[LasVegasPlayer]

This idea is quite awful. That land the airport is on isn't worth nearly as much as you think it is. The airport's close proximity to the Strip is one of its draws. Does OP own a taxi company?

[Clarkcty]

Other cities are building high speed train to connect their airports to city centers and convention centers. McCarran and Las Vegas is unique in a way that our airport is in close proximity to the city center (Strip) and the convention centers. It is a boost for Clark County to have McCarran.

Business people want to come and go as quickly as possible when attending conventions and McCarran makes that a reality. Las Vegas is the convention capital of the world.

North Las Vegas need to expand its facilities to augment McCarran so it'll be able to handle more flights/passengers.

[beachhead]

Bruff..ever fly into LAX? The last 60 miles or so of the approach is over some pretty highly populated areas. LAX is usually in the top 7 or 8 busiest airports in the world. When's the last time you heard about a 777 or any other commercial airliner falling out of the sky there?

Accidents can, and do happen. But, over the long haul, you have a much higher chance of being killed by lightning than a commercial air accident. It is quite simply the safest mode of transportation we have. I wouldn't lose too much sleep or expend a lot of energy trying to sell the idea of moving LAS due to "safety", for even if there is a disaster, odds are pretty strong that even if nothing is done about the cause (unlikely in aviation btw), you'll never live to see it happen again.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Bruff..ever fly into LAX? The last 60 miles or so of the approach is over some pretty highly populated areas. LAX is usually in the top 7 or 8 busiest airports in the world. When's the last time you heard about a 777 or any other commercial airliner falling out of the sky there?
Accidents can, and do happen. But, over the long haul, you have a much higher chance of being killed by lightning than a commercial air accident. It is quite simply the safest mode of transportation we have. I wouldn't lose too much sleep or expend a lot of energy trying to sell the idea of moving LAS due to "safety", for even if there is a disaster, odds are pretty strong that even if nothing is done about the cause (unlikely in aviation btw), you'll never live to see it happen again.

LAX has two approaches: one from the west, over the Pacific Ocean, one from the east, over the populated area. Most TOs, the most dangerous part of the experience, are over the ocean.
LAX does not have the luxury of a dry lake bed in the middle of nowhere connected to an already-built Interstate. We do.
As for accidents "can and do happen", now that we've gotten that squared away, why not just eliminate the potential for it happening here by moving the damn problem to where, if it does happen, the collateral damage is minimized to desert tortoises and sand fleas. Plus we get a much quieter and greener community. Plus when we do the rebuild, we have the opportunity to get it right.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by Clarkcty

Other cities are building high speed train to connect their airports to city centers and convention centers. McCarran and Las Vegas is unique in a way that our airport is in close proximity to the city center (Strip) and the convention centers. It is a boost for Clark County to have McCarran. Business people want to come and go as quickly as possible when attending conventions and McCarran makes that a reality. Las Vegas is the convention capital of the world.
North Las Vegas need to expand its facilities to augment McCarran so it'll be able to handle more flights/passengers.

"Las Vegas in unique in that our airport is in close proximity to the Strip". The general consensus on this site is that having McCarran where it is, regardless of the noise, pollution, general dysfunction and mayhem from the approaching Big Bang, is "good" because "People want to come and go as quickly as possible"

Do visitors really care how far they are from the airport when, regardless of how far, they can get to their destination, whether it be the Strip or Downtown or, increasingly, one of the other off-Strip locations (examples Sam's Town, Green Valley Ranch, M, or Red Rocks) as quickly one way or the other - and that in this case, "the other" is in a location that removes the noise, pollution and potential for for mayhem to a safe distance?

Given the choice, I say they (the visitors) would go for the alternative. I also say that the most residents (those on this site excepted) would say the same.

I say that it's time that we asked Steve Harvey: "Survey says...."

[Vegas_Cabbie]

The only thing one can hope for here... is that the OP is trolling... if the OP is actually being serious, someone should send help to their residence because they are probably a danger to themself.
That's how awful this is.

