Modernizing at LaGuardia: $1 billion makeover

[krulltime]

Modernizing at LaGuardia
PA plots 'vital' airport's remake


http://www.nydailynews.com/images/graphics/lga_map.jpg


By WARREN WOODBERRY JR.
November 2, 2006

Ask people who use LaGuardia Airport's Central Terminal complex to describe it, and you may hear words like "hot," "crowded" and "dull."

"It's like a Greyhound bus station," said Rob List, 37, a Sacramento businessman waiting for a flight to Las Vegas, as he sat elbow-to-elbow in Concourse B with other travelers. "I should have worn shorts."

Stepping off a Midway Express Airlines flight, 42-year-old Detroiter Brent Lane whined: "I would have expected something nicer for New York."

Poor ventilation, dim lighting, low ceilings and dull marble floors that have been in place since 1964 make for a bleak travel experience.

If this all seems to add up to "ripe for a $1 billion makeover," then you'll have an idea of what officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs LaGuardia, are thinking.

Brighter, more comfortable surroundings may be in the terminal's future now that a Port Authority study has concluded the facility could use a major overhaul.

Early last year, the Port Authority hired an aviation consultant to study and plan the modernization of the terminal building. The $15 million study is expected to be completed in early 2007. Construction for the new concourses could begin by 2010 and be done by 2017.

"For more than 65 years, LaGuardia Airport has been a vital link in New York City's transportation network and a major driver of the region's economy," said Port Authority Vice Chairman Charles Gargano. "Today, the airport supports nearly 100,000 jobs and more than $10.8 billion in annual economic activity, so it's clear why we need to continue to invest in its future.

"That's why our board in 2004 authorized the ongoing modernization study of the Central Terminal Building, which we expect ultimately will result in a state-of-the-art facility that meets and exceeds the needs of the traveling public for decades to come," he added.

But LaGuardia is already notorious for flight delays, officials concede, so any major-scale construction would have to occur without causing further disruption to travelers.

"Whenever you do major work in an airport, it's like doing open heart surgery on a jogger," said Warren Kroeppel, the airport's general manager. "You have to do the work while the guy is still running."

The study considers knocking down the old Delta and TWA aircraft hangars (east of the Central Terminal Building) to build four modern concourses with increased seating, rest rooms and concessions and better traffic flow.

The vision starts with the construction of a new Concourse A. Airlines would be allowed to move to the new concourse before the original Concourse A is torn down to make way for a new Concourse B.

The pattern would follow for Concourses C and D, slightly shifting the concourses east.

During construction, the airport can never have fewer than four concourses, but will briefly have five, Kroeppel said. Support service equipment housed at the hangars would be moved elsewhere on airport property.

The new concourse construction would be one of the most complicated and most expensive in airline history.

"We anticipate working closely with the Port Authority to create the right project for the right time," JetBlue spokesman Bryan Baldwin said.

The PA study also is considering whether to build one large central screening area for the concourses, construct a total of five concourses or to see if the Central Terminal Building should be linked with the nearby, more modern U.S. Airways terminal.

Construction also would lessen burdens on check-in areas. Explosive-detecting machines would be relocated to the baggage department for improved traffic flow.

Where to turn for funding also is being considered. Facility charges added to the airline tickets of departing passengers is one idea.

The capital improvement project must meet Port Authority board approval before being initiated.

Meanwhile, there are those travelers who will try to avoid LaGuardia.

Frequent flier Kevin O'Brien, 31, of Massapequa, L.I., is among them.

"Compared to all the other airports I've been to in the country, it [LaGuardia] has nothing," said O'Brien, a stagehand headed to Las Vegas. "I know what to expect when I come here."


All contents © 2006 Daily News, L.P.

[ablarc]

While they're at it, they should extend the subway to LGA.

[BPC]

While they're at it, they should extend the subway to LGA.

My theory is that there is no interest in the project because it would only cost hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than tens of billions. Why waste the effort on a project that will have so little pork barrel to spread around?

[ablarc]

^ Interesting theory.

[Transic]

My theory is that there is no interest in the project because it would only cost hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than tens of billions. Why waste the effort on a project that will have so little pork barrel to spread around?

Well, money is money. Especially in a town that would do just about anything to make a buck. Actually, the excuse I read was that community opposition derailed that project. You can do with that information however you want.

Why not hire illegals, then? You know, they supposedly "do the work Americans won't do." ;) :rolleyes:

[Dynamicdezzy]

I always believed Laguardia's rise would come with an "airtrain" link to a grand intermodal station/terminal at sunnyside yards. With train connections to jamaica station for a connecting JFK flight. NJTransit connection towards NJ for connecting flight at newark. Train connections to penn station, Grand central terminal and subway. If they route metro north through sunnyside yards as they plan to, it would be convenient to get to the airport from LI, NJ and Westchester.

[Eugenious]

Well, money is money. Especially in a town that would do just about anything to make a buck. Actually, the excuse I read was that community opposition derailed that project. You can do with that information however you want.

Why not hire illegals, then? You know, they supposedly "do the work Americans won't do." ;) :rolleyes:


Just FYI

The Panama Canal cost Americans around $375,000,000, including the $10,000,000 paid to Panama and the $40,000,000 paid to the French company. It was the single most expensive construction project in United States history to that time. Fortifications cost extra, about $12,000,000.


- They built the Panama canal in less time and with less money than it takes now...

[Transic]

Well, they didn't have to worry about much regulation in those days. ;)

Actually, I think the reason was that back then the area was all jungle and the country had a low population, which meant not that many people to displace. I know that many died building that canal but labor was also much cheaper and more replaceable.

[NYC4Life]

Crain's New York

November 20, 2008 4:43 pm

Port Authority moves to replace LGA terminal

The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey authorized a $40 million study to create a new design for the central terminal at LaGuardia Airport.

http://cnimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CN&Date=20081120&Category=FREE&ArtNo=811209961&Ref=AR&Profile=1066&maxw=319&border=0

(AP) - Even as many government agencies cut back, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey is pressing ahead with plans to replace the central terminal at LaGuardia Airport.

The authority on Thursday authorized a $40 million study that should result in a new design for the 45-year-old terminal, which handles about 12 million passengers a year.

The study is scheduled to be completed in 2010.

Construction would begin in 2011 or later. It could take as long as eight years, due in part to the difficulty of building a replacement in the ultra-cramped airport while the old building is still functioning.



©Copyright 2008 Associated Press.

[futurecity]

IMO, La guardia should be replaced or closed --> what is the point of expanding an airport that is hemmed in and results in major noise issues for surrounding areas and has zero expansion possibilities. I would propose new runways at kennedy..and yes, there are areas that you could fit a runway there without causing too much disruption to the bay ecosystem... A one seat ride from JFK would eliminate any locational advantage La Guardia has now... Why put lipstick on a pig? Heck, even Newark could expand with a new runway over a relocated port or a tunnelled HWY.... the money would be better spent on that then beautifying this poorly located airport... Flushing would be happy.

[antinimby]

What airports don't have noise complaints from their neighbors? If expansion was so easy over at JFK and EWR, why do you think the PA have been looking at alternate airports like Stewart?

Until someone has a little bit more of a clue about the local airports, I don't think they should be making statements such as this:

La guardia should be replaced or closed

[futurecity]

Em, I can have my opinion, and yes, I believe La Guardia should be replaced or closed--- i think I can make this statement and I do know quite a bit about the airports around the area, especially since I've talked to and discussed the issue with aviation insiders.

