SAN ANTONIO | City and Metro Transportation Thread

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by SAhometown

2017 Record breaking year!

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business...photo-14920656

Yeah! We're improving.

[micahinsa]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Too late. Norwegian is going to fly to Austin instead (beginning next Spring). Furthermore, our runways are not long enough to accommodate trans-oceanic flights.

I know nothing about planes/air travel. Why would a trans-oceanic flight need a longer runway than a non-trans-oceanic flight?

Is it just a size issue? That said flights often use planes that are usually larger, and thus need more runway to slow down?

[Spoiler]

Originally Posted by micahinsa

I know nothing about planes/air travel. Why would a trans-oceanic flight need a longer runway than a non-trans-oceanic flight?

Is it just a size issue? That said flights often use planes that are usually larger, and thus need more runway to slow down?

Speed up, actually.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Spoiler

Speed up, actually.

Yep. A fully loaded B787 would require roughly 10,000' for a safe takeoff (especially during the warmer months and at our altitude). Our longest runway is 8,500'. Most long-haul aircraft would require at least 9,000'+ for a safe takeoff at maximum weight. The exact length is determined by temperature and altitude.

There is a reason major international airports (especially in warmer environments and/or at altitude) have runways exceeding 12,000' in length. For example, four of DFW's seven runways are 13,400' long. Denver has a runway 16,000' in length.

[texboy]

For those who have more knowledge, can SAT extend its current runway(s) to the proper length for long haul routes? As in, is it feasible to purchase land adjoining and extend the runway? It would seem as though, if current trends continue, SAT could handle a long haul transatlantic route or two.

[Dan In Real Life]

Originally Posted by texboy

For those who have more knowledge, can SAT extend its current runway(s) to the proper length for long haul routes? As in, is it feasible to purchase land adjoining and extend the runway? It would seem as though, if current trends continue, SAT could handle a long haul transatlantic route or two.

I've been wondering this myself. Does anybody know?

[Restless 1]

Judging by Google Earth, doesn't look like much more could be added. The runway that runs NW/SE looks like it could be added to, but very little as 410 runs along the SE end, and 281 runs across the NW end.

There are some pics here, along with current stats here:

https://www.globalair.com/airport/ap...px?aptcode=sat

That said, anything CAN be done, but would the cost to do it make sense?

[jaga185]

UTSA downtown expansion plan spurs new transportation talk

University of Texas at San Antonio President Taylor Eighmy’s vision for an expanded and transformed downtown campus could have a more far-reaching impact on transportation in the city.

Reaction to such an expansion is already igniting new dialogue about the need for more transportation options in the nation’s seventh largest city. San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg, one of the stronger proponents of Eighmy’s vision for UTSA’s downtown campus, insists one particular element will be crucial to the plan’s success.

“As all of this comes together, the one missing ingredient is transportation,” Nirenberg said. “What’s happening now with the campuses could light a new path for transportation.”

Eighmy’s plan would expand the scope of UTSA programs offered downtown and would boost enrollment from about 4,000 students to as many as 15,000 over a decade. That expansion would also include several new structures, which would house classroom and residential space. Eighmy wants to see better connectivity between the two UTSA campuses and some of its partner institutions — including UT Health San Antonio.

It’s not so far-fetched an idea.

Phoenix was unsuccessful multiple times in its effort to convince enough voters to approve light rail. But in 2006, Arizona State University in Tempe, opened a new campus in downtown Phoenix. And in 2008, Valley Metro Rail opened for business. The rail line now spans more than 26 miles, connecting with both ASU campuses, as well as with Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

San Antonio City Manager Sheryl Sculley — who was assistant city manager in Phoenix when that municipality helped bring the ASU downtown campus and light rail to life — said persistence finally paid off.

“We worked on light rail for so many years. We went to the voters four times before it passed,” Sculley said.

She believes Eighmy’s vision could help inspire similar new transportation ideas.

“The example that comes to mind is what happened in Phoenix with Arizona State — how the downtown campus had a very important role in driving the eventual development of a light rail system that the city decided it needed,” Eighmy said.

I asked Nirenberg if he was hopeful discussions about a transformed downtown UTSA campus would trigger new dialogue about expanded transportation options.

“I’m not hopeful. I’m planning on it,” he said. “This will make us look at transit in a way we haven’t seen before. With a downtown urban campus and a main campus becoming strong nodes, we know where points A and B are on the map. It will be up to us to figure out the details to get them connected.”

[jaga185]

Looks like Nirenberg is looking into making a push to the city again for rail.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by Restless 1

Judging by Google Earth, doesn't look like much more could be added. The runway that runs NW/SE looks like it could be added to, but very little as 410 runs along the SE end, and 281 runs across the NW end.

There are some pics here, along with current stats here:

https://www.globalair.com/airport/ap...px?aptcode=sat

That said, anything CAN be done, but would the cost to do it make sense?

I guess they could put the runway on top of 281, but I'm sure that would cost about a million billion dollars. That's certainly the direction where they have the most room, apart from the highway that cuts through it. Maybe the other runway could be added to more cost effectively (on the north end, at Salado Creek). My highly scientific google maps measuring indicates that they could maybe add 1500' to that runway?

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Looking at the airport's somewhat dated master plan, they don't seem to be considering a runway extension:

https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0...%20Summary.pdf

I didn't read the whole thing, so I idk if it mentions if it's not recommend because it's cost prohibitive or what.

