4 ms·
Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people, precisely to limit casualties during an event like this. Industr
by JCM9 11mo ago
Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people, precisely to limit casualties during an event like this. Industrial would be permitted while residential and commercial use is not.
Scarily there are communities that have ignored such logic and permitted dense residential development right next to an airport.
- ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago> Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people Queens, NY has entered the chat…
- globular-toast 11mo agoSome of the larger townships in Cape Town are right in the flight path too. Not many white people there either.
- chronciger 11mo ago>Queens, NY has entered the chat… You’re correct, but at least LaGuardia airport generally has takeoffs over water. LaGuardia aircraft landings may happen over dense apartment buildings, but less likely for catastrophic damage (glide path, less fuel, engines are <10% throttle, etc)
- ChrisMarshallNY 11mo agoIt also has JFK, on the South side.
- Thorrez 11mo agoProbably also due to noise.
- SilasX 11mo agoYeah I was going to say, that sounds like a much more salient reason not to live near an airport than the possibility of that rare crash.
- potato3732842 11mo agoYou can always come up with some pretext to justify things by ignoring the other side of the equation. How many lives do the man hours spent commuting, or toiling away to afford higher rents waste? IDK how the math pencils out, but an attempt ought to be made before drawing conclusions.
- chronciger 11mo ago[flagged]
- Retric 11mo agoNone? Nobody puts airports inside city centers and metro areas don’t just have dense urban housing. The common solution in many land strapped cities is for airports to rout aircraft over water often by building airports on reclaimed land. What generally gets areas in trouble is locations that used to be a good get worse as aircraft get larger and the surroundings get built up. The solution is to send larger airplanes to a new airport, but it’s not free and there’s no clear line when things get unacceptably dangerous.
- gwbas1c 11mo ago> The common solution in many land strapped cities is for airports to rout aircraft over water. That works in costal areas, but not inland. There's no large body of water near the Louisville airport.
- Retric 11mo agoThe Ohio River is a large body of water fairly close if someone was going to relocate Louisville airport.
- WorldMaker 11mo agoThe Ohio River is a mile wide at Louisville, but that still doesn't wide enough to classify it "large body of water", especially because it is a river that moves relatively quick for its width and then hits falls/rapids just downstream of Louisville. But also there's a lot of urban and suburban development you'd have to displace to even consider moving the airport near the Ohio River for most miles both up and down stream of Louisville.
- andrepd 11mo agoThe pollution and noise probably has health effects many times more significant than the sum of extremely rare crashes like these.
- Moto7451 11mo agoJets are also simply too loud for homes under the takeoff path in standard use. There’s what amounts to a ghost town next to LAX due to this and the history of the airport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_del_Rey,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_del_Rey,_California Burbank Airport has quiet hours and has left a bunch of commercially zoned area under that takeoff path. I’m in Atlanta now and they bought up a lot of land around the airport when redeveloping it and do similar zoning tricks for the buffer. One of the buffer zones is the Porsche Experience. It’s loud as heck when you’re on the part of the track closest but not bad where the corporate HQ and paddock is
- duped 11mo agoMeanwhile, ORD is surrounded by residential areas and they're building a new tollway perpendicular to the runways
- caseyohara 11mo agoMDW immediately came to mind as an airport closely surrounded by neighborhoods. I've always wondered what it's like to live in one of those neighborhoods. Is it a perpetual nuisance or do you get used to it?
- tharkun__ 11mo agoNot at MDW but there are plenty such places and yes, some people do "get used to it". But there are studies that show that you increase health risks from such levels of noise even if you get used enough to it so that you can sleep through them. Search for increases in problems of cardiovascular health from car and plane noise. And some people just won't really get used to it. I've lived near airplane noise and I never got used to it. I also don't sleep better with white noise. I sleep worse.
- mindcrime 11mo agoFirst time I was ever on a flight that landed at Midway, I was pretty freaked out by the visuals as we were descending. It's like ... "we're going to land on a house... we're going to Land On A House... we're going to LAND ON A HOUSE!! ... OMG, there's a runway <phew>".
- rpcope1 11mo agoIt's amazing that towns don't see this sort of thing and think "huh maybe it's not a good idea to put apartments right on top of an airport", but I guess they don't. Longmont is in trouble with the FAA because they OKed a bunch of apartments right at the end of Vance Brand that would be right in the path of aircraft struggling to gain altitude out of the airport. Naturally there's a vocal contingent of people around here that think this is the airport's problem and not the town or greedy developers, and that all the airports (except DIA) should be shut down.
- pksebben 11mo agoFresno here. If this had happened at FAT (FYI now? We have dumb names) the casualties would've easily hit three digits from initial impact, and then whatever else burned afterwards because CA==tinderbox.
- eitally 11mo agoSame with SJC, no matter which direction they were taking off.
- silisili 11mo agoUPS actually bought and destroyed thousands of homes near their end of the airport about 20 years ago, under the guise of 'noise', but realistically for expansion of warehousing. Now, I guess I feel slightly less upset by that (my childhood home was one of them).
- Ferret7446 11mo agoBoth can be true at the same time (or all three if you include safety in addition to noise).
- silisili 11mo agoTrue, but rather doubtful. UPS has owned that part of the airport for longer than I've been alive. As a kid, yeah sometimes a plane comes over but nobody really seemed to care. Fast fwd 15 years and now the city is telling us how unsafe it is to live there, passing out studies about how airplane noise will ruin your life, etc. And they made the buyout 'optional', knowing they'd railroad the holdouts, which they did. They'd tear down every house and the road leading to your house as they went, until the holdouts gave in. All of a sudden my neighborhood is gone. And that awful, noisy, unsafe to live in place...is full of workers in cheap steel warehouses. I guess it's more safe for them. Many people may not realize, but UPS and Ford absolutely own Louisville. If either says jump, the city government will ask how high?
- jacquesm 11mo ago> Fast fwd 15 years and now the city is telling us how unsafe it is to live there I think their point just got made in a way that can't be ignored.
- silisili 11mo agoFair point! Oddly enough the pamphlets they kept sending out focused on irritability, poor grades, confusion, sleep problems, etc, and never mentioned the possibility of being fragged by a wayward jet. I say that only partially in jest, looking at a map now, we were only 2 or so miles as the crow flies from the end of their runway and in the direct path..
- pkulak 11mo agoMidway comes to mind: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GRUXJVdUPQMWkZNU6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/GRUXJVdUPQMWkZNU6