La Guardia blights a large swath of land with noise and other effects -- valuable land that could be used for development purposes, homes, etc... its a valuable site. The airport is a niche player and people only like it due to its location, which a great rail link at an expanded JFK/EWR to manhattan would destroy.

The reason the PA doesn't propose any runways at JFK is due to environmental concerns... However, they haven't proposed anything, they haven't tested the waters, they do not wish to devote funds to such a complicated project. Several areas are available for new runways at JFK and EWR, it just takes political will and gusto for this to happen.

The Port could have a new runway and a linkage over the HWY at EWR, and I'm sure port facilities could be relocated elswhere -- a runway is more important especially when an industrial area is ideal for a runway - far far from residents, etc.. JFK could easily have another in the bay if a detailed review was conducted to proove that the bay would not be harmed. NY will soon realize that when the economy comes back and JFK/EWR/LGA are maxed, Stewart won't be good enough and another solution will be proposed, i'm quite certain. Othwerwise, NYC will be closed to new entrants and Delta/Cont. expansion - hence hindering the economic growth of the area.



La Guardia requires overfly of most of Brooklyn/Queens, JFK would be the better option - water approaches.

Stewart is not for NYC. Check out the LHR Stansted debate -- airlines won't leave the primary airports for stewart even if there was a rail link. It may serve as a discount/freight base, that is all. Unless they forced either JFK or EWR to close, airlines arn't going to base anything up there.

LHR will have their third runway even though it is an immense project and residents hate it -- but eventually if the political will is there to keep the London economy growing, it will get done -- however, I disagree with LHR expansion b/c a more sensible solution would have been to just shift the runway expansion into stansted and creating a rail linkage between the two -- stansted is a rural site and could accomidate 4 runways if needed...

It is amazing how closed the PA is to proposing ideas, how tight lipped they are about talking, also the press really doesn't report much on the issue. If this were London, their would be countless editorials about different ideas and proposals, etc...

Anyway, NYC be keeping its airports in their current configuration will neve gain the true benefits of a global hub airport, i.e, ORD/ATL in terms of economic impact.

[antinimby]

You say get rid of LGA because expansion is difficult but an expansion at JFK would be just as complicated, if not more so, than at LGA. Simply put, there just isn't any space to expand over at either JFK or EWR, without running into problems, offering no advantages.

All three airports are already filled beyond capacity and as insane as it sounds, you are now proposing to shut one down and move its operations over to the other two that's already having capacity and air traffic space problems of their own.

Yeah, that's a really bright idea. :rolleyes:

You need to do more talking with your so-called "aviation insiders."

[futurecity]

If the new runways were put in place, LGA would be irrelevant...it is only a 1 runway airport anyway most of the time. It has a ineffcient approach pattern which slows operations in certain weather.

If LGA is removed, airspace is free for JFK operations without conflict.

BTW, you are rude with your insulting tone-- you are not an aviation expert and you do not know what is possible. I think you need to get the clue buddy.

As a matter of fact, I think your idea of keeping LGA is backwards and conservative shortsighted thinking.

Do you really want NYC relying on cramped JFK/EWR in 20 years? I hope you don't think Newburgh is going to help...;)

[STT757]

Here's a powerpoint presentation from the Port Authority detailing several aviation projects, some of them underway (EWR Terminal B) or recently completed (T-5 JFK).

Highlights:

Newark Liberty Airport:

$1.2 Billion redevelopment of Terminal A, it will incorporate many features added to Terminal C during it's redevelopment. A new 20 gate concourse, new parking garage, airside corridor etc..

Laguardia:

New $1.1 Billion Central Terminal Building and central parking garage.

JFK:

Redevelopment of DL's T-2 and T-3, tearing down T-2 and replacing it with a new concourse off of T-2.

http://www.asicma.com/visor.aspx?Id=1963&ed=11

I love the LGA rendering, huge improvement. Reminds me of how DCA was redeveloped.

[stache]

LaGuardia serves as the regional/shortish distance airport for the Upper East Side. No way will it be closed.

[DKNY617]

I live a 10 minute taxi ride from LGA and I've flown from there countless times so I'm happy that they will eventually go through with this renovation, it badly, badly needs it.

[STT757]

Do the rebuild and bring the N Train right up to the Central Terminal Building, if you ever get the chance to fly out of DCA it's a great airport. Beautiful terminal and the Metro rail is right in front of the Terminal.

[stache]

When Bush allowed the financing of transit to airports, he specifically forbade extending existing transit tracks to reach airports. Total dipwad. :mad:

[ZippyTheChimp]

So airport insiders wanna close LGA?

:)

[Ninjahedge]

LaG should be limited. It does need to be modernized, but we should not see this as an expansion. NYC does indeed need a better system, but building more runways in ANY of the nearby airports is not a welcome solution to an already overcrowded system.

We should probably be looking for ways to get some high speed rail lines in through the NIMBY zones while forclosure rates are high (Yes, that is rather callous, but reality). This would serve possibly 2 functions.

1. Eliminate the need for so many shuttle flights to Boston, Chicago and DC.

2. Act as a gate to a less local airport w/o being colossally inconvenient.

Just a thought.

[stache]

I think we need an airport further out on Long Island. It could serve the entire East Coast, the Caribbean, Europe, Scandinavia etc.

[futurecity]

High speed rail won't be enough to elimnate the future requirement for more runways as traffic grows. Saying that no new runway could be built at JFK/EWR is akin to stunting the future economic growth of the region.

How are new entrants going to penetrate NYC after JFK/EWR hit max? True high speed rail won't be done in the NEC, only upgrades, so it will neve be enough to free the runways at the major airports.

A new runway is necessary to allow for more capacity, and stewart will be useless unless it has HSR to the city-even then, I'm not sure it would attract people from NYC.

JFK can accomidate another runway, and so can EWR -- it just requires the will and the financing... otherwise, NYC will foreever be a slot constrained nightmare with no way to grow in terms of international trade and commerce.

The major airlines of the world flock together, so no way are some going ot go out to Stewart unless forced

A better solution would have been a new airport somwhere in a rural area closer to the City than Newburgh -- Rural New Jersey maybe, out past Morristown, or Monmouth on the bay.

If that were the case, there would be no need for the blight inducing LGA as that high yield domestic traffic could switch to JFK, and the locational advantage of LGA eclipsed by a new one-seat-ride from GCS -- through the new ESA tunnell -- over to JFK. The land of LGA would be worth a fortune in development rights and would improve the quality of life of the city and especially queens... why put lipstick on a pig? This is short term thinking by the PA.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I've talked to and discussed the issue with aviation insiders.I assume you refer to people in the industry. I have never heard or read anything where an aviation-insider has advocated demapping airport land in a dense metro area.

valuable land that could be used for development purposes, homes, etc... its a valuable site. Until the people decide they don't want to fly anymore, there's no more valuable use for this land than an airport.

The airport is a niche playerBig niche.

LGA is in the top 20 of busiest airports in the US. If you factor out non-stop overseas flights, it's number one. It handles 55% of the traffic to JFK, so if you close it, you're going to have to add that to JFK just to break even.

And people from the Bronx and Westchester would then have to travel through all of Queens to get a flight. Not a very good environmental solution.

The reason the PA doesn't propose any runways at JFK is due to environmental concerns.And what do you know about this?

JFK could easily have another in the bay if a detailed review was conducted to proove that the bay would not be harmed.It's already been proven that Jamaica Bay has been harmed by both dredging and the existing runway extension.

