Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Floating airports

  1. #1

    Floating airports

    Is this practical?

  2. #2
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    17,851
    seeing that your are from San Diego
    and because you have seen/know the U.S. Navy's verison
    so you must be asking about commercial/passenger service?
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  3. #3
    YES, SORRY FOR THE LACK OF CLARIFICATION. i'M LAZY. sorry about the caps. 1 of 16 proposals for a new san diego intl airport . I'm real skeptical.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    4,767
    A floating airport? like a carrier, but bigger I guess... Wouldn't it be dangerous for planes? Considering it's already quite dangerous for fighter jets... I can't imagine a 747 landing on some floeating airport... though when land starts to run short... the sea would be the only choice.

  5. #5
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,672
    post a link so we can see the proposal

    An aircraft carrier would be too dangerous. But an airport on an "lsland" near SD should be doable. Either by creating an island (has been done in Tokyo bay) or by creating a tremendously huge stationary float that can adjust itself using pumps. It can be done but is it cost effective?

    As far as ditching in the water goes, that seems preferable to scraping fuel tanks across concrete pavement that would cause an explosion almost always.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  6. #6
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,526
    One of the proposals for expansion of San Francisco Int'l is to extend the runways in the Bay. I'm skeptical of that plan too.

  7. #7
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    4,767
    AFAIK the Tokyo airport (or was it the Hong Kong airport?) that was made on an artificial island was sinking at an alarming rate(no, it's not that the seas are rising, it's the island that's sinking) and the structures have been lifted, turning the airport in a cash dumpster...

    Mabye something like The Raft from Neal Stephenson's Snowcrash could do.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian martini's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    'sconni
    Posts
    679
    The only way I'd feel safe if this were to happen is if the 'island' was placed in a VERY calm and protected bay. The Tokyo one that was sinking, was a novel idea for something that eats up a large percentage of available land for development. Definitely 'outside the box' thinking.

    I would be worried about potential pollution disaters though(leaking fuels). Over runs into the bay seem a tad dangeraous to me as well. Granted, there's less of a chance for fuel tanks exploding.
    You're more boring than you know.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian Jeff's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mr. Cool Ice
    Posts
    4,161
    I don't think so, unless its REALLY big.

    On a carrier, the planes don't land. They are stopped. I can just see the lawsuits now when little Johnny smacks his head on the seat in front of him.

    And them what? RUn ferry service back and forth to the mainland?

  10. #10
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,672
    Originally posted by SkeLeton
    ...(no, it's not that the seas are rising, it's the island that's sinking) ......
    Yeah, I saw that on the discovery channel too. Was very interesting. It was a question of geology. So if the Geology of SD bay is different it could work different. Sort of the way that skyscrapers need to be anchored to solid bedrock and not giant sand deposits and land fill.

    still possible to do. The environmental impacts also are worrisome but nobody wants it in thier back yard either. Or in the woods, might scare some bears or ducks or something.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  11. #11
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Who cares.
    Posts
    1,038
    Flying is bad enough without having to worry about your red-eye flight ditching in the bay. When are they going to built transcontinental bridges?
    I don't dream. I plan.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Rem's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,530
    There was a proposal to moor a floating airport off the Great Barrier Reef several years back. It was an attempt to avoid land impacts of a new airport - better off shading and altering the ecosystem of a world heritage coral reef? Sheesh. The proposal was laughed out of town - Cairns' and Townsville's existing airports have been upgraded (Cairns to international standard).

    It's occasionally mentioned for Sydney as well but I think sea conditions rule it out - we just fill in a bit more of Botany Bay when we need a new runway.

  13. #13
    Cyburbian Emeritus Chet's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    South Milwaukee
    Posts
    8,935
    Originally posted by Plannerbabs
    Flying is bad enough without having to worry about your red-eye flight ditching in the bay. When are they going to built transcontinental bridges?
    It was either History channel or Discovery channel that had a series on "extreme engineering" and there are plans for just that - one acrodd gibraltar and the other over the berring strait. The Chunnel already existing, and there is a proposal for a tunnel that would be anchored and "float" about the ocean floor, from Nova Scotia to Scotland. The travel time New York to Paris in a high speed train would be cut to something like 1.75 hours. The increase in commerce would justify it, once the engineering issues are addressed.

    Think of how much faster the invasion of france will be for us!

