Runway width question.....

[schaalman]

Why does a top tier airport like KATL have maximum runway widths of 150ft whereas other second tier airports (KMSP, KDTW, KBWI) have at least 1 200ft wide runway?

[Bud Greene]

I'm not sure, but I'd bet that it has to do with $$$.

[C]

Cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain. 150ft runways aren't abnormal around the world, and certainly aren't considered narrow. Quite a few will be 200ft wide, but with just the 150ft in the middle designated as the runway.

[schaalman]

That's what I was getting at.....is only 150ft. of a 200 ft. wide runway "weight bearing"?

I know that the FAA, or whatever body decides standards and requirements, is allowing the A380 to land on a 150ft. wide runway as long as other modifications are made (apron improvements, taxiway widths, lighting changes, jetway additions, etc).

But  is a 200ft. wide runway simply a 150ft. wide runway with "extra dressing"?

[C]

I suppose it depends - in most cases it probably was in the past, but for whatever reason it's uneconomical to keep it so now. Either way, on paper (unless otherwise stated), it wouldn't be weight bearing, which is the important thing I suspect.

[machineman9]

I think these are really the generic reasons why:

The cost. If you can't afford a larger runway, then you'll have to settle for small.

Airfield. Small airfields need small runways. Something like London City airport will need a smaller runway... Their runway is under 100ft wide.

Demand. Why build a super runway if you're only going to be handling business jets and small trainers?

Age. An older runway is probably a smaller runway. And that goes back to the above points... Particularly in the UK a lot of airfields are built-up versions of WW2 runways. Their aircraft were smaller and didn't require a massive runway.


For this particular question though, I would put it down to cost. If they don't need a big runway, they won't buy one. Some airports may look to future-proof their airfield, others will upgrade when required.