Wayports should be a part of the vision. For those who say it 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 cargo, express mail and just in time companies waiting for clearance to land or take off. Tell it to families whose physical and mental health have been affected by aircraft noise, air pollution, loss of cherished homes, schools, churches and neighborhoods caused by major expansions of inner city airports when there are other reasonable and feasible alternatives. America cannot go forward with this major transportation problem. 

Wayports can be the cornerstone of a next generation transportation system providing long term aviation capacity. It's endorsed by respected individuals and organizations shown on pages shown on this website. General Accountability Office (GAO) recommended long-term (25 year) in depth study for a Wayport System. GAO-02-185 says long-term planning is needed and FAA should take a fresh look at Wayports. It was requested by Senator John McCain who was asked  "Do you favor wayports"? Absolutely, we are going to have to build them. We would not have a problem with hub concentration if we had enough airports". GAO said wayports would be "located on the fringe or outside of a major congested metropolitan areas. Building wayports may not face the degree of opposition that building new airports would-especially from local communities-because wayports would be further away from large urban centers. Some studies have suggested that wayports would be less costly than comparable airports built in major metropolitan areas. They could provide more open competition among airlines and would result in less airspace congestion".

Wayports could be the nucleus of new Airport Cities in urban and rural settings. These new cities would attract businesses and families looking for better schools, less taxes, less road congestion, less crime and safer streets, business opportunities and better environment. Wayports would reduce inner city surface congestion and delays at congested airline hubs. Express highways, regional high speed rail links would provide access as activity increases. International and domestic air cargo could be the initial activity until passenger traffic builds up. 

The first priority must be to prepare a long-term aviation system plan ASAP. In the meantime It may be necessary to institute capacity caps and slots at heavily congested hubs. Slots are already being used at some major airports. It is necessary to decongest airspace as well as airports. Major airlines are dehubbing some hubs and relocating connections to other hubs. Some large airlines operating large hubs and the cities that host these hubs have opposed wayports. They know Wayports will siphon off passengers, cargo and related revenues which is what they are supposed to do. Evidence is only 2 new large hub airports have been built in the last 60 years and both replaced existing airports.

Airlines and hub cities are supported by USDOT/FAA who say long-term 30-year demand can be met by expanding existing large hubs. State and local governments cannot be entirely depended on to meet long-term capacity because they do not have jurisdictional coverage or legislative authority to plan beyond their borders for anything, especially transportation systems.  They are competitive and protective of all forms of transportation, especially hub airports. They cannot independently plan a nationwide system of airports integrated with air traffic control, highways and light and high speed rail that serves across state and regional borders. 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 create a nationwide highway system. like Interstate Highways. 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. 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) and FAA misrepresented wayports by defining them as exclusively for connecting passengers which is not true. Wayports 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 will double in 20 years. Wayports would serve all forms of space vehicles that are used for future express passenger and cargo service or for continued testing of future space vehicles.

 Wayports has never been given in-depth studies. Those who say it has know this is not true. They can produce nothing. Studies directed by Congress were never done. Misrepresentations, some intentional, by those who failed to do research created misunderstandings and controversy. FAA tried to change the name for reasons never given.  Wayports were never advocated to be exclusively for connecting passengers. They are supplemental airports located on the fringe of urban areas or in rural areas and would off-load existing inner city airports. Airport delays have not improved since Wayports was first introduced and airport and airspace congestion are worse than ever.

FAA's vision is the same as it was 20 years ago; expand existing airports, especially the busiest 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.  

The Interstate Aviation System is an idea that will help meet this need. It calls for integrated planning of airports and intermodal 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 air pollution over densely populated urban areas. 

The federal government role should be limited to leadership in identifying sites compatible with enroute air traffic control and other modes of transportation. Local governments or private industry could plan and build the Wayport and Airport City. 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. Failure to do this 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 when needed. 

One of the most damaging misrepresentations about Wayports is they are "they are located in the middle of nowhere". This was said by those who opposed Wayports for selfish reasons or failed to do research and understand the concept. For example, the new airport at Peotone, Illinois meets Wayport criteria and could be the cornerstone of 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.  Read other Pages on this website to learn where Wayports should be located.

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 is 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. 

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.

Please take the time to read other Pages on this website to get a complete understanding of Wayports.