[JRG1974]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

Looking at the airport's somewhat dated master plan, they don't seem to be considering a runway extension:

https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0...%20Summary.pdf

I didn't read the whole thing, so I idk if it mentions if it's not recommend because it's cost prohibitive or what.

On page 36 (in Floodplains), it talks about an environmental study on the extension of runway 3-21 over Salado Creek. That is the only thing that is mentioned in this report. No hard plans. If they extend it to the north over the creek, and to the south with a barrier next to the 410 access road, you can easily get the runway to 12,00ft for take off purposes.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by JRG1974

On page 36 (in Floodplains), it talks about an environmental study on the extension of runway 3-21 over Salado Creek. That is the only thing that is mentioned in this report. No hard plans. If they extend it to the north over the creek, and to the south with a barrier next to the 410 access road, you can easily get the runway to 12,00ft for take off purposes.

Nice catch. I'm not an aviation expert, but maybe longer runways weren't considered here because this document pre-dated the trend of airlines like Norwegian running transatlantic flights from smaller airports and the planners just didn't see that coming?

[Restless 1]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

I guess they could put the runway on top of 281, but I'm sure that would cost about a million billion dollars. That's certainly the direction where they have the most room, apart from the highway that cuts through it. Maybe the other runway could be added to more cost effectively (on the north end, at Salado Creek). My highly scientific google maps measuring indicates that they could maybe add 1500' to that runway?

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of tunneling 281 under an extended runway, but that would be super expensive as well. Without that, I don't see any of them getting to 12,000'.

[Spoiler]

If the airport were relocated, the current location could suddenly become valuable real estate. Maybe that could be a way to help finance the relo.

[texboy]

The airports location centrally located is its biggest asset in itself IMHO. Very few city's have airports 10 to 15 minutes from downtown.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by texboy

The airports location centrally located is its biggest asset in itself IMHO. Very few city's have airports 10 to 15 minutes from downtown.

An asset, yes - one could argue that point. However, I find that fact being more of a liability than an asset.

Its proximity to downtown is definitely a "pro" for the airport. Nonetheless, the current site offers very little in the way of growth - thus, I believe, this "con" would far outweigh the previously mentioned "pro."

[aggie2008]

I understand the runway length problem is costly to overcome but are there other major downsides to the current location? It seems like there is room to almost double the amount of gates available. Have there been any capacity issues to date? I would think the airport team would want to have a buffer of gates available but I don't really understand why people think that the current airport site is a liability outside of the runway length. Even so, I know that weather can impact the amount of runway needed but the 787, which is what Norwegian is flying out of AUS, seems to only require 8,326 feet (http://aircyber.weebly.com/aircraft-...uirements.html).

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by aggie2008

I understand the runway length problem is costly to overcome but are there other major downsides to the current location? It seems like there is room to almost double the amount of gates available. Have there been any capacity issues to date? I would think the airport team would want to have a buffer of gates available but I don't really understand why people think that the current airport site is a liability outside of the runway length. Even so, I know that weather can impact the amount of runway needed but the 787, which is what Norwegian is flying out of AUS, seems to only require 8,326 feet (http://aircyber.weebly.com/aircraft-...uirements.html).

I agree with you. I want to preface this by again saying I'm in no way an aviation expert, these are just my ramblings. If you look at a map of the airport, it has a fair amount of undeveloped or underutilized land. The Master Plan document suggests the addition of a runway parallel with the one that runs SE-NW. Add on to one of the existing runways (which appears to be feasible, if possibly expensive) and suddenly you've got three whole runways, one of which could handle transatlantic flights. Doing an informal survey, Austin has two runways. Love Field has two runways. Portland has two full-length runways and one shorter one. Kansas City has three. So, I don't think there's a capacity problem currently, and if one arises in the future, there's room to resolve it without moving. Sure, they don't have much room beyond their current borders to expand, but how much more land do they need, really?

Our neighbors to the north had an airport move from a central location to an outlying one, of course. But, the case to move Austin's airport out to Bergstrom was a lot stronger than the case to move SAT to somewhere, in my opinion. The old Austin airport footprint was smaller than SAT, so there was a capacity issue. That combined with an obvious and convenient place to put it (the old AFB) combined to create the political will for moving the airport.

Now, I think you could make a case for moving SAT because it's sitting on valuable real estate, and they could do something interesting like Mueller on it. Or if people started to be more concerned about noise pollution or something like that. Or if the mayor is suddenly seized by a vision to build a four runway, ten terminal hub airport for Ron Nirenberg Airlines. But I think without at least one strong push factor (actual overcrowding) or pull factor (an obviously better place to put it) to overcome political inertia, I think SAT is going to stay put.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by aggie2008

...I know that weather can impact the amount of runway needed but the 787, which is what Norwegian is flying out of AUS, seems to only require 8,326 feet (http://aircyber.weebly.com/aircraft-...uirements.html).

Not quite correct. 8,500 ft is still too short for regular long-haul (trans-oceanic) service out of SAT. Weight of the aircraft, temperature, wind, altitude of the airport, etc. must be calculated in determining a safe takeoff distance requirement.

Furthermore, one must think beyond the B787 in redesigning the runways at SAT. They (or at least one) must also be able to service the B767, B777, B747, A330, A340, and A350. I don't think we need to worry about the A380, yet.

Study this - Section 3.3 (It's straight from the horse's mouth and not some third-party website - where inaccuracies are common):
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com.../acaps/787.pdf