Stewart is not for NYC. Check out the LHR Stansted debate -- airlines won't leave the primary airports for stewart even if there was a rail link. It may serve as a discount/freight base, that is all. Unless they forced either JFK or EWR to close, airlines arn't going to base anything up there.

As a matter of fact, I think your idea of keeping LGA is backwards and conservative shortsighted thinking.

When Floyd Bennett operated as a municipal airport, ideas to expand it were met with criticism that it was too far from Manhattan. One could say that they exhibited backwards and conservative shortsighted thinking.

I wonder what people will say about Stewart in 20 years?

[futurecity]

I think Stewart is important only if rapid rail reached there from central NYC in around 30-40 mins max -- otherwise it's a regional airport, low-cost/charter/freight hub at the most.

As there seems to be no possibility of that rail link, adding a runway at JFK or EWR would be the best.

I think LGA could be closed in this scenario. Its 25 million pax could be absorbed by JFK quite easily and rail links could make the journey easy for those who drive there now from UES/Bronx/Westchester... However, a new airport is still required to allow for further expansion somwhere in the area as Stewart is a failed plan IMO...if it were 15 miles closer, than yes, maybe it would work.

The bay is important, yes... so are the lives of people living under LGA's flight paths...just as important.

Something has to be done -- a slow rail to stewart is only enough to turn it into a regional player max -- there needs to be 100mph non-stop service from manhattan for it to be a ny airport.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I think Stewart is important only if rapid rail reached there from central NYC in around 30-40 mins max -- otherwise it's a regional airport, low-cost/charter/freight hub at the most.

As there seems to be no possibility of that rail link, adding a runway at JFK or EWR would be the best.There's that backward thinking again. You contradict your own themes.

I think LGA could be closed in this scenario. Its 25 million pax could be absorbed by JFK quite easily and rail links could make the journey easy for those who drive there now from UES/Bronx/WestchesterYou say this so easily. Here's another way of looking at it.

Flight operations for the three metro area airports in 2006:

Total - 1,251,508
EWR - 448,563 (35.8%)
LGA - 408,211 (32.4%)
JFK - 396,734 (31.8%)

So you're going to more than double operations at JFK, and do it easily.

However, a new airport is still required to allow for further expansion somwhere in the area as Stewart is a failed plan IMO...if it were 15 miles closer, than yes, maybe it would work.You acknowledge a need for another regional airport, and in the same post, advocate closing one of them, and moving its operations to the perimeter.

It seems to me that your idea has nothing to do with improving air transport in the metro area, but a rationale to oppose the expansion of Stewart - a predetermined conclusion looking for reasons.

[futurecity]

No backward thinking man, why on earth would you think so? I'm contradicting nothing, stop nit-picking and let the discussion flow.

Do you really think that a HSR link fast enough to bring stewart in reach of NYC is going to be possible? Its not, and therefore Stewart was a lame choice. It was chosen as a ploy to satisfy the public or governments IMO, when it appeared that NYC was becoming saturated. However, I don't believe they ever thought Newburgh would ever be more than a niche hudson valley player due to distance and lack of interest in investing in real transit solutions. Palmdale in LA was a failure and was a similar ploy to regionalize air traffic in the LA area, it didn't work, and neither will Stewart.

Let this be clear: I don't oppose Stewart, I just don't see how it will be succesfull as a NYC airport given the lack of history in this country of high speed airport express projects. If you are confident that this could happen, fine... however, i am not so optimistic.

Given that my opinion of Stewart is that of a miserable joke, the only other options are a new airport or an expansion of JFK/EWR.... New airports won't happen either today (due to NIMBYs), so JFK/EWR must be expanded for the good of the region as the only logical choice left. Remember, new runways at EWR would be placed in an industrial area (port) allowing approaches over allready spoiled land. Runways at JFK would offer water approaches and minimal encroachment over highly populated areas.

I bring up the closure of LGA because of quality of life issues and also the safety issues that Laguardia has with its difficult approach paths, etc. Why is the bay more important than these human beings?

Of course an expanded JFk + an expanded EWR could absorb the operations of LGA and more...with an additional 2 runways, sure...explain to me why this isn't possible? LGA is only a 2 runway airport... EWR/JFK with more runways will easily absorb that together. Explain to me why, i'm interested in knowing why LGA traffic couldn't be accomidated in an expanded JFK + EWR?

Sure, if nobody cares about environmental issues, expand LGA and add another runway then... don't you see that I'm advocating increasing the quality of life for NY residents while putting noisy and polluting air traffic in areas that have approaches in lower density areas, farm land, ocean or industrial areas? Do you think if LGA was in a more people friendly location I would wish to close it? No. I oppose it, because it is a lame duck airport without the possibility of expansion nor a rail-link to manhatan, a hostile residential population, a hemmed in speck of land, a difficult system of approaches in bad weather, noise, high density development all around, pollution, and all that...

I don't understand why nobody sees the health effects of LGA. Does nobody care about health issues on this board?

[ZippyTheChimp]

No backward thinking man, why on earth would you think so? I'm contradicting nothing, stop nit-picking and let the discussion flow.First I was pedantic. Now I'm nit-picking.

Review all your threads. The common theme is that New York is not forward thinking, and then you dismiss something you don't agree with as it'll never happen.

Let this be clear: I don't oppose Stewart

What? [see below]

Given that my opinion of Stewart is that of a miserable joke,Confirms the contention I made previously.

I don't understand why nobody sees the health effects of LGA. Does nobody care about health issues on this board?I asked in an earlier post if you knew anything about the ecology of Jamaica Bay. I remember asking this once before, and again, you ignored it. Now you try and bring up an environmental argument to support closing LGA. I won't even bother getting into a discussion with you on this until you demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

Ask yourself why, other than mysterious airport insiders, no one except you has advocated this ridiculous idea.

farm landHave you ever been to New York, other than Google Earth?

[futurecity]

1) I have a home in NYC but I am currently away.:rolleyes: Farm land was a reference to rural areas way outside of NYC where a new airport could be :)

2) You are prepared to argue that the effects of wetlands are more important to the environment and health of residents than low flying aircraft over their heads, good luck to you.:confused:

3) I said I don't oppose the idea of stewart, but as I see it, it was a failure from the begining as there is no way a real HSR link can be done therefore it was just a platitude, a joke solution because there will be no real follow through. The link up there would take over an hour as currently proposed.;) It will be slow, stop everywhere, and take ages...do you think that will turn it into a genuine option for NYers? A poor location and a useless solution IMO, and you know it. Actually, it was very weak on their part, they should have proposed something bolder - a new airport or a expansion of the current. A mickey mouse regional airport will not make a 4th NYC airport.

4) Forget my previous posts -- NY is moving foward in many areas, but the PA isn't, and stop defending NYC as if its your baby. What, I can't critisize and propose new ideas? Oh, boo hoo to you.. I said before that NY must invest in transit to maintain their global competitive advantage - and with this financial collapse of NY's primary industry, they need all the investment they can get. Do you see other world cities with 1950's style transit infrastructure like NYC, no -- we don't even have an express link to our primary airport for god's sake, wake up NYC:rolleyes: Open your eyes and see that the NY region is way behind the likes of emerging centers and will be left behind unless they actually realize this and make the changes required.

5) You have not explained why LGA's traffic could not be absorbed by an expanded JFK/EWR yet...

[ZippyTheChimp]

1) I have a home in NYC.:rolleyes:Is it a farm? You never post from here.

You are prepared to argue that the effects of wetlands are more important to the environment and health of residents than low flying aircraft over their heads, good luck to you.:confused:I don't doubt that you don't understand the relationship; as I already said, you know nothing about the subject.

You have not explained why LGA's traffic could not be absorbed by an expanded JFK/EWR yet...I didn't say it couldn't be absorbed; I noted that it would have to be more than doubled only to stay exactly where we are today. You're the one who dismissed LGA as a niche-player.

Open your eyes and see that the NY region is way behind the likes of emerging centers and will be left behind unless they actually realize this and make the changes required.My respose to your first post specifically addressed your idea to close LGA, which I think is ridiculous, not the need to address region-wide transportation issues.

Forget my previous posts You're finally making sense. I'll add this one. I've already been advised that I'm spinning my wheels.

[futurecity]

You disagree, fine...no need to basically call me an idiot while you are at it.... sheesh. Going through my points like that shows me you have an agenda against me or anyone who attacks NYC. Its rather nasty to attack me in the manner of which you have just done. I am actually interested in seeing NYC succeed, but you think otherwise.

Wetlands are not difficult to understand, I know enough about it, but you don't seem to understand that keeping LGA active has worse health effects than any potential bay removal would.

I told you, NYC has planned itself into a bind with near sighted vision. Can't you at least accept that Stewart is not an option? Come on, see the light.

Seeing that you will not discuss this civily, but intend rather to sift through my points whilst making acusatory comments, I hereby cease dicussing the issue with you as it has become clearly pointless to continue. You will not agree to disagree, but rather prefer to attack my character and intellect as well... you have just ended an interesting argument with you childish attacks. We will see in the futuer who is right about Newburgh -- I can guarantee you that you will never see it as NYC's 4th airport and you will never see the maglev/HSR line -- the future will tell all, and as soon a the economy is back, and planes are streaming in, a proper proposal of expansion will occur as leaders notice their city falling behind London, Tokyo, Dubai, Shanghai and the long list of cities that are rising. NY has played itself out of the mega airline-hub game and all the benefits that could go along. Chicago and Atlanta at least have an idea about how to deal with airport expansion. NYC is behind the times as it has become complacent.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Again you've retreated into a baseless they're calling me an idiot refrain.

I said your idea is ridiculous, and to repeat from another thread, whether or not you're an idiot is your own business. I respond to what's posted.

Can't you at least accept that Stewart is not an option? Come on, see the light. Even if I believe otherwise? At no time have I asked you to change your opinion.

There's another thread for Stewart. This thread is about the modernization of LGA, which you said should be closed. Whether or not Stewart is expanded, or JFK is expanded, doesn't change my opinion that closing LGA is an absurd idea.

[futurecity]

Ok, go ahead, modernize the damn podunk little postage stamp sized airport... It might look nice, but what a freaken waste of money when the real need is to increase capacity.. LGA is the worst possible place to feed more cash, IMO. NY should be following the trend of placing airports OUTSIDE of large cities fed by HSR, not force feeding air traffic into a congested region.... but still Stewart won't work in that regard as there was never any concrete proposal for real HSR and likley will never be. Therefore my point that JFK/EWR were the only options left otherwise face stagnation. Lest you forget that JFK is slot constrained now and airlines don't like to be pioneers to base focus points at small inaccessible airfields.

Ok, I accept you like the Stewart Idea. However, tell me how the hell it will work? I don't see it, NY state is large-rail-project shy, and their little train spur won't cut it. Their idea I think is to cover the northern metro areas -- but airlines won't grow a base there just for that segment of the population, it never works like that. You'll get some service, but no movement of service from the big 3 to release capacity and free up space. Of course, it won't work and the ROW is too slow as of now... Chicken and egg situation -- no traffic there as of now and until you see millions of pax, you won't see the investment in any real rail up there.

There should be a large gathering and brain storming session and some real thinking about the future here, no short term path up jobs. NY needs an aviation comittee independent of the PA. Its future depends on it. I feel that we'll end up with a) an expanded JFK/EWR or b) a new airport located somewhere in rural NJ.

[scumonkey]

I've already been advised that I'm spinning my wheels. Yo Zip- this works fairly well:
;)
This message is hidden because futurecity is on your ignore list.

(unless whole posts are re quoted line by line).

[ramvid01]

I don't see how closing LaGuardia would solve any problems. Especially since our airport condition is not optimal.

Closing LaGuardia now would amount to tearing down the third avenue elevated rail because they are going to build the 2nd avenue subway. See how well that worked.

[futurecity]

Closing LGA won't solve the capacity solution, you are correct -- however, i never said just close LGA now. I said if the capacity was found somwhere else (read my posts) then it not needed. It is a 1.5 runway airport at most, it is in a location that causes noise and pollution blight over queens, brooklyn and LI, it is hemmed in and there is no further expansion possibilities. I am talking quality of life here, that is all -- think of that land as a waterfront park, retail, cafes, etc...

Maybe the people on this board do not agree, but I can tell you that Brooklyn/Queens residents might think differently.

London is looking at building an artifical island to replace LHR someday -- what interesting ideas has NY propsed to replace increase capacity and replace airport blight? It bought a podunk airport in a podunk little town 60 miles out of manhattan, that is all I will say.

[stache]

I'm thinking of the quality of my life if I have to schlep to JFK or Newark every time I want to go to Florida.

[Ninjahedge]

Closing LGA won't solve the capacity solution, you are correct -- however, i never said just close LGA now.

All zip is saying is that you are being too hypothetical. If we could find a better spot that would not damage the ecological balance, that would not fly over neighborhoods on takeoff and approach AND was still close enough to the city then yes, we could close LGA. The thing is, if that was available, they would have built there by now.

The airports have been too crowded and some (I forget which) have been forced to reduce their schedules to help reduce backup. Eliminating one in the foreseeable future is fantasy.

I said if the capacity was found somewhere else (read my posts) then it not needed.

You mean if we found the solution to our problem it would not be a problem anymore? I think you need to work on specifics....

It is a 1.5 runway airport at most, it is in a location that causes noise and pollution blight over queens, Brooklyn and LI, it is hemmed in and there is no further expansion possibilities. I am talking quality of life here, that is all -- think of that land as a waterfront park, retail, cafés, etc...

There are other regions that can be converted into what you are suggesting, Red Bank being a large area that is currently undergoing that transformation. Saying that that can happen everywhere is a bit shallow.

The problem is, you can't convert what you NEED. Find a way to satisfy the need and you will reduce its importance. You shoot down the idea that high-speed rail will be a feasible solution but yet think we can just fit an extra 25 million (Wiki - 2007) people into other airports or tell them that they really do not need to fly in order to turn a large parcel of land into large and pretty tax burdens.

It is not good that planes have to land and take off there, but the point of air traffic is to get people in and out. If you have no other way of doing so, the area that is serviced by this can suffer economically because of it.

Maybe the people on this board do not agree, but I can tell you that Brooklyn/Queens residents might think differently.

Depends on how close they live to the airport and how much they use it.

That was a cheap blanket statement...

London is looking at building an artificial island to replace LHR someday -- what interesting ideas has NY propsed to replace increase capacity and replace airport blight? It bought a podunk airport in a podunk little town 60 miles out of manhattan, that is all I will say.

Are you willing to donate $$? Building an island in the Atlantic takes a bit more than even a billion US $.

Given we are now in a recession with a huge debt, building an island in a busy shipping corridor to accommodate additional air traffic is not exactly the most economical or feasible solution.

And phrased as some sort of rejoinder to this discussion it does not lend any credibility to your stance.

