gotta pay those bonds off). And don’t expect new routes to materialize just because you have a shinny new terminal either.
- Yes, one does not require existing runways in determining where to place a new airport. However, depending on how many runways are at said site, it could cut the overall construction cost by at least hundreds of millions of dollars. A municipality would only have to refurbish existing runways instead of fabricating new ones. And, depending on the site conditions, I believe it costs somewhere between $200-$500/SF for construction of a new runway (ATL just built one which cost ~$1.3B…an exception to the norm, but, still).
- Outside of Asia and the UAE, very few new, major airports are being developed today. And regarding those airports in Asia and the UAE, their “Federal” governments are heavily supplying funds for construction. FAR more so than here in the U.S., where the Feds will fund less than 33% of the total cost (in most cases - and, only if you are lucky). Municipalities (local governments – normally via bond issuances) and airlines must come up with remaining funds for construction. You cannot assume that if it is happening in Asia and the UAE then it will, or even can, happen here. That is just not the case.
- I doubt the city’s current incentive program will do much to improve air service or promote new routes. It is a measly total of $600,000 budgeted for the entire fiscal 2016 year. I totally agree with you…this is a tiny little band aid.
However, again, you cannot equate a city’s size to how big their airport “should” be. SAT is plenty big enough for what we need for now. The airport’s master plan has the addition of more gates. And, with (or without) eminent domain, SAT could acquire the necessary land needed to extend one or more of its runways. The problem is not the size of the airport; it is the passenger cost to fly out of it and the perceived lack of direct flights.
- City officials are not considering a new airport. They wanted Austin to help pay for a new San Antonio airport (and call it a “regional” airport)…that is it – no more, no less. And Austin, as almost any intelligent city would, saw right through the B.S. There is no “need” for a new San Antonio International Airport. SAT is NOT currently bursting at its seems.