DEFINITION   Other pages on this website must be read to get a full and complete understanding of Wayports. Wayports differ from local  airports because they form a system of airports planned at the national level rather than independently by local governments that do not come on line when needed. Wayports function as an Interstate Aviation System that relieves existing congested hubs the way the Interstate Highway System relieves roads and highways. Wayports provide a long-term reservoir of air system capacity. Wayports is not just about new airports. Existing airports, airways, airspace, air traffic control (ATC), highways and regional rail systems should be integrated with Wayports as the cornerstone to provide nationwide long-term aviation system capacity. Wayports is a economical, environmentally acceptable and safe nationwide system that satisfies long-term 21st Century Air Transportation growth. Wayports can be a world-wide system and not limited to the U.S. It  goes beyond FAA's Operational Plan (OEP) that concentrates on expansion of 35 busiest airports. OEP was recently expanded from a 10 year to a 20 year plan because this site pointed out little could be accomplished in the near-term.      Wayports accommodate U.S. and Global growth including origin/destination (O&D) and connecting domestic and international passengers, cargo, express mail, U.S. and International mail, general aviation, maintenance bases, aircraft manufacturing, commercial and industrial sites. Wayports also function as a system of collection and distribution centers serving all users and global aeronautical activities especially cargo and manufactured goods from emerging countries like China and India. A Wayport System overlaid on the existing system maximizes cost/benefits by conserving scarce federal, state, local and aviation industry dollars. It provides massive, long-term aviation system capacity. Wayports give economical growth options to aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities and development that are not available in the existing system. Wayports are not intended to replace continued reasonable and justified expansion of existing hub and spoke airports within environmental and financial constraints. Wayports supplement the existing system making it safer and more efficient.  Wayports could be a global system linked together for aviation capacity enhancements and economic reasons. Wayports provide the latest in design and equipment for security screening for passengers, baggage, cargo and postal operations.    A Wayport will accommodate next generation aircraft like the Airbus A380 and A350, B-747-8 and B-787, future 800-1000 passenger aircraft and Very Light Jets (VLJ's). Airport Cities can be created with a Wayport as their nucleus that offer low taxes, new schools, less crime, compatible land uses, less noise, emissions and local transportation systems. The Airport City would be very attractive to general business and aviation related development.  Wayports accommodate Commercial Space Program activities including aircraft, operations and development. They provide long runways and remote fuel farms for exotic fuels like liquid hydrogen that cannot be stored at existing inner-city airports. Wayports reduce or eliminate slots, peak hour and congestion pricing, depeaking, banning general aviation, re-regulation and other artificial controls currently being used to manage congestion. FAA defined a Wayport as a "major airport built away from urbanized locations with the primary purpose of serving connecting flights as part of the National Airspace System". This defines both Dallas-Ft.Worth and Denver as Wayports since this is how FAA defined them when they were originally built. Both airports could serve in a future Wayports system because of their large surplus long-term capacity.   FAA's definition narrowly defines a Wayport as evidenced above. Unfortunately this author was not consulted before FAA released this definition. FAA included a Wayport as a reasonable and feasible alternative to new runways at Dallas-Ft.Worth. Based on federal regulations, A Wayport should  have been included in all environmental assessments for new runways approved since then.. See discussion in last paragraph comparing DFW FEIS to a Wayport.

SAFETY FEATURES Security systems for screening passengers, baggage and cargo would be more efficient than existing airports because they would be integrated with new construction as opposed to retrofitting aged facilities. Safety would be enhanced by expanding into unused airways and airspace that enhances enroute and terminal area system capacity. Reduction of airport and airspace congestion in the hub and spoke system. All weather landing and takeoff capability in zero visibility conditions. 100:1 approach surfaces for all runways. Fire and rescue facilities and equipment including emergency response capability. Ground safety would be significantly improved through standardization and cloning of layout of airfield facilities and flight procedures. Computerized airfield surface monitoring guidance systems including in-pavement electronics to minimize runway incursions. Weather information related to ice, snow, fog removal, wind shear detection and special pilot briefing facilities. Encroachment protection for all electronic facilities and navigational equipment including radars, landing systems, air traffic control and communications facilities. Optimum design of airfield and terminal facilities for enplaning and deplaning passengers with automated people movers to shorten time from curb to gates, ticketing and baggage areas. NAME "Wayport" and "Wayports" describes a futuristic nationwide aviation system. Terms are needed to differentiate between “local” and “system” airports to contrast their purposes for public understanding, marketing and development. The term "Interstate Aviation System" is important because the public can relate it to the Interstate Highway System and see its value as a nationwide system. The term “Wayports” has been discussed extensively in worldwide media, institutional, business and government circles.  LOCATION-HOW MANY Wayports would be strategically located, planned and developed as a part of a nationwide "system" to supplement and off-load users of the existing airports system the way Interstate Highways supplement and off-load roads and highways. Four to six Wayports should be brought on line within the next 10-15 years serving the mega-regions on the East Coast, West Coast and Mid-America. Peotone and Denver could serve as mid-continent Wayports. Wayports supplement the existing airport system.They are integrated with enroute and terminal air traffic control, airways, airspace, highways and rail and be fully Intermodal facilities. Wayports would be located in large geographical areas and placed where they work best for the national system. Wayports could be on the fringes of urban and metropolitan areas, at new sites, underutilized airports or abandoned military bases. Wayports would be positioned to maximize their use and ability to off-load gridlocked hubs that have difficulty expanding to meet long range demands due to excessive costs and environmental, noise and air pollution impacts. Locations of Wayports in the nationwide system would not be left entirely up to local and state governments because they cannot perform system planning beyond their local and state jurisdictions. A key feature in selecting Wayport locations is a long-range runway configuration would be utilized to provide maximum airport and airspace capacity for the next century. Land needed to develop this configuration would be acquired, however, Wayports facilities would be staged at each location on an as needed basis to meet long range growth and phased in based on user and tenant demands and operational levels. Future runways would be protected by federal airspace reservations and local/state zoning. Cargo, postal or express mail may be the initial activities at one or more Wayports. The highest priority should be enroute and terminal airspace requirements, however, Wayports should be located reasonably close to communities where the workforce would have access to schools, churches, shopping, etc.until they develop around Wayports. A respected nationally known urban planner said wayports provided the opportunity  to plan for new cities.   DESIGN Wayports provide long-term facilities for air traffic control, technology and next generation aircraft including commercial space program vehicles. Wayports integrates the latest facilities for passenger and cargo security screening. Staging and phase development is an important feature of Wayports. The first phase of Wayports could be primarily cargo until passenger demand builds up. Facilities be phased in based on demand. Wayports should be large enough to accommodate at least four parallel runways separated to provide triple flow simultaneous all weather instrument landing systems. This runway configuration will provide massive long range capacity. Next generation aircraft (FAA DGVI) capable of carrying over 800 passengers in all economy configuration could be in the worldwide fleet by the year 2010. These aircraft require wider runways and taxiways with greater separations and lateral clearances, larger terminal hold rooms and baggage and ticketing facilities during peak hour activities. Road and highway systems serving Wayports should be planned to accommodate future growth for origin/destination and regional trucking and bulk break activities related to cargo. High speed, regional or commuter rail could link nearby metropolitan/urban areas. Airport terminals will be designed with high efficiency automated people movers to provide minimum connecting times with parking facilities, rental car, buses and other transportation businesses to easily access the enplaning and deplaning roads. Implementation of Wayports would be phased in over time to satisfy demand and allow incremental expansion over a 20-40 year time frame. Site locations and land banking needs to be done now.    PURPOSE AND USE The Wayports Concept is an integrated aviation system alternative to the threat of gridlock at U.S. and world airports. The Concept calls for an integrated system of large airport facilities to provide a massive, long-range reservoir of nationwide by-pass air capacity for all types of air services and related activities including commercial spaceports. Wayports provide almost unlimited airport and airspace capacity for all airlines including low fare, regional, commuter, charter and Very LIght Jets (VLJ's) to serve originating passengers and connecting passengers, cargo, US Postal Service and express mail and package services; aircraft manufacturing and maintenance and general aviation. Wayports would provide a new economic way to collect and distribute regionally, nationally and globally for all types of aeronautical and commercial activities that do not exist in today’s congested system. A Wayport would function as a “collector distributor” or “expediter" of goods and services.  Wayports were never intended to be used exlusively for connecting and transfer passengers. Origin destination passengers in the general vicinity of Wayports would be accommodated as well as those delivered by regional and commuter airlines. High speed rail links could be used for origin/destination passengers as is done in Europe and Asia today. Land on or adjacent to Wayports could be developed for hotels and conference centers, entertainment centers including recreation and theme parks, merchandise marts, shopping malls and business opportunities that offer significant economic opportunities subject to land use and zoning parameters. COSTS Wayports would be developed at enormously reduced costs compared to developing new conventional airports or expanding existing hubs. Funding sources of up to 80%, similar to Interstate Highways, was proposed in Federal legislation that was not enacted. Private industry could develop wayports with commercial development surrounding the facility. World passengers will double by 2020. An aviation expert recently stated that the equivalent of at least 10 new airports the size of Dallas-Ft. Worth will be needed in the next 20 years. The first phase of Wayports can be operational in five-ten years if needed by then that will allow them to provide near term capacity. It is important to understand that Wayports will be phased in over time with only facilities needed to meet current demand.  ENVIRONMENTAL Maximum environmental protection would be provided at Wayports, especially those related to noise and air pollution. Covenants and zoning related to land uses covering the long-range would be included in initial land acquisitions. Compatible uses of land for economic development around and in the vicinity of Wayports would be adopted and enforced over the long-range. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION Wayports must have positive leadership to assure all visionary planning and implementation strategies are considered. Privatization efforts are underway in the USA to develop large tracts of land in non-urban settings to function as cargo airports. Wayports would stretch limited federal funding by reducing the need for large amounts of funds for new runway and airfield development at the hubs that currently has a high priority in capturing federal financial assistance. Wayports could be owned and operated by local, state or federal governments or privatized without the need for local, state or federal funds. Wayports can be implemented in a more economical, environmental and politically acceptable way than conventional alternatives that have difficulties overcoming opposition which has prevented the expansion airports in the world in the last 20 years.