Look, you are allowed to post whatever you want here, within reason that is. But just realize that if you try to talk seriously about any NYC subject, you have people like Zip that will do the research to find SPECIFICS to contradict your claims and statements.

Don't feel affronted by that. Do the research and come up with more than what you think the people of Queens would feel.......

[Ninjahedge]

I'm thinking of the quality of my life if I have to schlep to JFK or Newark every time I want to go to Florida.

You must not live in the area of Queens or Brooklyn he means.

We can't ask you how you feel!

[stache]

I keep forgetting it's all about him lol. :p

[futurecity]

All zip is saying is that you are being too hypothetical. If we could find a better spot that would not damage the ecological balance, that would not fly over neighborhoods on takeoff and approach AND was still close enough to the city then yes, we could close LGA. The thing is, if that was available, they would have built there by now.

I'm talking about future vision here -- of course if it were easy it would have been done by now, but do you really want to live with old mistakes for eternity without planning to correct them for the good of the people? Seems odd to me, rather defeatist.

The airports have been too crowded and some (I forget which) have been forced to reduce their schedules to help reduce backup. Eliminating one in the foreseeable future is fantasy.

This is why I propose thinking about the long term future of the airports in the region-- and the plan should be to close it in 10 years or so when it is no longer needed due to expansion elsewhere, I never ever said close it now or soon, ok?.


You mean if we found the solution to our problem it would not be a problem anymore? I think you need to work on specifics....

What?

There are other regions that can be converted into what you are suggesting, Red Bank being a large area that is currently undergoing that transformation. Saying that that can happen everywhere is a bit shallow.

The problem is, you can't convert what you NEED. Find a way to satisfy the need and you will reduce its importance. You shoot down the idea that high-speed rail will be a feasible solution but yet think we can just fit an extra 25 million (Wiki - 2007) people into other airports or tell them that they really do not need to fly in order to turn a large parcel of land into large and pretty tax burdens.

Are you babbling? Your argument makes no sense here, I don't think you have have expressed yourself clearly.

How can you compare RedBank to a piece of land adjacent to manhattan, right on the waterfront in a high density area? Ludacrous. The land that LGA sits on could be prime land for a massive urban development similar to the railyards on the West Side. That land in 10+ years will be scarce and extremely valuable as manhattan runs out of developable space. I said it before, if the capactity were found elswhere (new airport/expaded EWR/JFK) it could be freed up for a more valuable investment.

I never said I opposed HSR to anywhere -- didn't you read my posts PROPERLY? I said, I didn't see any intention of the PA or anyone to bring HSR to stewart, there just isn't the will there. Of course I support NEC HSR.

It is not good that planes have to land and take off there, but the point of air traffic is to get people in and out. If you have no other way of doing so, the area that is serviced by this can suffer economically because of it.

You have not read my posts properly. I never said just close LGA soon. I said it would be better to plan for a future without LGA when additional expansion could cover its loss and more.

Depends on how close they live to the airport and how much they use it.

That was a cheap blanket statement...

No, it isn't a cheap statement -- for the good of people's health and well being, whether they actually are aware of what the airport is doing to their bodies or not, it would help their quality of life, and the life of Brooklyites/LI if that polluting source was removed whether they like it or not. Convenience of travel does not trump health and well being, and Queens isn't exactly an amazing hub of commerce due to LGA, is it? So I doubt LGA's departure would decimate the area.

Are you willing to donate $$? Building an island in the Atlantic takes a bit more than even a billion US $.

You are acusing me of childish thinking, then you ask me a question like that? Haha.

Given we are now in a recession with a huge debt, building an island in a busy shipping corridor to accommodate additional air traffic is not exactly the most economical or feasible solution.

What? This is the time to invest in the economy, the government needs to spend money, as we need to stimulate it. Even though I don't see this happening, at least other cities talk about big ideas, whilst NY doesn't.

And phrased as some sort of rejoinder to this discussion it does not lend any credibility to your stance.

I see, to you this is all an intellectural excercise in discussion/arguments...nothing more.

Look, you are allowed to post whatever you want here, within reason that is. But just realize that if you try to talk seriously about any NYC subject, you have people like Zip that will do the research to find SPECIFICS to contradict your claims and statements.

Don't feel affronted by that. Do the research and come up with more than what you think the people of Queens would feel.......

Patronizing bull -- Do you think I care or feel affronted, what a joke. I'm not upset if peole like you don't agree with me, If you think so I'm sorry to dissapoint you.

I am talking seriously about NYC, if you didn't notice. Actually, your arguments seem all inchoherent and you are just fighting for a away to refute my claims whilst not knowing what you are talking about. I presume you are acting 'with the pack metality here'. You really take the cake mister.

So you want me to do polls in Queens or something? Zipp has no specifics that mattered anyway, I don't know what you are talking about. None of you can tell me exactly why it would be a good idea to keep LGA if the capacity was found elsewhere. I stand by my argument, but I see that you hae no real vision for a better and brighter future for all NYers. You guys don't understand anything about true hub airports, conglomeration of airlines into a single airport, and the benefits that can bring. NY will never reap the benefits of a true major airline transfer hub due to short sighted planning and the fact that they have 3 disjointed airports which they refuse to reconfigure or search for a new airport location.

Maybe you should look at true hubs and the massive economic benefits they bring to their cities.... but NY has planned itself out this opportunity due to old fashioned thinking. Not once have they planned on a new green-field site with proper HSR rail, or planned on relocating traffic, etc... they are not serious about aviation as an economic growth engine, they are gun-shy. They will not make a large investment so they will not reap any rewards.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Now we get the bold-font post. Won't be long before it's all CAPS.

Tank must be near empty - running on bluster.

[futurecity]

Using bold to distinguish my text from his...forgot to turn it off after the quote section...:p Fixed! I am relaxed as can be matey boy :) You are the one looking to start something, eh?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Re-read your last post, and think again who's trying to start something.

Still waiting to hear about the airport-insiders, or is that another made up story.

[Ninjahedge]

Hmm, glanced at your response.

Childish for saying that it costs a lot to build an island?

http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/20050517800

And google Dubai if you would like.

I love the way you do not answer a question by calling it childish and think that the government has SO much money it can throw away that much to just build an island because people, which you have not sited in any solid way, "might" want it that way.

BTW:

How can you compare RedBank to a piece of land adjacent to manhattan, right on the waterfront in a high density area?

Proves your ignorance.

Red bank IS a piece of land, adjacent to Manhattan, right on the waterfront, with high density areas. Google it for yourself. :rolleyes:

[futurecity]

Hmm, glanced at your response.

You did, but you didn't take the time to aknowledge or anything I wrote, just proves that you entered into this disucssion without any real desire to add to it.

Childish for saying that it costs a lot to build an island?

http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/20050517800

And google Dubai if you would like.

Again, I never said the island idea was the best one or cheap, but the fact that big ideas are bandied about in other cities means that all ideas are taken into account, even the unattainable ones. The PA doesn't discuss visionary ideas, it just doesn't - which is bad for NY's future. Everyone knows that off-shore islands cost a mountain, but those cities that have done it have reaped the benefits. A green field site would be easier and just as effective.

I love the way you do not answer a question by calling it childish and think that the government has SO much money it can throw away that much to just build an island because people, which you have not sited in any solid way, "might" want it that way.

BTW:

Again, I never said ''just build an island''. I want the PA to discuss all ideas openly for the good of NY's air transport future -- if the island was proven to be an opportunity for the long run, to create a real super hub, then so be it, if not, well at least they contemplated it. Rememer that the investment could be worth it in the long run, again why are you thinking only 5 years down the road?