[BBMW]

^
Bruff is in no position to make this happen, so it really doesn't matter whether he's trolling or not. In point of fact, I consider it an interesting discussion.

The problem with a plane crashing is a little bit of a red herring. If you look at the departure lines from the normal runways used for take offs, they're over either low density and/or industrial areas. Planes don't turn over the main west and northwest suburbs until they've gained substantial altitude. If they're going to have a problem on take off (likely an engine fragging), it's going to happen before then. Pretty much the same thing on landing. There's enough of a pad of non-residential areas at the end of the runways that if a plane got swatted down by something like a microburst, it wouldn't hit houses.

So, other than that issue, the main problem, and also the main advantage, of McCarren is it's proximity to the strip. Being in Manhattan, where the main airport (JFK) is a good 40 minute drive, McCarren is hella convenient. But it is now hemmed in, so there isn't much room for future development without seizing big chunks of land. And, as I've said before in this thread, it shuts down all major development at the south end of the strip.

But, lets fact it. No one is going to pony up what it would take to build a replacement airport and Ivanpah. Maybe, at some point someone will come up with the money to build the relief airport there. And I'm not holding my breath on that. Maybe it will happen when the casinos are screaming for more airline service.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

This idea is quite awful. That land the airport is on isn't worth nearly as much as you think it is. The airport's close proximity to the Strip is one of its draws.

LVPlayer.
Value of McCarran. If it didn't have one of the world's busiest airports - and a 24-hr one at that - to deal with, I suspect that the value of it and the surrounding property would skyrocket.

It's a draw. Really? Show me a survey that shows that McCarran's close proximity to the Strip is one of its draws. I'd suggest that its proximity to the Strip - lower end (Mandala Bay, Luxor) especially - is one of its draw-backs. Again, I say that if you can remove the noise, pollution and danger and replace it with something that gets you to and from just as fast (or faster), that something would win, hands (and flaps) down.

Let's have that survey. Steve...?

[jw2]

In my younger days, on good weather days, which are plentiful in Las Vegas, I would walk from McCarran to the strip. Aside from the lousy pedestrian access to/from the airport (like most airports) it is not a bad walk at all. Without baggage it is probably a 30 minute walk.

[beachhead]

Originally Posted by Bruff

LAX has two approaches: one from the west, over the Pacific Ocean, one from the east, over the populated area. Most TOs, the most dangerous part of the experience, are over the ocean.
LAX does not have the luxury of a dry lake bed in the middle of nowhere connected to an already-built Interstate. We do.
As for accidents "can and do happen", now that we've gotten that squared away, why not just eliminate the potential for it happening here by moving the damn problem to where, if it does happen, the collateral damage is minimized to desert tortoises and sand fleas. Plus we get a much quieter and greener community. Plus when we do the rebuild, we have the opportunity to get it right.

Do you have any idea how fast the departures turn back over the same populated area when departing to the west? And they aren't flying over the "cheap seats" during daylight either.

You cannot eliminate all "hazards" to life. This is a pipe dream of the left. Do you realize that if you take the lower end of a commercial accident odds, you can take the same flight every day for over 14,000 YEARS before you're likely to have your first accident? At some point, rational human beings realize that "safety at all costs" doesn't really have a positive return on those costs.

And LAX does have the luxury of a very unpopulated, flat land area in "the middle of nowhere", and has had for 60 years or so (a quick search on palmdale international will point you in the direction). And it's gone about as far as IVP...nowhere. LAX also has BUR and ONT as offload airports...but guess which one keeps growing?

IVP does at least provide a nice dilemma to the eco-religion. A nice conflict between the tortoise lovers, who would rather kill humans than the tortoises in a plane crash; the solar worshipers where the three towers are already providing navigation hazards to pilots, and would really be great for IVP; the wilderness worshipers who wouldn't want to ruin a pristine dry lake bed with ugly airplanes; the agw types who would argue about the carbon emissions from more airplanes. And don't forget the indian tribes who probably have some sort of religious/tribal value from that land as well.

I'm guessing you have some financial stake in IVP development..your position doesn't make sense from many different view points otherwise.