U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2017, 06:03 PM
 
272 posts, read 136,235 times
Reputation: 178
[quote=Bruff;49959928]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
"McCarran ...is (both) an airport and a major component of the Las Vegas strip."

How the dickens is MacCarran a major component of the Strip?
Its not, really. But, what is being said about the general convenience of its location cannot be denied. I just don't see the other upsides to its location at this point in time.

As I had stated earlier in the thread, as I know someone has posed the question just recently but I think it is worth stating again for those late to the thread, I think that McCarran (ie terminals, parking) can be reused as a ground transportation hub quite easily.

If we choose to hold on to some of the runways for increased cargo transport, we can do that too. I see an opportunity to redevelop some of what is now the runway areas of both Sunset and Las Vegas Blvd into more tourist attractions. Even better would be to move it all out of the area and allow for further urban/commercial development in general completely surrounding the site, that I frankly do not think is going to ever occur with a prevalence of air traffic.

I agree that many areas surrounding McCarran are basically deadzones due to the constant air traffic. One can see this themselves by taking a look at the development in the valley on Google Maps. If you look at the map today, you can see that with the exception of the areas north of Russel(bordering the north side of the airport), everything else in the immediate vicinity aside from the strip itself is almost solely commercial development. Also, the lots directly west of McCarran on LV Blvd are empty or abandoned and have remained so all this time - I think this is the reason for it. You can also see that the flight path west of McCarran following Sunset remains heavily commercial or undeveloped, along with the turn south past 215 flying over Sierra Vista High School. In my opinion, this is no coincidence. These lots are clearly less desirable and will remain so for as long as the air traffic continues. I will also point out that the area to the north of the airport past Russel is struggling economically and likely due to its proximity to the airport.

I happen to live in the far reaches of the airport overlay but do not regularly experience adverse airport noise. However, it is noticeable on days when there are adverse weather conditions. I believe this is because the airport changes the flight patterns to avoid the bad weather which causes those flights to overfly nearer to my home(I've somewhat confirmed this by watching the live radar feeds on the 'net). Then again, I did buy in this area specifically due to its close proximity to the Strip, Airport, and easy access to 215/15 and Blue Diamond, but this is probably not typical. Many will simply "take a pass" if anything concerning airport or flight traffic is mentioned.

This may not have been the case 30 years ago when most of the valley was developed to the North of the airport, but it is pretty evident at this point that most of the continued development is occurring and will continue to occur to the south, which places McCarran right in the middle of all of it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2017, 06:26 PM
 
9,952 posts, read 8,438,330 times
Reputation: 5826
No one is poneying up the money to replace McCarren. Coming up with money to build a two runway secondary will be tough enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2017, 06:48 PM
 
272 posts, read 136,235 times
Reputation: 178
Well, we are poneying up the money to build a new stadium for the Raiders, so I don't think its entirely out of the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2017, 09:19 PM
 
9,952 posts, read 8,438,330 times
Reputation: 5826
An airport big enough to replace McCarron (4+ runways, 110+ gates) would be 10-20x the cost of the the stadium, and would require a lot of money from the federal government. And all that to be less convenient for its users.

As far as opening up land for major development, there are plenty of development sites available along the strip. And there doesn't seem to be a huge demand for new resort development. It would be asinine to replace and close a perfectly good airport, spending likely 10s of billions of dollars to build a new one, just to leave a gaping hole at the end of the strip.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2017, 09:27 PM
 
272 posts, read 136,235 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
An airport big enough to replace McCarron (4+ runways, 110+ gates) would be 10-20x the cost of the the stadium, and would require a lot of money from the federal government. And all that to be less convenient for its users.

As far as opening up land for major development, there are plenty of development sites available along the strip. And there doesn't seem to be a huge demand for new resort development. It would be asinine to replace and close a perfectly good airport, spending likely 10s of billions of dollars to build a new one, just to leave a gaping hole at the end of the strip.
Well, my only response to this is that there is already a "gaping hole" at the end of the strip, and that all major projects typically require major federal funding.

