Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Business


IVANPAH PROPOSAL: Airport doesn't fly for all

Location raising concerns

It's slot machines vs. solitude.

Residents and special interest groups are taking sides over a proposal to build a major commercial airport for Las Vegas near a national preserve in the California desert.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • DEAL BUT NO DEALER
  • You can believe it! Gold Spike is getting spiffy
  • STRIP DEVELOPMENT: Ray of light for Cosmo
  • BANKING: Silver State Bank seized and sold
  • INSIDE GAMING: Sands bets against paying settlement
  • High-rise goes high-end with Regis brand
  • LED zeppelin
  • Anchor store now going up for shopping center
  • Pips brings authentic Italian to Aliante
  • Is it an offer? Ask the lawyers



  • The proposed Ivanpah airport, which could eventually serve as many as 35 million passengers annually, is touted as critical to filling Southern Nevada hotel rooms in the latter half of the next decade after McCarran International Airport reaches capacity.

    But the location of the airport within six miles of the Mojave National Preserve is prompting concern that jet noise, traffic and light from the operation would destroy the solitude of the desert refuge.

    On Friday the Federal Aviation Administration distributed 380 comments from people on several sides of the issue. The feedback focused mainly on what's at stake for the preserve, Southern Nevada traffic and Las Vegas tourism if the Clark County Department of Aviation succeeds in building the new airport.

    The FAA and Bureau of Land Management will use the feedback in the environmental review for the project, which could take as many as four years to complete. The earliest the proposed $7 billion airport could be in operation is 2017.

    "A big busy airport next to a national park risks a fundamental incompatibility," said Dick Hingson, a Sierra Club member from Flagstaff, Ariz., who wrote comments critical of the proposal.

    Hingson, who has led hikes in the preserve and done volunteer work on its behalf, said jet and automobile traffic could disrupt the serenity visitors seek when they make the trek to the 1.6 million acre desert park.

    "In other words, it would be the total frustration of a trip for many people who come hundreds of miles for the purpose of experience the vast quietness of the Mojave National Preserve," he said.

    Hingson was among people who urged project backers to at least consider another location.

    Other comments said the future of tourism in Southern Nevada depends on the construction of a new airport in the Ivanpah Valley.

    Rossi Ralenkotter, president and CEO of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, wrote a one-page letter in support of the airport.

    Ralenkotter said tourism, gambling and conventions employ 255,000 people in Clark County and the jobs are dependent on efficient air travel. According to Ralenkotter, each new hotel room generates 320 air passengers annually. There are nearly 38,000 rooms scheduled for construction by 2010.

    "McCarran serves as the primary aviation gateway to the city and as it reaches capacity, it is critical that Clark County have a supplemental airport to serve this growth," Ralenkotter wrote.

    Kara Kelley, president and CEO of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, also supported the proposed airport.

    Kelley urged the government to consider the effect on the Las Vegas economy without a new airport.

    "(W)ithout sufficient commercial air service to support both tourism and business growth, the Las Vegas economy will be put at risk," Kelley wrote.

    Other letter writers criticized the location of the proposed airport, more than 25 miles south of McCarran along Interstate 15 near Jean.

    Jane Feldman of Las Vegas, a Sierra Club volunteer, said the airport would encourage too much development in an area that is home to a number of protected species, including an area where desert tortoises that are rescued from development threats elsewhere are relocated.

    "It is the only place we use to take these endangered species out of harm's way," Feldman said. "It is across the street from that proposed airport."

    Planes would be bad for the tortoises, she said, because they could distract the reptiles from seeking food and shelter.

    "They watch the aircraft because they are used to having predators descend on them," Feldman said. Feldman also suggested the government study whether low-polluting trains to California could relieve pressure on McCarran and reduce the need for a new airport.

    So far, the Clark County Department of Aviation has been determined to put the new airport at the Ivanpah location. Airport officials say they've studied several sites and Ivanpah is the best location.

