Originally posted by Timothy
About the Airport:
I was hoping that building a completely new airport remainded open to debate, even if our budget does not allow such extravagant expenses. But even if we are sure we can't afford a new airport, we should research the possibility of a new airport along with the expansion of the current airport to ensure we make the best choice between the two, and not dismiss one because we never discussed it.
We can discuss a new airport. These are my ideas, but I am open to other viewpoints. I'll try to present the pros of each position.
I think expanding the existing airport may be best, however, for these reasons:
FOR EXPANSION
I think a new airport would be an unnecessary duplication of service and would be cost prohibitive. Expansion is expected to cost 2.1 billion. A new facility would cost much more.
The existing airport was singled out by Singapore Airlines and Korean Airlines as the place where they would like to locate their hubs. I am unsure if a new airport would REPLACE or CO-EXIST with the existing airport.
The existing airport should NOT be demolished, with a new airport built on the same site, because of the horrible impacts to our economy caused by NOT having an airport while the new one is being built. The current airport functions well and there is no real justifiable reason that I see for demolishing it.
Building another airport to CO-EXIST with the one in the New Lancaster area would cause many problems: exposing more of the city to the enivornmental impacts of another large air facility, necessary rerouting of existing air traffice, the purchase of land and facilities, and appropriate buffer zones, in a highly populated area, etc.
Simply expanding the facility seems to make the most economic sense, in terms of cost to our government, in terms of capacity, and in terms of meeting the requirements of the prospective tenants.
FOR A NEW AIRPORT
On the other hand, many cities in the world CAN support two major airports, if the demand is there.
A new airport could be state of the art, could be built for simpler expansion in the future, could take advantage of modern technologies, etc.
A new airport would be more expensive, but such an undertaking would likely create even more jobs (temporary ones involved in construction and permanent ones in staffing it) than an expansion.
I lean toward expansion, but as I have not heard a strong case yet for a new airport, I will gladly listen to one. If a persusive argument can be made, I'm not adverse to considering it.
Also, for the purposes of discussion, I've included the following press release that spurred the initial talk of expansion. (OOC: From the NEWSLINK)
New Lancaster's Capital may be gearing up for a big change, as both Singapore Airlines, and Korean Airlines have expressed interest in making EUtopia's major airport their respective hubs in the Western Hemisphere. Cosmopolitan New Lancaster City, the largest city on the island, already serves as the rail and road hub for the entire nation, while it is also a great international transport center, as airplanes use its airport and ships use its harbor as a useful stopping-over point while crossing the Atlantic.
New Lancaster International is EUtopia's biggest air facility, capable of handling any sized craft, in zero visibility weather. For the Airport to be selected in the respective Hub bids, it is expected that at least one new terminal and major runway would have to be constructed, at the cost of 2.1 billion dollars, and the removal of about 6,000 citizens living in a run down neighborhood adjacent the airport. The neighborhood is also home to two notorious gangs, the Bluts and the Anarchs, the latter rumoured to be fairly well organized and sympathetic to the revolutionatry activities that have occured in the past.