I don't know where you come up with the numbers that replacing McCarran would be a 10-20x increase in cost over the stadium, and I don't know where you come up with the numbers that a new airport would cost 10s of billions of dollars.

This wasn't the case in other jurisdictions, so aside from extenuating circumstances, why would it be the case here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2017, 09:36 PM
 
3,560 posts, read 1,816,472 times
Reputation: 3838
Quote:
Originally Posted by equid0x View Post
Well, my only response to this is that there is already a "gaping hole" at the end of the strip, and that all major projects typically require major federal funding.

I don't know where you come up with the numbers that replacing McCarran would be a 10-20x increase in cost over the stadium, and I don't know where you come up with the numbers that a new airport would cost 10s of billions of dollars.

This wasn't the case in other jurisdictions, so aside from extenuating circumstances, why would it be the case here?
Denver was $4.8 billion 20 years ago. Believe the poster - it'll cost $10 billion at a minimum to buy something new for LAS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2017, 10:02 PM
 
9,952 posts, read 8,438,330 times
Reputation: 5826
What jurisdiction in the US has built an airport of this scale in the US since DEN? I don't know of any.

Big civil engineering projects just cost much more than they used to. NY State is building a new bridge across the Hudson River. That's coming in at $4 billion. A from scratch major international airport is going to be a few times that. Especially since it hadn't been started yet.

Every once in a while Bruff pops in here and brings up the McCarren replacement idea. This has gone on for a couple of years now. In all that time I've never heard of anyone in any position to get a project like this started float the idea. I haven't even heard that anyone is talking about firing up the Ivanpah secondary airport project.


Quote:
Originally Posted by equid0x View Post
Well, my only response to this is that there is already a "gaping hole" at the end of the strip, and that all major projects typically require major federal funding.

I don't know where you come up with the numbers that replacing McCarran would be a 10-20x increase in cost over the stadium, and I don't know where you come up with the numbers that a new airport would cost 10s of billions of dollars.

This wasn't the case in other jurisdictions, so aside from extenuating circumstances, why would it be the case here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2017, 10:12 PM
 
272 posts, read 136,235 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
Denver was $4.8 billion 20 years ago. Believe the poster - it'll cost $10 billion at a minimum to buy something new for LAS.
Again, is that 10 to 20x the times the cost of the stadium? That is the claim that has been made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2017, 10:17 PM
 
272 posts, read 136,235 times
Reputation: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
What jurisdiction in the US has built an airport of this scale in the US since DEN? I don't know of any.
I don't know either, but I don't specifically keep track of these things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Big civil engineering projects just cost much more than they used to. NY State is building a new bridge across the Hudson River. That's coming in at $4 billion. A from scratch major international airport is going to be a few times that. Especially since it hadn't been started yet.
While I can agree that new construction projects are coming in much higher than they used to, where are we getting the 10-20X claim? I would point out that Ivanpah has already been started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Every once in a while Bruff pops in here and brings up the McCarren replacement idea. This has gone on for a couple of years now. In all that time I've never heard of anyone in any position to get a project like this started float the idea. I haven't even heard that anyone is talking about firing up the Ivanpah secondary airport project.
Well, what makes anyone specifically credentialed to comment on the idea other than those that are actually working on it? I didn't say they were talking about it, but I think they should be. After all, my tax dollars pay the taxes here, in Las Vegas, and I DO think that I have a say in what happens with my money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2017, 08:13 AM
 
3,560 posts, read 1,816,472 times
Reputation: 3838
Quote:
Originally Posted by equid0x View Post
Again, is that 10 to 20x the times the cost of the stadium? That is the claim that has been made.
Geez - it was an off the cuff number. $10 billion today is 6X. Given it will be a few years between start and finish and it'll easily be $15 billion +.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top