OFFICIAL FAA/USDOT DEFINITION FOR "CONSTRUCT A WAYPORT FACILITY"  APPROVED IN A 1992 FINAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) FOR NEW RUNWAYS 16/34 EAST & 16/34 WEST AT D/FW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. (exact quotes, however, this was never coordinated with the author of Wayports even though he worked for FAA at the time who disagrees with some sections. His comments follow the FAA defintion). "The wayport concept is currently being examined in the aviation community, both public and private, as a long-term solution to existing and projected capacity deficiencies and compatibility problems across the country. The foundation of the concept involves a national system of approximately five or six large hub airports strategically located in rural areas where zoning of adjacent land uses would be strictly limited to noise compatible uses. Each wayport would primarily serve passengers who are connecting to other flights. This concept would theoretically divert aircraft operations associated with airline hubbing from existing congested airports to the new rural wayports. Proponents believe the concept would effectively relieve airport/airspace capacity problems and reduce airport noise impacts nationwide at a reasonable cost. Opponents of the concept contend that wayports would have limited sources of operating revenue, may be difficult to administer and may likely contribute to growth in the vicinity of the wayport, resulting in congestion and noise problems initially meant to be avoided. Conceptually, each of these wayports would be used primarily as a location at which passengers and cargo may be transferred between connecting flights or air carriers engaged in air commerce, but it does not prohibit origin-destination (O&D) passengers and, in fact, would seek all kinds of revenue-producing activities. Each wayport would be intended to serve the air transportation needs of a general region of the country in which the wayport is located, and to reduce congestion of the national air transportation system. It is a concept that would provide nationwide by-pass capability to air transportation as do Interstate Highways for ground transportation. Wayports are intended to serve all activities that do not have to be located at congested airports including cargo, mail, general aviation, and possibly some O&D passengers. They would be constructed as a secondary set of airports that use essentially unrestricted airspace and inexpensive rural land with no man-made barriers to fight. Adequate inexpensive land needs to be available to ensure needed noise buffer zones and the ability to maintain 24-hour-a-day operations in areas with favorable flying weather, light population density, political acceptance and rail/highway connections. Conceptually, each wayport would act: as a domestic transfer passenger hub for other congested airports in its general region of the country or continent; as an international long-haul passenger transfer airport for its region; as a national and international transfer airport for cargo, mail, express and small package services. as an O&D airport for communities within some 75 miles; and as a centralized major maintenance base. Wayport development could be staged at each location on an as-needed basis to meet evolving growth, provided that land is set aside for needed future airport capacity and facilities sufficiently large to handle all new generations of aircraft. Land set-asides for these future wayport uses would require consideration of aircraft regardless of size, speed, noise characteristics, or special ground fuel handling such as refrigerated fuels. The wayport concept contemplates planning now for future airports to marshal as much capacity as possible from present day airports. The FAA is currently studying the wayport concept, with consideration being given to variations of the concept discussed above. The Secretary of Transportation and Administrator of FAA have not formalized their position on this concept, but Federal funds have been provided to study sites considering construction of air carrier airports at new, underutilized and military locations. Whether such sites become wayports is not ripe for decision at this time. Wayports have been considered as an alternative to the D/FW Airport expansion project. However, such airports are only in the infancy of planning, and knowledge of studies underway is mostly limited to articles in published periodicals. Conceptual planning for wayports in Texas are known to exist in Montague County and Midland. Other known locations considering wayports include Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Dakota, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, West Virginia and Virginia. The wayport concept, as applied to the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, arguably could have detrimental impacts on the level of air service offered to residents, especially in the area of available non-stop services. Non-stop and frequent service is provided to Metroplex area residents to all major markets in the U.S. primarily due to the large number of connecting passengers using D/FW Airport's hub airlines. International service at D/FW is also heavily dependent and supported by the connecting passenger. If the wayports concept were applied to the region and a remote wayport became the new connecting airport, substantial reductions in non-stop services and international services at D/FW Airport could result. This situation could reduce the attractiveness and competitive advantage the metroplex area currently enjoys for new and expanded business and economic development. Loss of direct employment on the airport could occur. Even if the wayport is adopted and implemented, the construction of a wayport in the time period necessary to meet existing and projected capacity deficiencies at D/FW Airport is not considered to be a viable solution for the same reasons as mentioned in Section 4.2.1.3. These factors are the cost of such a facility and the amount of time necessary to construct the facility. The cost to construct a wayport is currently estimated to be approximately $1 Billion. The cost to construct runways 16/34 East and 16/34 West, excluding mitigation, is estimated to be 205.5 million. Serious capacity problems would be experienced at D/FW Airport in the 10-year minimum time frame estimated to open a fully operational wayport. In this same time frame, Runway 16/34 East(projected to be opened in 1992), and Runway 16/34 West (projected to be opened in 1997), would already be benefiting the region and the National Aviation System by providing needed capacity at D/FW Airport. Because the planning efforts for wayports are in their infancy, they are considered not ripe for decision-making at this time. Therefore, it is concluded that wayports are not a viable alternative for further study in the EIS". AUTHOR OF WAYPORTS COMMENTS CONFIRMING FAA APPROVAL OF FEIS FOR DFW SUPPORTS THE CHARGE THAT FAA HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH FEDERAL LAW IN APPROVING FEIS'S SINCE 1992. Federal Environmental Law requires airport proponents to look at all reasonable and feasible alternatives or FAA cannot  even review an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for approval. FAA described Wayports as a reasonable and feasible alternative to the two new runways at DFW in 1992 as shown above. Wayports was not considered viable because the new runways could be built quicker at less price but that did not affect the reasonableness or feasibility of Wayports. Wayports were a reasonable and feasible alternative at DFW and should have been included in subsequent EIS's approved for new runways all over the U.S. Merely because an alternative is not viable in one location does not mean it is not reasonable, feasible and viable in other locations. Viable depends on magnitude, cost and timing.   The FEIS says wayports would serve “primarily” as connecting points and have limited sources of revenue. All hub and spoke airports are used “primarily” for connections with several having connections as high as 70%-80% for years. The FEIS does not define “primarily” and what levels of connecting passengers would establish this classification. These airports have prospered with these high percentages of connections which is about where a wayport would initially operate. Some hub and spoke airports have recently lost all connections or had them reduced due to airline economics. St. Louis and Pittsburg lost their connecting service. Delta ceased using D/FW as a connecting hub which involved a substantial number of passengers. The FEIS says a wayport would cause a similar reduction but without a wayport, D/FW, STL and PITT still are attractive and financially sound facilities. The FEIS confirms that Wayports could work based on the comment that says: "If the wayports concept were applied to the region and a remote wayport became the new connecting airport, substantial reductions in non-stop services and international services at D/FW Airport could result. This situation could reduce the attractiveness and competitive advantage the metroplex area currently enjoys for new and expanded business and economic development. Loss of direct employment on the airport could occur. The FEIS says wayports would have limited sources of operating revenue but FAA has never made in-depth studies to address this issue. Both Charlotte and Cincinnati had over 80% connections with less than 20% O&D. Both were successful until the airlines decided to consolidate connections and eliminate or reduce hubs to be competiitve with low cost and regional airlines. If the airlines can close hubs at Pittsburgh and St. Louis, reduce connections at DFW, Charlotte and Cincinnati they can do this at O"Hare, Atlanta and other hubs to reduce noise, air pollution and ground congestion that emits pollution the same as aircraft congestion.  Where did the airlines relocate connections that were done at St. Louis and Pittsburgh? It appears to be Chicago and Philadelphia. Most large hubs like Atlanta have over 65% connections. Wayports would have the same source of revenues such as landing fees, terminal leases and concessions that existing connecting airports have but would need less operating revenue because they have less total enplanements when opened. Wayports could create new Airport Cities giving less taxes, better schools, less congestion, less crime among other benefits. Rail systems would provide access from urban areas. FAA's assertion about revenues is further contradicted by the statements in the FEIS that "wayports would likely contribute to growth in the vicinity of the wayport” and that “wayports would seek all kinds of revenue producing activities”. Revenue activities would include cargo, general aviation, commercial space program and commercial development of wayport property since a wayport would own thousands of acres of buffer land that is compatible with noise and land use programs. Growth can easily be managed at new sites in undeveloped areas. Through the fence access by developers is now possible. Other pages on this website need to be read to get the full understanding of wayports. The FEIS says wayports “would be difficult to administer” which is not further defined. A wayport would have the same activities and management requirements  as any other airport. In fact, it would be easier to administer a wayport since it would not be faced with all the opposition and access problems that inner city airports put up with.