[/b]

Proves your ignorance.

Red bank IS a piece of land, adjacent to Manhattan, right on the waterfront, with high density areas. Google it for yourself. :rolleyes:

Redbank is a outer suburban town. It would never serve as an extension of manhattan, or another CBD. Don't kid yourself, it is a historic town that wouldn't be open to large scale development. I can't believe you could be so ignorant as to bring this up :rolleyes:

[ZippyTheChimp]

His posts are contradictory.

He acknowledges the need for another airport, but opposes Stewart without offering any alternative. Then compounds it by proposing to close one of the three, still without any site for #4.

He dismisses proposals that he opposes by stating the money will never be spent to provide the infrastructure to support it, then turns around and assumes it will be spent for the proposal he favors.

He keeps accusing others of short-sightedness, but is taking that very approach in regard to Stewart. Again, my example of Floyd Bennett was ignored.

He asserts that political-will is all that is holding back JFK expansion into Jamaica Bay [political will to overcome environmental issues], then tries to use environmental issues as a basis to close LGA.

He claims exclusive understanding of hubs and has access to airport-insiders, but has not offered one piece of documentation to support his proposal.

[Ninjahedge]

You did, but you didn't take the time to aknowledge or anything I wrote, just proves that you entered into this disucssion without any real desire to add to it.

Again shows your lack of knowledge. You seem to be a reactionary that is not taking time to think about what they are posting. This one sentence seems to be a stream of consciousness.

"Acknowledge (spelling) OR anything" makes no sense, and you have a run-on sentence. No biggies, if you were not going around calling other people ill-informed or childish.

As for redBank, I will admit that is my problem.

Try this instead:

RedHook. ;)

[futurecity]

Again shows your lack of knowledge. You seem to be a reactionary that is not taking time to think about what they are posting. This one sentence seems to be a stream of consciousness.

"Acknowledge (spelling) OR anything" makes no sense, and you have a run-on sentence. No biggies, if you were not going around calling other people ill-informed or childish.

As for redBank, I will admit that is my problem.

Try this instead:

RedHook. ;)

Jesus, are you a pedant or what... so go on, divert the conversation..nice. This isn't a formal writing exercise, I'm writing fast and thinking fast buddy, and I'm not wasting time thinking about whether or not my sentances are perfect enough for your poor little eyes. Try sticking to the actual ideas and talk about the issues, not spelling.

Redhook isn't suitable and would have no where near the ammount of developable space that LGA could bring.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You already used pedant.

[stache]

It's getting very SSP. :(

[futurecity]

His posts are contradictory.

He acknowledges the need for another airport, but opposes Stewart without offering any alternative. Then compounds it by proposing to close one of the three, still without any site for #4.

Yawn, I told you I liked the 'idea' of Stewart airport. Why do I have to repeat myself. I said it will not WORK, get it? There is no political will to invest in a train fast enough to reduce the time needed to get there. I did say that another airport was vital, and that is an alternative, you see. How the hell am I supposed to know where to put #4 as of now? There are countless rural sites that could be slated for an airport, that would be easier to get to than Stewart. That is why I am falling back to JFK/EWR as the only possible solutions b/c new airports are very hard to build today with NIMBYs and if you look at a map of JFK, you can put another runway in there either on the bay or over the hangers.

He dismisses proposals that he opposes by stating the money will never be spent to provide the infrastructure to support it, then turns around and assumes it will be spent for the proposal he favors.

Go on, you haven't once explained your vision for Stewart... I told you, you are talking about HSR here, and there is no WILL to do it. I assume they'll spend nothing on anything. I said that if they were serious about Stewart, they would''ve suggested a proper rail solution from the begining, but they don't consider it anything more than a regional reliever airport. It is clearly not in their plans... you should see that.

He keeps accusing others of short-sightedness, but is taking that very approach in regard to Stewart. Again, my example of Floyd Bennett was ignored.

You are kidding I hope. Bennet field has nothing to do with this time, you can't draw similiarities. There was no such thing as the mega-hub then.

Stewart is not a serious 4th airport and everyone, even the NYDOT knows it. They consider it a regional, reliever airport. Where is the propsal for proper access from NYC? Do you know how much the Tappan Zee with a Metro North track will cost? 16 billion dollars. Think about what that money could do to JFK or EWR.

He asserts that political-will is all that is holding back JFK expansion into Jamaica Bay [political will to overcome environmental issues], then tries to use environmental issues as a basis to close LGA.

I will say it again. I do not believe that the loss of a small segment of Jamaica bay outweights the horrendous blight that LGA diffuses over the surounding aras. You disagree, fine. You do not have documentation that could prove wetlands are more important to health than direct exposure to aircraft fumes and noise, do you?

He claims exclusive understanding of hubs and has access to airport-insiders, but has not offered one piece of documentation to support his proposal.

I said airline insiders, people who I can discuss my ideas with. Never did i say I knew people in the PA or people who were actually planning this...you don't read what I say properly. Of course there is no documentation as of now, these are my ideas - this is not a proposal, and I never implied it was. I said I talked to some people who had some good ideas and agreed that my ideas were reasonable.

[futurecity]

You are overly optimistic about Stewart.. I look at it as palmdale #2 or Mirabelle #2. I learn from history and I see no real interest from the authorities in investing what is required into Stewart.

When HKIA was announced, so was the HSR there w/ all the necessary infrastructure. When Kansai was announced, the same. Stewart has seen no such concrete plans for the future which leads me to believe it will never every be anything more than a regional reliever.

You claim that it is the best option, but I have seen no decent DOCUMENTATION from you on how stewart is going to be accessible..

[ZippyTheChimp]

Yawn, I told you I liked the 'idea' of Stewart airport. Why do I have to repeat myself. I said it will not WORK, get it?Same thing

Go on, you haven't once explained your vision for Stewart...I said this thread, and my response to your post, is about your idea to close LGA. Why do I have to repeat myself?

You are kidding I hope. Bennet field? You are a man living in the past. Stewart is not a serious 4th airport and everyone, even the NYDOT knows it.Can't you read? I made an analogy that Floyd Bennett was once thought of as being too far from Manhattan to be a viable airport (psst JFK is further away), just as you now think that Stewart is too far away.

I will say it again. I do not believe that the loss of a small segment of Jamaica bay outweights the horrendous blight that LGA diffuses over the surounding aras. You can say it as many times as you want; you don't know what you're talking about.


You do not have documentation that could prove wetlands are more important than direct exposure to aircraft fumes and noise, do you?We have a thread on Jamaica Bay. I'm knowledgeable on the subject, and actually do know insiders who've been involved in its restoration. If you wish to debate me on wetlands management, go to that thread. But you'd better know what you're talking about.

I said airline insiders, people who I can discuss my ideas with. Man-on-the-street. Nobody.

Like when I said your posts seemed like Google Earth view of the area, you said you had a house in New York. We both know that's bull.

[futurecity]

Same thing

No, it is not. I told you, I like outlying airports if a proper concrete proposal is made to make them accessible.. I have seen nothing of the sort that would give me hope on Stewart.

I said this thread, and my response to your post, is about your idea to close LGA. Why do I have to repeat myself?

Because Stewart is directly related to my idea to close LGA and you seem to think it is a solution, which it is not in its current form.

Can't you read? I made an analogy that Floyd Bennett was once thought of as being too far from Manhattan to be a viable airport (psst JFK is further away), just as you now think that Stewart is too far away.