    I just saw an MSNBC article that the "Space Elevator" can be a reality in less than 10 years. Amazing.

  14. #14
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Who cares.
    Posts
    1,038
    Roadtrip to London, anyone? Only problem: where are the 24-hour mega-truckstops going to go, and how is the ocean's ecosystem going to be affected by people tossing 1/2-eaten "Belly Bomb Beef n Cheese Supreme"s out of their car windows? Will the whales develop the same fondness for trash that bears have, and start beaching themselves at rest stops, begging for Slurpees? A train would definately be a safer way to go. Windows don't open on trains.
    I don't dream. I plan.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian Emeritus Chet's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    South Milwaukee
    Posts
    8,935
    Originally posted by Plannerbabs
    A train would definately be a safer way to go.
    Yeah it was cool. There would be trains with auto carrier cars and passenger cars (I wouldnt doubt FedEx package cars too!)

    Maglevs would be used, as well as pressurized vacuum tubes to suck the train along once it reached the low resistance of hovering. There are plans to counteract fire, ramming by submarines or large marine life, and the like. It was a fascinating show.

  16. #16

  17. #17
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    The airport is in Kansai, not Tokyo.

  18. #18
    Cyburbian Emeritus Chet's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    South Milwaukee
    Posts
    8,935
    The info in that link was fascinating, but also was distributed by the firm pitching their product.

    Where is the independent analysis?

    I dont rule this out at all, I just want unbiased information. Maybe we should contact the media *eye roll*

  19. #19
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    4,767
    Originally posted by jordanb
    The airport is in Kansai, not Tokyo.
    Thank you.. my bad!

    The link TIO provided is quite interesting.. and something like that could work, but for something as huge as an airport (I'm thinking an airport for big US cities), is it safe enough? I mean a normal passenger jet need at least some 4000 ft of runway to land safely. Jumbo jets need quite more, something like 6000 ft to land well and safely... of course you can land in less.

    Actually, rather than starting with such a big project like an airport with a new technology like this could be harmfull, I'd sugest that they start with houses first and then gradually move on to something bigger. Remember.. The US space program did not start with the missions to the moon.

  20. #20
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    9,938
    Takeoffs and landings would all be over water affecting no populated areas, thereby virtually eliminating noise pollution and substantially reducing aircraft accident risks. The airport could operate 24 hours per day without impact on populated areas.
    How many miles out to sea will the airport be located? The noise from taking off or landing begins several miles from the airport. If your inland destination airport shuts early, you still won't operate 24 hours. There are other impacts. I can see having a shore terminal and shuttling people to the airport, but what about freight? As for safety, I think that is likely to be the opposite. Airports have a lot of room on the ground to maneuver, and going off the taxiway means going onto the grass, not into the ocean. Planes will compete for airspace over a floating airport just as they do over ground.

    Unlike land based airports, growth and alterations in configuration would be relatively easy to achieve.
    It is just so difficult to bulldoze ground and lay cement, right?

    FloatPort could be the hub of an offshore mass transit system that would utilize high speed surface vessels to connect all the coastal communities. Such a system would provide a new form of mass transit with a minimal infrastructure investment.
    The hovercraft will take you right from FloatPort to the monorail.

    Compared to a land based alternative, FloatPort would be environmentally benign.
    Yeah, right. It won't impact coral reefs. It won't disrupt fisheries. It won't lie in the migration path of a whale species.

    With its multiple functions -- airport, shipping port and inter nodal transportation port -- FloatPort could be one of the few vital infrastructure projects that could produce enough revenues to pay for itself.
    Uh huh. Time to ressurect the monorail thread?

  21. #21
    Uh huh. Time to ressurect the monorail thread?
    Amen

    It is just so difficult to bulldoze ground and lay cement, right?
    In San Diego, unless it's for track housing, very difficult.

  22. #22

    Wait, is that reason I sense

    They're tossing the floating airport idea. I can't get the articles link to work.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 13
    Last post: 16 Jan 2014, 9:58 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last post: 29 Mar 2013, 9:16 PM
  3. Floating gauze
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 11
    Last post: 08 Aug 2012, 4:14 PM
  4. Floating symbols on a comp plan
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 0
    Last post: 15 Jan 2008, 4:43 PM
  5. How good are new airports as economic generators?
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 15
    Last post: 25 May 2004, 2:12 PM