9 ms·
When building https://randomairport.onrender.com/ https://randomairport.onrender.com/ I noticed that US and Euro airports always look very different Somehow US
by jorisboris 3y ago
When building https://randomairport.onrender.com/ https://randomairport.onrender.com/ I noticed that US and Euro airports always look very different
Somehow US airports always seem to be surrounded by densely populated residential areas, even in the direction of the runways, while Euro airports don’t seem to have this problem. And secondly Us airports always seem to take huge plots of land compared to Euro airports.
My assumption is that Us cities are just bigger, both in population and in the amount of surface they claim (lower population density)
- mc32 3y agoMost US airports were built early before we had the current population. When they began as airports, they were mostly on the periphery, with exceptions.
- DarkNova6 3y agoActually, apart from the largest US cities your average european city is larger. The US doesn't even have 10 cities which are above 1 million people.
- mc32 3y agoThat’s only if you count within strict city limits. Metro areas, not to mention MSAs consists of larger pops.
- alephxyz 3y agoRight. That factoid is only true because cities in the US tend to avoid mergers. The US had 62 statistical areas with a pop. over a million in 2020 (plus San Juan, PR).
- Beijinger 3y ago"The US doesn't even have 10 cities which are above 1 million people. reply" I did not believe this and googled it. It is true. 1 Million would be tiny in China. Province.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoThere is no significance in counting only the people within an arbitrary geographic boundary that is a city’s legal jurisdiction. An airport serves a metropolitan region, composed of many cities, and there are at least 50 with 1M+ people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoCounting "city population" is nearly a pointless exercise. What matters is the metro area, otherwise you get some pretty useless results. Austin, TX is tenth by city size in the US, with just under a million people, while San Francisco is 17th, with about 800k. But Austin is a much bigger percentage of the total Austin metro area, while the Bay area is ~8-10 million people total. As such, SF feels like a much bigger city in nearly every capacity.
- _fizz_buzz_ 3y agoYeah, it is basically always is a bit pointless without context. Same with e.g. Paris. Paris itself is "tiny". But Île-de-France (the Paris region) has over 12 million people.
- walthamstow 3y agoAnother one: just 7000 people live in the City of London
- Ekaros 3y agoAnd Vatican has population of 524... With Rome's metropolitan area being 4,3 million... But maybe that is stupid comparison.
- kirubakaran 3y agoVatican also has 5.9 Popes per square mile, highest in the world
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sremani 3y agoYou are missing the forest for the trees. US cities are smaller in a pedantic sense. That is why planners and intelligent people use Metro area statistics for population, traffic, infrastructure planning etc. Dallas population about 1 million. Dallas metro - 7.7 million. This is an important distinction missed out.
- werdnapk 3y agoThat just goes to show you how sparse american cities are built... the sprawl just builds up outside of the city with low density.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoNot that I disagree with the sprawl assessment, it’s just that I think many cities have comically small boundaries on the map.
- bluGill 3y agoThe sprawl isn't always low density. Normally it is but some have dense areas.
- dotps1 3y agoEuropean airports have train service to most destinations. Nobody cares if the airport is 45 minutes away because going back and forth is made seamlessly easy, and you can eat or read the news during the trip.
- traceroute66 3y ago> US airports always seem to be surrounded by densely populated residential areas The US in general is very densely built up. The distinct lack of green space in US cities is very noticeable to the non-US observer. So I think its more of a case that US airports are surrounded by "less" densely populated areas. > And secondly Us airports always seem to take huge plots of land compared to Euro airports. With the exception of the limited number of buildings of historical interest, In general the US doesn't do history in its buildings. They'll happily tear stuff down and build a shiny new thing in its place. As I understand it the whole concept of green belt / urban conservation is also fairly minimal in the US mentality, so large land grabs for building and expansion of airports are easier in the US. Meanwhile, in Europe, most airports have history and grew organically. And the whole green belt / urban conservation thing is much stronger in Europe. For example, London Heathrow started off life as a single grass runway with a few simple buildings and grew organically over time. Its growth ultimately limited by the city that grew around it, and so you end up with for example the present controversial discussion over the possibility of a third runway. I would hazard a guess that if Heathrow were in the US, the third runway would have been built and operational by now !
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago> The distinct lack of green space in US cities is very noticeable to the non-US observer. Huh? I felt the exact opposite in France. Many French cities have a bunch of nice parks, but everything else is wall-to-wall pavement. I always felt the common refrain about there being dog shit all over Paris is because on many streets there is barely a patch of grass for a dog to even go, so if you have a rude person that doesn't clean up, the shit is going to be where you're much more likely to step on it.
- danpalmer 3y agoI think it's less about the inner cities and more about the suburbs. In the US there are certainly lots of little bits of curb with plants on, but little in the way of large useful green space. Comparing the LA metro area to almost any European city, it's stark how much more unused or usable green space there is in Europe. The US seems much more binary – you're either in a city, or you're outside one, it's not like the US is lacking green space at a national level!
