The reason Wayports has not been more widely accepted in spite of support from respected
profressionals and media is they are opposed by large airlines operating airport hubs and the cities
that host these hubs. They fear Wayports would siphon off passengers, cargo and related revenues. They
are supported by federal officials who erroneously believe long-term demand can be accommodated by expanding existing large
hubs. Most of these hubs have 60-70% connecting passengers with most of the the airline operations owned by a single
airline. You will have a hard time finding an experienced aviation official who honestly believes the existing congested
and gridlocked hubs can be economically and environmentally expanded to meet growth and demand for the next 20 years. Even
if they could it would take 15-20 years to plan and bring a new supplemental airport online.
Wayports
is an alternative to indefinite use of congested hubs. It is less costly, financially and environmentally,
to provide long-term nationwide airports system capacity. It would serve domestic and international origin/destination
(O&D) and connecting passengers, express mail, U.S. and International mail, general aviation, aircraft maintenance, manufacturing, commercial
and industrial sites.Wayports will accommodate next generation 500-800 passenger large aircraft that are entering
the fleet and will double in 20 years. Wayports would serve all forms of space vehicles that are used for future
express paasenger and cargo service or for continued testing of future space vehicles.
Passengers would use Wayports to avoid inner city surface congestion and congested hubs. Express
highways, regional and high speed rail links would provide access. Wayports would be the economic nucleus of new
Airport Cities. Cargo operations could be the initial activity until passenger traffic builds up. Wayports would
be the cornerstone of a new system.
Those who say wayports has
been given indepth studies know this is not true, They can produce nothing. Studies directed by Congress were never
done. Misrepresentations, some intentional, made by those who failed to do research or feared wayports for competitive reasons
created misunderstandings and controversy. FAA supported it initially but stopped after they could not change the name for
reasons never given. The most damaging misrepresentations are "they are for the exclusive use of connecting passengers and located in the middle of nowhere".
Wayports were never advocated to be exclusively for connecting passengers. They are supplemtal airports located
in rural areas on the fringe of urban areas and would off-load existing inner city airports. Airport congestion has not improved since Wayports
was first introduced and delays are worse than ever.
Only 2 new large airports have been built
in the last 50 years at Dallas Ft.-Worth and Denver. None are coming on-line anytime soon. Supplemental airports (Wayports)
that relieve the existing congested system have never been built. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)
current vision is the same as it was 20 years ago; expand existing airports, especially the busiest 35 large hubs,
no matter what the financial or environmental costs. Local communities and urban areas continue experiencing aircraft
noise, air pollution and negative environmental impacts.
Some might say change recommended on this website is not a worthy cause. Tell it to domestic
and international travelers. pilots and crews who sit in airports or airplanes for hours wasting valuable time. Tell
it to families whose physical and mental health have been affected by aircraft noise, air pollution, greenhouse gases, loss
of cherished homes, schools, churches and neighborhoods.
Also,
future transportation systems must address worldwide globalization in addition to domestic demand. China, India
and other countries are emerging into powerful economies making international and domestic air travel essential to America’s
position in world affairs and markets. Air transportation forms the framework for this trend because there are no roads
and bridges linking North America to other continents and ships are to slow. A 21st century air transportation
system is needed to take America to the future.
The
Interstate Aviation System is an idea that will help meet this need. It calls for
integrated planning of airports and intemodal systems like highways and regional
and high speed trains as nationwide and regional systems rather than planning them independently as
is done now. In addition to accommodating growth, it will provide relief to populations experiencing health
problems from negative environmental impacts while reducing greenhouse gas over densely populated urban areas.
To accomplish this requires change in planning and decision making
going beyond existing political jurisdictions and traditional methods and processes. New innovative, non-traditional and
cost efficient approaches must be adopted with long-term system capacity addressed in a
different way than the past.
State
and local governments do not have the jurisdictional coverage or legislative authority to plan beyond
their borders for nationwide or regional systems of anything, especially integrated transportation systems.
President Eisenhower recognized this when highways were experiencing
problems as aviation is today. He knew the federal government was the only entity that could transcend state and
local politics to plan a nationwide highway system. He created the "Interstate Highway System" and where would
we be without it. When a nationwide air traffic control system was needed, Congress charged FAA to plan and develop it
because there was no local or state entity that could build, operate and maintain a nationwide system.
Failure to do something will cause massive airline delays and congestion costing billions annually
to continue. It will require the Federal Government to ration airport access using congestion management, selling
slots, peak hour pricing, de-peaking, re-regulation, and banning general aviation. Rationing is an admission of failure
and a disgrace to America's innovation and creativeness. Planning must start now to avoid this
and bring new capacity on line in 10 years.
The
new airport at Peotone, Illinois meets all Wayport criteria and can be the cornerstone a Wayport system. It's
a large greenfield site on the fringe of Chicago. It will reduce costs, environmental concerns and noise and
emissions by off-loading O'Hare and other congested northeast hubs facing gridlock. It can conveniently be accessed by
light or high speed rail systems. Former military airfields can also be used as Wayports.
National leadership and funding priorities are needed to create an aviation system
with Wayports as the cornerstone. A Plan and Vision created by a Commission
appointed by the President or Congress is needed.
Transportation
Research Board (TRB} study "Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues"
(ACRP 03-10) is a Wayports study limited to 2 coastal mega-regions instead of all 11 mega-regions
as it should have been. Wayports is not being addressed in the study even though TRB published a previous report
saying "No other approach appears to be capable of handling the increase in travel that could develop by
2020". The following excerpt is from the TRB scope "Traditional
approaches are unlikely to address problems that extend beyond current jurisdictional and legislative authorities of existing
agencies. Current master plan, metropolitan, regional and state system planning are not sufficient
to address capacity limitations. New and innovative processes/methodologies are needed if aviation capacity issues are
going to be successfully addressed". This confirms Wayports is a valid concept.
Comment to theway@wayports.com or jsheppard@bellsouth.net a former FAA official.
