Streams

Live by the Plane

Monday, March 14, 2011

John Kasarda, professor at University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School and the co-author of Aerotropolis: The Way We'll Live Next, along with fellow co-author and journalist Greg Lindsay, talk about the way airports are becoming their own residential and business hubs. 

Guests:

John Kasarda and Greg Lindsay

Comments [8]

Larry in Nyack from Nyack

I’ve never heard a more ridiculous premise than that of Kasarda and Lindsey. I’m sure there are too many of us. We use too much energy. We have “overshot” our planet’s carrying capacity. As it has developed, air travel is unsustainable no matter how you “grow” new biofuels. Nobody but the uber-rich will pay $2000 in today’s dollars to fly from New York to Washington DC, or $15,000 to take a quick vacation jaunt in Europe or to fly home from college in California. Project increasing world demand for oil, as India and China try to be like us, and limited production capacity [“peak oil”] and the $5.00 per gallon for fuel surely trends to $7 then $10 then $15, $20 and on and on until the world’s economic collapse accelerates.

It’s foolish to project past trends in air travel growth into the future. We clutter our airports with more flights feeding this frenzy and increasing capacity-limited delays. It’s also folly that we spend a single dollar to increase airport capacity to support air travel while ensnared in an unrecoverable debt crisis. We should be cutting back on flights to conserve fuel, reduce CO2 outputs, and change wasteful habits. To propose that we give up food production, which requires fuel, for future continuation of jet-set mentality [fly anywhere, any time”] is beyond comprehension. Is that what the business schools are teaching today? I’d shut them down!

Young people [I’m 66] have matured through one of the most wasteful booms of all history. If they continue to project the future as a rosy improvement of the past, ignoring the “black swan” risks of catastrophe [Japanese nuclear failures anyone?], then we are being replaced by a generation of fools.

Mar. 14 2011 11:26 AM
EF Slattery from New York

Three hundred thousand people live within 15 miles of Denver International Airport--so while it may be accurate to say that there's no one living in the actual flight paths, residents of the surrounding areas still face serious concerns about noise pollution. (2008 was the first year since DIA's opening, in 1995, that saw no noise violations filed against the airport.)
The DIA Leadership Committee Homeowners' Guide to the DIA Region notes, "[Property] could be overflown on a regular basis by aircraft arriving and departing from the Airport, at altitudes as low as 1,000 ft. above the ground, possibly less depending on the actual location of the property." That certainly makes condos on an old Stapleton runway look terribly appealing.

Mar. 14 2011 11:13 AM
LF from NY

We live one hour from a major airport in a rural setting and have a constant stream of low flying NOISY Jumbo Jets over our roofs. The FAA recently did a study and implemented a plan for more dense air traffic- shoved down everyone's throats with one exception: A rich Westchester suburban group which spent a few hundred thousand on a lawyers and got the traffic over their houses lessened. What else is new? We've polluted everything else on this earth why not make it impossible to experience any peace anywhere.

Mar. 14 2011 11:09 AM
Louise Kurtz from Weehawken

I have traveled to UK, Italy, France, China, HK, Tokyo, Israel - nowhere else was I charged for a luggage cart at an airport than here. At most you have to put in a coin, which you get back when the cart is returned. I think it's inconvenienent, embarrassing, and unwelcoming that there is not only a charge at NY airports, but it is also quite high!

Mar. 14 2011 11:01 AM

I don't understand why people will have to TRAVEL MORE in the future? I should think less, what with face to face communications through satellites and the internet. As for goods, most will still travel by ship and trains, and I don't see why that much more will travel by airplane. I can see more air travel in the former "third world," but not such a great need here as your guests seem to be pushing. Probably shills for Boeing. More subsidies for more airports to sell more planes.

Mar. 14 2011 11:00 AM
Dave Goessling from High Bridge, NJ

Think again about purely GPS based ATC - GPS is easliy jammed - it happend at Newark Airport last year when a motorist used his GPS jammer to avoid tolls on the NJ Turnpike. Relying only on one technology is always dnagerous - hte old LORAN system shoudl not have been dismanteld so quickly.

Mar. 14 2011 10:59 AM

Ask your guest to address energy issues. The predictions of your guests seem unlikely- global oil production is at, or very near peak, and there are no high-density liquid fuels ready to begin replacing oil at anywhere near the price/EROEI of oil. Electric planes? Very problematic and unlikely. Nuclear powered passenger flights? Also very unlikely (and even more so now with what is happening in Japan). As the cheap energy era draws to a close, air travel is going to become less and less a part of the lives of the vast majority of humanity, hence fewer and fewer people and businesses will be organizing their lives around air travel/transport.

Mar. 14 2011 10:52 AM
bernie from bklyn

nice idea but can someone tell me why NYC doesn't have a reasonable, efficient way to get to our 3 international airports?
there was no bigger waste of taxpayers $ than the stupid 'air train' that ONLY goes to jamaica train station? who's idea was that?
so we don't need to re-organize our cities- we need to build proper means of transportation to get us to the airports.

Mar. 14 2011 10:49 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.