$1.4 Billion for New SA Airport Terminal. (San Antonio, Austin: hotels, to live in, low cost)

[Remington Steel]

Originally Posted by RadiantBaby

While it's neither here nor there at this point, the fact that San Antonio was short-sighted and didn't use the closed Randolph AFB as an airport is insane.

Yet another example of the city not thinking 10, 20, 30 years ahead. It's been an ongoing theme.

You mean the closed Kelley AFB? Randolph is still open and operational. If so, Kelley doesn’t have enough runways or space to build new runways.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by Remington Steel

You mean the closed Kelley AFB? Randolph is still open and operational. If so, Kelley doesn’t have enough runways or space to build new runways.

Nor does Kelly have enough space to support commercial passenger traffic.

[ged_782]

Originally Posted by Remington Steel

You mean the closed Kelley AFB? Randolph is still open and operational. If so, Kelley doesn’t have enough runways or space to build new runways.

This is true.

The former Kelley AFB has only a single 12,000' runway, and really nothing else to offer over the existing SAT facility. Kelly also has a number of drawbacks, including the aforementioned single runway (SAT has three), less acreage, surrounded by dense development (as is SAT), and is pretty much landlocked by the adjoining Lackland AFB, a cemetery, and railroad tracks. Kelley is generally considered to be in a less-desirable location for use as a commercial airport than SAT.

In reality, if it were to become available, Randolph AFB would be a better candidate for conversion than Kelley. Two existing parallel runways with a one-mile separation (allows dual simultaneous operations), and a location in a corridor that is considered more desirable than Kelley. Yes, the two existing runways are a bit shorter than SAT's two air carrier runways, but RAFB has room to extend both to the southeast, with minimal existing development in that direction.

[Remington Steel]

Originally Posted by ged_782

This is true.

The former Kelley AFB has only a single 12,000' runway, and really nothing else to offer over the existing SAT facility. Kelly also has a number of drawbacks, including the aforementioned single runway (SAT has three), less acreage, surrounded by dense development (as is SAT), and is pretty much landlocked by the adjoining Lackland AFB, a cemetery, and railroad tracks. Kelley is generally considered to be in a less-desirable location for use as a commercial airport than SAT.

In reality, if it were to become available, Randolph AFB would be a better candidate for conversion than Kelley. Two existing parallel runways with a one-mile separation (allows dual simultaneous operations), and a location in a corridor that is considered more desirable than Kelley. Yes, the two existing runways are a bit shorter than SAT's two air carrier runways, but RAFB has room to extend both to the southeast, with minimal existing development in that direction.

This^

[WilGar]

Originally Posted by RadiantBaby

While it's neither here nor there at this point, the fact that San Antonio was short-sighted and didn't use the closed Randolph AFB as an airport is insane.

Yet another example of the city not thinking 10, 20, 30 years ahead. It's been an ongoing theme.

Randolph is still operating. Did you mean Kelly?

Back in 2000, a noise study was commissioned. An offshoot of the study was why not join with Austin and make a regional airport at San Marcos- three different runways, lots of adjacent, undeveloped land and a population that would justify international flights. Shot down. Expand SAT.

[RadiantBaby]

Originally Posted by Remington Steel

You mean the closed Kelley AFB? Randolph is still open and operational. If so, Kelley doesn’t have enough runways or space to build new runways.

Yikes! Exactly right...

I think they could have made it work, but that's just speculation.

I'm open to being very wrong

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by cjseliga

Salt Lake City is spending $5.14 Billion to build an entirely new airport, right next to/on top of the old airport and it have just under 100 gates.

Why the Salt Lake City airport is seeking up to $600M in new bonds this year

If I am not mistaken isn't Salt Lake City a delta hub? They have over 50% of the total passenger count.

We will more than likely never be a hub for an airline with IAH and DFW so close. Austin could not even support it.

[Seguinite]

Originally Posted by WRM20

How would that benefit both cities, when that airport would be much farther away than the current airports? Where would you put it? It would have to be East of I-35, probably towards Lockhart, to find enough flat space to build all of the runways.

That could be a boon for the toll road!

[tennis32801]

Originally Posted by WRM20

Or just drive the 75 miles to Austin.

In two hour traffic on l-35

[Cuero]

Originally Posted by tennis32801

In two hour traffic on l-35

Perfect stop for a high speed rail line between Austin and San Antonio.

A combined airport should have a lot more influence than each city going it alone.