Relief airport for Hartsfield-Jackson (Atlanta, Columbus: mover, taxi, military)

[testa50]

Originally Posted by neil0311

For people who live well north of the Atlanta metro, I think Chattanooga is a potential option, but then it has been all along. The fact that Chattanooga has not made itself the alternative to Atlanta for north Georgia is probably a result of a lack of both supply and demand.

Personally, there is no way in hell I'm traveling 90 min out of my way to a second tier airport that is surrounded by high terrain (think weather related delays and fewer direct flights), when I have one ATL 30 to 45 min away with 5 runways and direct flights to anywhere in the world.

Agreed. To be a viable second airport, you need to be closer to at least SOME portion of the metro area. Being closer to even a relatively small portion is much better than nothing.

All of metro Atlanta is much closer to ATL than it is to Chattanooga. You have to start getting all the way up to Calhoun or so before the distance is even equal. Calhoun, a whopping 25 miles past Cartersville, is probably far enough away that it will never be part of Atlanta's dense suburban growth, even if Atlanta grows by 3 million over the next 40 years.

Winder is probably closer to maybe a million Atlantans compared to ATL (counting Gainesville). If the metro area grew to 8 million in population by 2050, that number would probably grow by another million or so, perhaps.

[cittic10]

Screw airports.

Lets do high speed rail.

Every other developed country and even some developing countries have high speed rail networks.
Why should I have to drive 90 minutes then to wait 2 more hours before choosing between being groped or going through the porno scanner, only to end up packed like a friggin sardine in between a screaming infant and a fat guy with gas?

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by testa50

Athens is a stretch indeed--the fact that it's on the other side of Athens pretty much counts it out. Mediocre road access too.

If Barrow County wanted to go big time, they could make Winder (WDR) the relief airport. I know it's out of the way, but there's a lot going for it.

For major portions of Gwinnett it would be closer than ATL. It's located a couple miles off 316, which will eventually become limited access (the TIA referendum would make it limited access up to the Gwinnett County line). So traffic isn't much of an issue. The Brain Train runs literally right next to the terminal, which would be a pretty slick transportation link for the airport someday. Gwinnett has actually been leading the metro among large counties in terms of wage and job growth lately, and we have all heard about the major economic development projects that have been announced for northeast Georgia lately.

In ~20 years, it's fairly likely Barrow County will be a developed suburban area all the way over to Athens, and having an airport right in the middle would be a huge asset to that part of the state.

Hmm, Winder. That's right down the road from Lawrenceville, where their airport dispute is going on. Opening up the Winder-Barrow County Airport would take care of that problem quickly, and it would give Athens much more convenient air access. Also, there seems to be a LOT less in the final approach paths for runway 5/23 than for Lawrenceville's runway.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by cittic10

Screw airports.

Lets do high speed rail.

Every other developed country and even some developing countries have high speed rail networks.
Why should I have to drive 90 minutes then to wait 2 more hours before choosing between being groped or going through the porno scanner, only to end up packed like a friggin sardine in between a screaming infant and a fat guy with gas?

Sorry...but that same tired discussion has been had before. You cannot compare the US with Europe or Japan. The scale of distance is totally different.

If I travel to DC or NY or Boston, why on earth do I want to sit on a train for a day when I can fly there in 2 or 3 hours? Going to the west coast it's even more of a no brainer.

[billl]

Originally Posted by WanderingImport

Two options I can think of are either Cobb County Airport/McCollum Field

There isn't any land around McCollum for expansion and the current runway isn't long enough.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by billl

There isn't any land around McCollum for expansion and the current runway isn't long enough.

Correct on the land for expansion. The runway is long enough for CRJ, ERJ, 737, or MD88's and the like, but just barely.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Correct on the land for expansion. The runway is long enough for CRJ, ERJ, 737, or MD88's and the like, but just barely.

