Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site hoptoad.uucp Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!topaz!lll-crg!hoptoad!laura From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Private roads (and airports) Message-ID: <403@hoptoad.uucp> Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 04:35:27 EST Article-I.D.: hoptoad.403 Posted: Tue Jan 7 04:35:27 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 19:54:51 EST References: <849@mmintl.UUCP> <28200425@inmet.UUCP> <954@mmintl.UUCP> <19@calgary.UUCP> <984@mmintl.UUCP> Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 27 In article <984@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > >Really? I think you will find that a majority of the U.S. population has >flown; I would guess an overwhelming majority. Having an airport nearby >is very advantageous for a city (execpt for that relatively small area >which suffers from the noise). There is a consistent pattern in major >cities of suburbs near airports growing much faster than those which are >not. This is because businesses like to be near airports, and it is >advantageous to be in an area where there are lots of businesses. >(Because businesses provide jobs, among other reasons.) > >Not building an airport is a viable option for a large city if it doesn't >care about the well being of its inhabitants. > I think that having an airport is great for the people who move in to the area because jobs were created because there was an airport -- but it is very debateable whether or not the existing citizens received a net benefit. Is it to the advantage of the people of a city when their population of 750,000 soars to over a million in 3 years? I don't know. I don't know how to figure out, either. -- Laura Creighton sun!hoptoad!laura (note new address! l5 will still ihnp4!hoptoad!laura work for a while....) hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa