Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 115

Thread: Modernizing at LaGuardia: $1 billion makeover

  1. #61

    Default

    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.

  2. #62

    Default

    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.

  3. #63
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Ninjahedge; November 26th, 2008 at 11:15 AM.

  4. #64

    Default

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

  5. #65
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Thumbs up

    Yay!

  6. #66
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    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.

  7. #67

    Default

    Off-topic posts deleted.

  8. #68
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    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!

    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:





    (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?
    Last edited by stache; November 27th, 2008 at 07:39 AM. Reason: inflammatory

  9. #69

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Alonzo-ny; November 27th, 2008 at 10:53 AM.

  10. #70
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Runways all in the same direction?

    Waht about winds?

  11. #71
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alonzo-ny View Post
    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. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Sort of like this:
    Quote Originally Posted by alonzo-ny View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    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).

  12. #72

    Default

    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.

  13. #73
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    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).
    Last edited by TREPYE; November 28th, 2008 at 01:47 AM.

  14. #74

    Default

    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.

  15. #75
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    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?



    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.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. LaGuardia Link Low Priority
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 26th, 2015, 01:04 PM
  2. 60 Wall Street sold for half a billion dollars
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: February 6th, 2012, 12:28 PM
  3. Mayor Offers $13.1 Billion Schools Plan
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2011, 09:32 PM
  4. Mayor unveils $11 billion plan for Lower Manhattan
    By JMGarcia in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 20th, 2006, 09:41 PM
  5. Official Puts Cost of Rebuilding Ground Zero at $10 Billion
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2003, 05:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software