    That's because the Department of Defense reserves much of the airspace north of Las Vegas for military use. The airport also needs to be far enough south of Las Vegas to avoid conflict with traffic at McCarran and Nellis Air Force Base. The Ivanpah location is also close to existing pipelines for jet fuel, as well as the freeway and railroad tracks.

    Deb DeMeo of the National Parks Conservation Association said she thinks it would be possible to build the airport without causing too much disruption in the Mojave National Preserve.

    "What I have heard is Clark County wants to construct an airport that is environmentally friendly," said DeMeo, who added she hopes the comments prompt a thorough investigation into direct and indirect effect of an airport on the park.

    One way to reduce the impact of the airport would be to raise the level of protection and management of open space surrounding the site, she said. That could make it less likely that development prompted by a new airport would reach too far into the preserve.

    She also wants to keep open the possibility of putting an airport someplace else.

    "Those other sites, I think they deserve a fair evaluation," she said. "Politically, whether they get them or not, I don't know."



    Leave Your Comment 8 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Jack Nichols wrote on June 10, 2008 08:42 PM: The need for this new airport is clear. We need to start planning now, so it will be done in time to solve some the future transportation issues. No one would have thought 20 years ago; this town would be where it is now. Where will it be in another 20 years? We have an opportunity to move some of the noise, pollutions, and traffic a few miles away from the current airport.

    The people that will benefit the most from this new airport are the readers of this newspaper. Demand more planning and protect the creatures as much as possible, but we need this airport as soon as possible.


    Ben Rohr wrote on December 09, 2007 09:13 AM: There is a nice valley just south of Las Vegas and east of I-15. I believe it's called Hidden Valley. That valley is large enough to handle a new airport, much closer to Las Vegas, surrounded by mountains, so the turtles would be far away, and further from the California Desert National Preserve.
    It doesn't have a railroad, but there is a Canyon Entrance from the north which could be developed to handle all the traffic generated from the airport. With this in mind, we'd have less polution from the airport traffic because it is much closer. Mono rail could be used to traffic passengers to and from the airport.
    This is certainly an alternate and much closer spot to put the airport.


    sam5 wrote on June 30, 2007 07:12 PM: While my job is not dependent on a new airport bringing thousands more to our peaceful valley of the dollar - it has been a proposal for more than 15 years. I think Boeing and the turtles can live in harmony. Build the damn thing! Or, move Nellis and use that for the new airport. Plenty of space near Area 51 for fighter jets.


    John O'Neill wrote on June 30, 2007 09:43 AM: As a commercial pilot I can tell you that there is no comparison to the moutains in Denver vs. the hills near the proposed site.

    In fact, there is already an airport out there.

    Wind shear is not a factor.


    John O'Neill wrote on June 30, 2007 09:40 AM: While it is true that there may be 4 or 5 people at any given time in the national preserve who might be bothered by "noise', the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...wait a second...the needs of the 4 or 5 people in the preserve are more important then the entire city, what was I thinking...of course you cnnot build an airport here...the rats and cyottes might not like it...further study is advised...


    manabouttown wrote on June 30, 2007 08:45 AM: There are some really funny comments. Like the one about the turtles thinking planes are predators and therefore will be looking up to the sky instead of looking for food. maybe the writer of the comment is that stupid, I wouldnt doubt it. And the one who said that they picked a quiet isolated part of the desert. Where did they want them to pick a noisy busy part of the desert?


    Alan Gough wrote on June 30, 2007 06:56 AM: The enviromental endangerment argument opposing the Ivanpa Airport is mighty thin as there is not much out there to disturb. The more serious argument is safety. Winds and the proximity to mountainous terrain at the proposed site are a true danger. Wind shear of the magnitudes observed at the site have been known to cause serious handling problems for airliners. This question was proposed to a county official, his answer was they would determine the suitablity of airline activity after the airport was built. What a waist if this is true. Denver
    Stapleton airport was moved partially because of its proximity to mountains and wind shear. There are more suitable sites in the county for the airport.


    Dusty Dusthole wrote on June 30, 2007 04:25 AM: Here's the perfect use for downtown. Tear it all down and build the new airport there. All the blighted areas could be removed in one fell swoop of the bulldozer.