Of course I know what you meant. A different era, and in no way relates to stewart today. You can't compare the two situations.

You can say it as many times as you want; you don't know what you're talking about.


We have a thread on Jamaica Bay. I'm knowledgeable on the subject, and actually do know insiders who've been involved in its restoration. If you wish to debate me on wetlands management, go to that thread. But you'd better know what you're talking about.

Man-on-the-street. Nobody.

What a joke -- so its ok for you to know people in wetland management, and not for me to know airline people? Double standards, huh? I could say your wetland people are just men-on-the-street.

You obviously know nothing about the subject of pollution, b/c you are willing to allow people in Queens to suffer from it. You think noise pollution is not a problem -- there have been countless studies that show the harm it does, especially to kids. Don't patronise me. You say I don't know what I'm talking about yet you offer no understanding of the situation. So, therefore, I will assume that you are avoiding the question out of ignorance.

Like when I said your posts seemed like Google Earth view of the area, you said you had a house in New York. We both know that's bull.

Of course I have a residence there and have lived there often. How dare you presume I am lying.. Why do you think I care about NYC and its improvement? You just like to discredit me. You have formed an unfavorable opinion of me, probably b/c you are over protective of NYC, and whatever I say now you will attempt to belittle. That to me is a childish attitude to take. Then you go after my life and my personal situation....Jesus, I'm sick of your arrogant attitude. You presume to know everything about me, now? You are a nasty piece of work. Did I ever make presumptions about your life? NO.:mad:

I will say now that just b/c you have different ideas and you disagree, does not give you right to attack everything I say, especially my personal situation.. It makes you appear prejudiced and malicious, as if you have it out for me.

Here is another thing that I find incredibly hypocritical -- you value the wetlands, yet you don't give a shit about the effects of LGA on the surrounding residents....you are really a fantastic environmentalist - don't quit your day job ;) I don't need to be an expert in wetland management to notice this rather odd kink in your rhetoric that doesn't fly. Did you even study a map of JFK? -- you don't even realize that only a small portion of the bay would be claimed if a new runway were added.

I am willing to drop this whole thing and agree to disagree. I will not continue to talk to people who have an agenda against me, who are out to discredit me. We wil all see who is right regarding Stewart in the years ahead and I feel like my forsight will proove correct. I am sure that the PA takes your side on LGA, as they are rather conservative and care little about the common man. However, I also am sure that NYC will find itself in a major bind when it comes to Air Transport capacity in the future due to lack of action/vision, unless of course (god forbid) the city never recovers from the current economy

[ZippyTheChimp]

You can't just make things up.

Where have I heard that before?


whatever I say now you will attempt to belittle.I mostly ignore your threads.

Come to think of it... (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19702)

You can't just make things up.

[stache]

futurecity, I'm hoping this particular line of thought is drawing to a conclusion.

[futurecity]

You can't just make things up.

Where have I heard that before?


I mostly ignore your threads.

Come to think of it... (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19702)

You can't just make things up.


That idea was a pretty good one -- do you know why? Because it is a well tested idea the world over (linking commuter rail through cities) -- London, Paris, Milan, I could go on and on. Ignore them if you want. I really don't care. I enjoy talking about the big-picture, you seem to prefer living in the world of what is ''realistic" otherwise you would give me some credit.. I live in the world of potential. I guess I will ignore your posts from now on too.

I think my ideas are great, and I'm happy about it -- nothing you can say would ever dissaude me.

[futurecity]

futurecity, I'm hoping this particular line of thought is drawing to a conclusion.

Sure, I'll cease discussing this if it causes you so much heartache -- of course I still feel that I am correct and that you are not - but such is the nature of life...we will see soon enough.

[stache]

I think that's a good idea. :cool:

[futurecity]

I don't follow, sorry. I thought, given the circumstances, that the issue of throwing money down a well instead of tackling the bigger issues of the future would be a worthy issue to discuss.

[alonzo-ny]

Why does the area around LGA deserve to be enhanced and not the area around JFK? I dont get why it deserves a break from an airport. By your reasoning we should get rid of both airports.

[Ninjahedge]

We should get rid of them both.

Newark can handle all the air traffic for all of Manhattan, so long as they build that super-tunnel under Manhattan!

FC, you have been sidestepping the questions posed by many. My first post was to try to give you a clue why your points were not sticking and some vagaries that weakened your positions.

You ignored it.

My observance on your spelling and grammar was another head up to let you know how you were coming off. If, in a presidential debate, one of the candidates EVER used the word "youse", they would not garner the respect of the people listening, no matter what the argument they brought forward.

Your writing smacks of stream-of-conciousness with no real thought. Just ideas coming from the top of your head. I have seen no real proof behind your postulations, no articles or quotes, and most of your criticisms of your opposing viewpoints are just plain derogatory of the presenter, not the idea itself.

The only thing I am saying here and now is if you want people to listen to you on this board, you are going about it the wrong way. Many here require more than just an opinion to convince them.

You may want to start with respect, then move on from there.


Don't bother replying to this. Until you make an effort, your posts are not worth reading.

[ZippyTheChimp]

That's it for this tangential topic, unless some evidence is presented that someone, anyone, has at least taken it seriously.

[stache]

Yay!

[stache]

I'm asking all members at this time to not direct any more comments regarding this particular matter. It serves no point to bring this up any further.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[TREPYE]

Let me preface this by saying that as the airport of the largest most famous city in the United States LGA is an embarrassment. It is cramped, small and seriously outdated. It seems like every airport that I have been to around the country is way better in quality.

The runway @ LGA freaks me out when planes are taking off and landing from the same runway in like what it seems 60 second intervals. A freaking disaster waiting to happen!:eek:

One thing that I wondered about runway layouts is why cant the runways be designed to be more efficient via diverging runways. Sort of like this:




http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/3D/converg.gif
(Ignore the A, B line as I had to bum this pic off the internet to explain my point)

Maybe not as many lines as the above diagram but 4 or 5 with more space in between (less acute angles) that could be alternatively used as landing and takeoff for multiple aircraft simultaneously.
This way one side of the 4 or 5 get used for landing and the other side gets used for takeoff. Perhaps most should be used for takeoffs as too many landings may produce a backlog at the terminals.

Would this improve plane traffic and thus less congestion in LGA?

[alonzo-ny]

There are thousands of airports that use only one runway and not that many disasters have happened due to that arrangement. What I think you are proposing is psychotic, if Im correct in thinking you want planes to take off and land parallel to each other at the same time very close together.

[lofter1]

Runways all in the same direction?

Waht about winds?

[TREPYE]

What I think you are proposing is psychotic, if Im correct in thinking you want planes to take off and land parallel to each other at the same time very close together.

I have come to expect a high level of ignorance and abject self rigteousness from your posts, alonzo; which is fine, some people are just like that.:rolleyes: But to go around usinig derogative adjective on something you obviously have not understanding of, I must say, digs a new low in my expectation level of you.

Anyone who has taken a geometry class, or uses a little bit of higher level of common sense, would realize that 2 planes taking off from a diverging runway in a straight line would get father apart with distance, thereby minimizing the possibility of a collision. As I mentioned you cannot do this with landings thus you may have to seperate into 2 sets of runways one set for landing one for take off. There, I spelled it out for you.

Sort of like this:
http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/3D/converg.gif


There are thousands of airports that use only one runway and not that many disasters have happened due to that arrangement.
I never said that this should be used to prevent disasters but rather to alleviate congestion via having runways that can accomodate multiple takeoffs at the same time.

Readinng comprehension pop quiz:

Read again alonzo:

One thing that I wondered about runway layouts is why cant the runways be designed to be more efficient via diverging runways.
...
Would this improve plane traffic and thus less congestion in LGA?

Notice how I did not said disaster in reference to my lay out as a solution.

Now let me ask you this alonzo: What type of transportation veichle am I talking about?? Ill give you a hint, it rhymes with lame (like your posts:D).

[ZippyTheChimp]

TREPYE, rethink your solution by including the air-space in the equation.

You already observed that your configuration is not suitable for landing. The system of alternate landings and takeoffs on the same runway allows proper spacing of aircraft in the glide path to the airport. The same for takeoffs.

These paths are part of the Class-B airspace around airports. By fanning out runways, you dramatically increase this restricted space.

[TREPYE]

Unless there is some complex elaboration that I am completely missing, cant each runway have its own slight variation of Class B airspapce?

The layout I proposed does not have to include as many lines as shown in the diagram (it was the best reprensentative pic I f could find on the net) or the 4 or 5 I originally metnioned. It could just be 2 or 3 diverging runways for takeoffs and alternatively a perpendicular set of 2 diverging runways that can be used for landing (one at a time, or course) and/or alternate runways during windy days (as Lofter pointed out).

[ZippyTheChimp]

You'd still be taking what is now a narrow corridor, and fanning it out. The three airports aren't that far apart in air-miles, and it's not a good idea for one to point a runway at one of the others. Also, the areas where low-flying aircraft are directly overhead would be multiplied.

But even if you ignore all the air-space issues, I can't see how this could be done without greatly increasing the amount of land required for the airport.

Look at an overhead view. Taking a standard layout of perpendicular runways, add two spokes between them, so you'd have four radial runways at 0, 30, 60 and 90 degrees.

How would you map the airport? Don't forget taxiways. If you have a central terminal area, there would be wasted space in the triangles between the runways. If you put terminals there, you'd need a complex system of roadways to access them.

And what about landings? Separate runways? That means more land needed.

[TREPYE]

No not 30 degrees more like 10-15. But yeah spacing would be an issue if you try to rearrange runways to make some space without shutting down the airport. The problem with laguardia is that it is in a very ideal location that is close enough to the center of NYC and its boroughs. Thus finding a new location would be counter productive all you are left with is having to amend (and essentially patch up) whatever is there which is why I was suggesting a realignment of the runway layout to make takeoffs more efficient (as many delays occur because planes are waiting in line to take off). Can you cost effectively add a diverging runway at an angle of 15 degrees (via a causeway) over the water?

http://eyeball-series.org/air32/new-york-laguardia-ny-041m.jpg

Patch it up some how or just deal with the extra time decaying on a runway during a delay until an aircraft that does not require a runway is invented/perfected.:cool:

[ZippyTheChimp]

There are two problems with LAG. One is common to all three airports - ground access.

The other is that its runways aren't long enough to handle the biggest aircraft. But a small private plane takes up just as much air-space and runway time as a jumbo-jet. It's not like LAG isn't handling its share of the load. As I noted previously, LAG has more flight operations than JFK and is the busiest airport in the US without international non-stops.

[futurecity]

Situation is also one of its main problem and the potential security and noise pollution issues of having such a flight path as seen below...one of the reasons why I think this airport should be phased out in the long term....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPSm78_Zuj4 -- This highlights the badly implemented approach path, flying low over the most highly dense part of the United States without regard for residents below.

Futuremore, I'll let you read some of what Brooklyn residents (park slope) think about the issue affecting their neighborhoods... another reason why this urban airport should not continue to exist.

http://airtrafficparkslope.org/history.htm

the month of August 2008, planes flew over Kings County at an average of 15 hours a
day out of the18 hours that La Guardia airport is open. That is 85% of total arrival air traffic.
The flight patterns over Kings County consists of an approach between Fifth Ave and
Prospect Park West, via Prospect heights, Fort Green and Clinton Hill. The altitude over
Park Slope is 2000 - 2500 ft and when over Clinton Hill is 1200 - 1500 ft. Residents who live
under this fight path have their sleep disrupted and severely impaired and are no longer able
to have and enjoy the quiet of their homes and outdoor environments;

Basically, this airport results in noise pollution for many high density population areas in NYC - including manhattan and inner Brooklyn -- Face it, it is in the worst position possible and money should not be invested into an abortion of an airport that causes such neighborhood rancor and disturbance to people's lives.
Relocating this traffic to another location is the only solution to reduce the impact on Manhattan and Brooklyn from increasing overflight. I can't believe anyone after reading this and seeing this video would willingly wish for more investment into La Guardia airport. There is no good reason to place such traffic over such high density areas when there are alternative options that could be looked at. Why should city residents suffer such, while suburbia gets a free ride with higher altitude overflight and flight paths designed to avoid them?

[stache]

I think everyone got that loud and clear.

[ramvid01]

FutureCity I live maybe 2 miles from LaGuardia and planes fly over my building all the time, I have never had a problem with the planes (and they are flying at lower heights than in Brooklyn and at all hours of the night).

In a perfect world, we would have absolutely zero sound that would be affecting us, but seeing as this is a city, it sounds like pure NIMBYism to me. Further the second link you have qouted has no citations as to where they got their information. I find it very dubious that planes are flying any lower than 3000 feet in that part of Brooklyn.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I thought I ended the debate about closing LAG, unless evidence was presented that such proposal is, or has been, considered.

People complaining about the frequency of flight operations does not meet that criteria.

Futurecity, you point has been made. The thread topic is about modernizing the airport.

[futurecity]

I don't understand why we can't discuss this issue just because it is not a real proposal or consideration. Does that mean that on this forum one can't have opinions and put foward proposals without it being announced by some government group or official body? Sounds rather ludicrous to me. We all know that the airport will never be closed but I see no harm in discussing the horrible impact the airport has and I feel strongly that modernizing it is a waste of money. It is an opinion and from the youtube video you can see what kind of impact LGA airport has. I didn't realize this forum banned opinions that are directly related to the current topic. I am not going off topic. I do believe that my points are directly related to the topic at hand as any money put into LGA airport will cement its environmental impacts for decades to come (due to modernization)... so i do believe it is fair game to discuss it here even though it has not been announced officially.

I monitor ''passur.com'' often and observe live air traffic flying below 3000 ft over brooklyn.

FutureCity I live maybe 2 miles from LaGuardia and planes fly over my building all the time, I have never had a problem with the planes (and they are flying at lower heights than in Brooklyn and at all hours of the night).

In a perfect world, we would have absolutely zero sound that would be affecting us, but seeing as this is a city, it sounds like pure NIMBYism to me. Further the second link you have qouted has no citations as to where they got their information. I find it very dubious that planes are flying any lower than 3000 feet in that part of Brooklyn.

Again, just b/c one is able to tolerate it, doesn't mean one can't discuss more beneficial solutions, even if authorities are reluctant to take any action. That is all I have ever inteded to do with this topic. It seems like here it is frowned upon to brainstorm without scientific evidence and data at hand, which dissapoints me, as I see no harm in it at all.... but since no-one here as shown any interest in discussing an alternate future for Laguardia, I will stop beating a dead horse :)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Instead of spamming this thread with your constant disbelief that no one agrees with you, why don't you start a thread on the topic.

If anyone wants to discuss closing the airport, they can join you there.

[stache]

Excellent idea.