I don't see McCollum Field as the reliever airport, either. As you well know (didn't realize you were a pilot, BTW ), larger planes need not just a longer runway but a longer approach path. I don't know if the FAA would allow those offices off the east end of the airport, were jet service to be established, especially if it meant lengthening the runway. And on the west end, that runway is awfully close to the roads. That would create situations of erecting a wash barrier, lower street lights, and putting up those red warning lights everywhere. And that's just the ends of the runway!

Somebody mentioned Dobbins as a potential reliever. I could see that, were the base to be closed. But I will dare not advocate for that just to get a reliever airport in there. Besides, Paulding County Regional Airport is not too terribly far away, and the idea of making it the reliever airport has been mentioned.

Which brings me to another point. Some major metro areas, such as New York and LA, have two or more reliever airports. Might it be a good idea to have one on the northwest side and another on the northeast?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Which brings me to another point. Some major metro areas, such as New York and LA, have two or more reliever airports. Might it be a good idea to have one on the northwest side and another on the northeast?

Well, if you look at the history behind NYC and their airports, LGA dates back to the 1920s and seaplanes landing in the river. JFK was built on marsh in Jamaica Bay and called Idlewild before Kennedy was killed. They grew up independently and addressed separate needs. They were built on the water, but they weren't planned around capacity. If you looks at the overall combined traffic, JFK + LGA + EWR are busier, and the airspace is more confined with Philly and Boston to the south and north.

Atlanta has none of the airspace concerns of the northeast. We have 5 parallel runways and generally prevailing winds. ATL is a hub for both Delta and Airtran (soon to be SWA) and to split the traffic defeats the purpose of a hub. In NYC or DC, there are enough differences in airlines to make the multiple airports work. The international traffic and JetBlue use JFK. AA and DL use LGA. United/Continental and other international use EWR.

Atlanta has none of that diversity of airlines, and to me, any kind of second airport would be for smaller commuter flights and second tier airlines.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Well, if you look at the history behind NYC and their airports, LGA dates back to the 1920s and seaplanes landing in the river. JFK was built on marsh in Jamaica Bay and called Idlewild before Kennedy was killed. They grew up independently and addressed separate needs. They were built on the water, but they weren't planned around capacity. If you looks at the overall combined traffic, JFK + LGA + EWR are busier, and the airspace is more confined with Philly and Boston to the south and north.

Atlanta has none of the airspace concerns of the northeast. We have 5 parallel runways and generally prevailing winds. ATL is a hub for both Delta and Airtran (soon to be SWA) and to split the traffic defeats the purpose of a hub. In NYC or DC, there are enough differences in airlines to make the multiple airports work. The international traffic and JetBlue use JFK. AA and DL use LGA. United/Continental and other international use EWR.

Atlanta has none of that diversity of airlines, and to me, any kind of second airport would be for smaller commuter flights and second tier airlines.

Yeah. Having a commercial airport not be a hub to any airline considerably cuts down on the number of gates it needs to hold. A couple examples that come to mind are Colorado Springs and Oklahoma City, each of which serve cities of about half a million people, but have fewer than 20 gates. A relief airport set in our exurbs could probably get away with a dozen gates, tops. Heck, an airport that size might only need a single runway.

I agree that there's some potential as a sort of commuter flight base. Since most regional airlines have switched from turboprops to jets, their flights are reasonably comfortable nowadays. And there could be a niche market for people who want to avoid the hustle and bustle of Hartsfield. Whether there would be enough to justify another airport or two, however, remains to be seen.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by cittic10

Screw airports.

Lets do high speed rail.

Every other developed country and even some developing countries have high speed rail networks.
Why should I have to drive 90 minutes then to wait 2 more hours before choosing between being groped or going through the porno scanner, only to end up packed like a friggin sardine in between a screaming infant and a fat guy with gas?

And what makes you think that a high-speed rail system wouldn't end up having similar security measures if it's a managed by the federal government? You can fit a whole lot more people on a high-speed train than you can on a plane, so the potential for terrorist attacks would be just as great. I'd be willing to bet that TSA would be all over a high-speed rail system.