- busterarm 3y agoThe US has 14 of the 35 busiest airports in the world. Europe has 6, if you count the UK/Heathrow. If you discount Heathrow, Europe doesn't even have one in the top 10, whereas the US has 5 in the top 10. The airports are different because the traffic volume is different.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago> If you discount Heathrow, Europe doesn't even have one in the top 10, whereas the US has 5 in the top 10. What a silly statement. "Europe doesn't have one in the top 10 if you remove its one entry in the top 10."
- busterarm 3y agoThe UK has a long history of trying to distinguish itself from Europe. Even before Brexit. Had I not said what I said, I would have just as likely have had angry Brits in my comments. You're also really missing the forest for the trees here.
- _v7gu 3y agoNot even that, Istanbul airport is in the top 10 too. Maybe he meant EU? But that’s not really Europe as a whole
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- busterarm 3y agoOnly half of Istanbul is in Europe (yes, the side with the Airport) and the other half and the rest of the country is Anatolia/Asia Minor. Turkey has many of the political markers of being in Europe but is really a unique situation and its leaders like to take the best of being European and not-European where it suits them. Do most people consider it a European country? Doubtful. I've never known any Turks who considered themselves European...even the super cosmopolitain globe-trotting kids of Turkish diplomats that I grew up around.
- arnon 3y agoThe US has no alternative forms of transport. Taking an airplane is the most convenient way. In Germany, Italy, Switzerland, France, and the UK taking a train is faster and more convenient (even if more expensive often)
- vel0city 3y agoThe distances involved often lend themselves to air travel being more convenient even if there are trains. There's a sweet spot for distance where trains make the most sense, but after that a plane will end up being faster even with all the dead time at the airport. I live in Dallas. Door to door, a train would be faster and more convenient than a plane for me to go to Houston or Austin. A direct flight will always be faster and more convenient for me to go to Denver, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Orlando, Seattle, etc. Dallas to New York is ~1,400mi. That's like Madrid to Warsaw. It'll take me ~6 hours everything included to go that distance by plane. What's the travel itinerary for Madrid to Warsaw? Is it direct (same level of convenience)? Is it faster?
- jon_richards 3y agoSome context, the Beijing–Kunming high-speed train takes 10 hours 43 minutes (including 6 intermediate stops) to travel 1,710 mi.
- pchristensen 3y agoThe US is also much, much bigger. Germany is about the size of Nevada. France is about the size of the entire Eastern seaboard. The US would definitely be better served with better rail infrastructure, but there's no getting around the fact that Seattle to Boston is 200 miles longer than Lisbon to Moscow, and slightly longer than Edinburgh to Aleppo.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoIf you look east of the Mississippi, the overall population densities aren't really that bad, and should be able to support high speed rail easily. ...except for the fact that within metro areas, US cities are designed in a very sprawly way that's hostile to public transit. This is an entirely unforced error that has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with culture. We deliberately chose to make our cities sprawly as fuck through various regulations.
- KineticLensman 3y ago> Somehow US airports always seem to be surrounded by densely populated residential areas, even in the direction of the runways, while Euro airports don’t seem to have this problem London Heathrow is entirely hemmed in by surrounding urban areas. Flights landing at Heathrow fly directly over central London (with great views of iconic buildings). It is technically possible to extend the runways somewhat but actually doing so is a planning / political nightmare. Heathrow is located just inside the M25 (the main London orbital motorway) immediately adjacent to the junction of the M25 and the M4 (the busy motorway that goes West from London). So not only is Heathrow virtually impossible to expand, it's in an area known for its horrendous rush-hour traffic. It does have a railway connection to central London, but this is a partially underground line with multiple stops (every few minutes in practice). Journeys to Heathrow from most places in the UK can be horrendous. Gatwick, London's second airport, is ~30 miles South of the city, and does have reasonably fast rail connections. Gatwick does have space for a new runway, but lots of factors have prevented this.
- dabeeeenster 3y agoHeathrow has had the Heathrow express train for years and years, and now also has the Elizabeth line; both very quick to get into C London.
- KineticLensman 3y ago> Heathrow express train for years and years, and now also has the Elizabeth line; both very quick to get into C London. Yes, my mistake. Haven't tried the Elizabeth line. These do help if you are travelling to / from London but getting to Heathrow from the South West remains challenging. My nearest station is Brockenhurst (which although small is on a London mainline). It's 80 miles by road, or by rail, a 2h 10 minute journey (with typically 2 to 4 changes, longest is 2 hrs 40 mins) that would cost £87 (!) travelling tomorrow off-peak. Not fun with suitcase.
- dukeyukey 3y agoElizabeth Line is fantastic, absolutely game changer for going East-West.
- 7952 3y agoA lot of British airports emerged out of WWII air bases. I am not sure how they were chosen exactly. But they probably wanted places that were flat, dry and grassy with lots of space. They could have considered proximity to places that needed to be defended or suitability for launching attacks. And they knew that airfields were likely to be bombed.