A Boston official was recently asked where the city could build a new airport. Without hesitation he replied, "In Wyoming."
The empty West is one of few places left with room for airports. Around most major U.S. cities, home owners have risen in vehement objection to the noise of air traffic. Pending suits against Los Angeles International, for example, now add up to an incredible $4 billion. In New York City, authorities have been turned down every time they have proposed a site for a new jetport within 75 miles of Times Square. Indeed, New Jersey Governor William T. Cahill's election platform called for prohibition of any large new airports in the northern part of his state. St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta and San Francisco—all face the same problem. Local citizens flatly reject new airports in their communities.
Meantime, an estimated 183 million travelers will use existing airports this year, 13 million more than last year. By 1982, the Civil Aeronautics Board confidently predicts, 485 million passengers will annually travel the air routes. Where, then, will they land?
Expansion. One solution would be to reduce the hostility to airports by changing the nature of airplanes. If a much quieter plane could be developed —and engine manufacturers are beginning to muffle the thunder of the biggest new jets—then the major complaint against airports would be removed. Similarly, the development of a quiet STOL (for short take-off and landing) plane would make better use of short runways that either now exist (the U.S. has 12,000 airports, more than half of which are small, unlit fields) or could be built in strategic urban locations. In theory, the STOL planes would unclog major airports because two-thirds of all flights there are short hops, less than 500 miles. Only experimental STOL models are now flying, but designers are confident that these planes will be a reality within a decade.
In the interim, existing airports could be expanded—though at immense expense. At Newark International, the total bill for expansion was a staggering $400 million, or more than double what it cost to build the field in the first place. Land is the most expensive element, mainly because airports usually attract development around them, becoming minicities in their own right. At Chicago's O'Hare, for example, land goes for $ 125,000 an acre—a price that airport economics cannot pay.
The cheapest and best solution is to build a completely new airport wherever possible. With this in mind, Congress passed the Airports and Airway Development Act of 1970. The act provides matching federal funds for airport construction, but only for those airports that take steps to protect and enhance "the national quality of life." To prepare environmental studies, gain government approval and build a new facility, airport officials say, can take up to 15 years. As a result, most new airport plans are being shelved.