[WildWestDude]

Originally Posted by Bruff

It's the biggest source of pollution - both air and noise - in the Valley.
It's a perfect storm opportunity for terrorists.
It's overdue and begging for 'a big one'.
It's holding up what could be billions in new development.
It's nearing capacity.
Best of all, we've got a replacement site, bought and paid, for just 30 miles and 10 minutes away (by high speed rail).
I say that relocating McCarran should be a top priority.

Sure, we have multi billions to waste. THe question should be not if it can be replaced but rather have a new airport

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by DavieJ89

Well gee since you seem to have all the answers then there's no point in debating this is there? I'm done with this dumb thread
All I will say is that if and when a secondary airport is built, I pray to God its not built anywhere near the NW where I live

This dumb thread is about removing a dumb (and dangerous) airport from near where everyone lives to near where no one lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Valley_Airport.

Watch the value of land between Vegas and Jean start to skyrocket.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by WildWestDude

Sure, we have multi billions to waste. THe question should be not if it can be replaced but rather have a new airport

Dude.
Rephrase yourself so it makes sense. Replacing McCarran and having a new airport are one and the same thing.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by lvmensch;[I

43576067]According to the FAA:

*[/i]*****************************************
In addition, landings and take-offs at FAA-operated towered airports and FAA-contracted towered airports are expected to increase from an estimated 49.6 million operations in 2014 to 59.9 million operations in 2035, an average rate of 0.9 percent per year.
******************************************

So McCarran is certainly good through 2035.

Next time provide a link. Here's what I got when I Goog'd your quote:

According to the FAA...

U.S. airlines served an estimated 756.3 million passengers in 2014, (and) The FAA forecast projects passenger growth to reach 1.14 billion by 2035.
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=18434

Please show us where McCarran is good through 2035.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

Not that mature. China bullet train crash 'caused by design flaws'.

When a product relies on gravity and luck to keep the steel side down, that's not a design flaw that's a concept flaw. Except for the hubcaps and speed, 'trains' as we know them, have changed little since the 1860s. They even use the same track spec dictated by the Romans for their chariots back in BC.

The new technology - maglev, the Shanghai airport express we discussed earlier being the most notable - works like roller coasters in that they use under-track 'bogies' to keep them from taking the flying leap. Nevada created a law specifically to ensure that they never happen.

[Trash Can]

Originally Posted by Bruff

This dumb thread is about removing a dumb (and dangerous) airport from near where everyone lives to near where no one lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Valley_Airport.

Watch the value of land between Vegas and Jean start to skyrocket.

What are your credentials to make such statements that McCarran is a dangerous airport? The surrounding terrain can provide some challenges, especially when hot, but it is far from dangerous. I get the feeling that most of your aviation "expertise" comes from watching movies and CNN aviation accident reporters.

Originally Posted by Bruff

For those that like cold hard facts in headline form:

Air travel demand projected to double in 20 years

Hardly cold hard facts. More like wishful thinking from those with the transportation industry. It's kind of like the dairy industry saying cheese consumption is going to double in 20 years, does it make it true?

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by Trash Can

What are your credentials to make such statements that McCarran is a dangerous airport? The surrounding terrain can provide some challenges, especially when hot, but it is far from dangerous. I get the feeling that most of your aviation "expertise" comes from watching moviesand CNN aviation accident reporters. Hardly cold hard facts. More like wishful thinking from those with the transportation industry. It's kind of like the dairy industry saying cheese consumption is going to double in 20 years, does it make it true?

Trash Can:
My credentials to make the statements I do are curiosity, active investigation, and a desire to do what I can to make my community a healthier, safer and more productive place.

"Far from dangerous". Right. When an airport with a half million movements a year is landlocked within its community, when the direct and indirect result creates the majority of the city's pollution, and when its noise afflicts almost every citizen, time for action. Says I. That action, to me, is relocating it to where it is safe and accessible and still provides the community with what an airport should be all about. You got a problem with that?

In mitigation, the watchword is "Plan for the worst, hope for the best". If those overseeing Clarke County's aviation practiced that, they'd move it to where their predecessors intended nearly two decades ago.

As for the studies, aviation or dairy, one would tend to believe that they were based on verifiable modeling by people with credentials.

As for my aviation "credentials", they comes courtesy of a commercial ticket issued by the FAA and several thousand hours in my logbook. Where's yours come from?

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Bruff

Next time provide a link. Here's what I got when I Goog'd your quote:

According to the FAA...

U.S. airlines served an estimated 756.3 million passengers in 2014, (and) The FAA forecast projects passenger growth to reach 1.14 billion by 2035.
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=18434

Please show us where McCarran is good through 2035.

Operations determine airport capacity. The increase in operations require that McCarran handle a little over 20% more operations in 20 years. That should be doable and at about that time a reliever airport may become desirable.

There is lots of passenger capacity available in the present plant and another terminal is quite feasible.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Operations determine airport capacity. The increase in operations require that McCarran handle a little over 20% more operations in 20 years. That should be doable and at about that time a reliever airport may become desirable.
Therd is lots of passenger capacity available in the present plant and another terminal is quite feasible.

Quote: Passenger traffic increased for the 15th straight month in November, driven again by double-digit percentage increases in international traffic. Rise in international traffic boosts McCarran numbers | Las Vegas Review-Journal

McCarran was/is supposed to reach capacity in 2017. But more important than capacity is health, safety and functionability. All of which would occur if it were moved.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Bruff

Quote: Passenger traffic increased for the 15th straight month in November, driven again by double-digit percentage increases in international traffic. Rise in international traffic boosts McCarran numbers | Las Vegas Review-Journal

McCarran was/is supposed to reach capacity in 2017. But more important than capacity is health, safety and functionability. All of which would occur if it were moved.

The airport can easily double in international passengers with the present facilities. Its capacity will abe driven by operations not passsengers. It is likely that changes in the ATC system will provide more than a 20% improvement over the next 20 years. The weather of Las Vegas is such that it will do much better on this than most places.

No reasonably analysis shows a cost effective rationale for moving the airport. It economically a totally hopeless move. Safety is probably better with the existing plant as we won't kill as many people going and coming to the airport. Health is a hopelessly weak argument...a few percent of the overall pollution and not mitigated by moving a few miles out of town.