Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78

Thread: JFK Int'l Airport - International Arrivals Building, Terminal 4 - by S.O.M

  1. #46
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    On the Rails in North NJ
    Posts
    2,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    The RPA didn't conflict with itself. It agreed with you but from its figures it wasn't enough to preclude runway expansion alone. So I want to see it happen to I doubt it would be the end of the story on airports. Also, given that international flights from JFK and EWR will need some feed from smaller cities, I don't see how HSR would eliminate most of those regional flights given the fact that it is unlikely that the HSR system will be linked into the airport terminal building for easy rail to plane transfers like we see in Europe.

    Oh, and Europe has HSR of course, but they are still interesting in building runways and new airports in the mega hub cities. Frankfurt just opened a new runway and a new terminal is on the way. London is eager to build either a 3rd runway at heathrow or an entirely new airport probably off-shore, despite their HSR projects. They recognize the massive economic impact of airports to their national eeconomy and how valuable more connections to more emerging markets can be, yet they have obviously concluded that even a new HSR will not open enough slots at their current airports to preclude any further airport expansion.

    Therefore we can conclude that even if a true HSR existed up and down the NEC, NYC may very well still need more airport capacity especially for long haul flights to grow its economic links with the emerging markets given that the region is projected to grow in population and air traffic demand. Since JFK itself is primarily O/D and medium-long haul orientated, HSR is not expected to free many slots there. Laguardia itself may because of its market, but the fact that the perimeter rule is in place there will reduce the ability to use those new slots profitably.
    The Market Share seems to be switching to Rail , we could be beef up Regional Airports and send some International flights thier to Mac Arthur or Srewart...

    http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-con...n_20130123.pdf

  2. #47

    Default

    MacArthur it way to small to handle international flights. And the area around it is completely developed, so expanding it would be hugely problematic. And Stewart is just too far out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
    The Market Share seems to be switching to Rail , we could be beef up Regional Airports and send some International flights thier to Mac Arthur or Srewart...

    http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-con...n_20130123.pdf
    Last edited by BBMW; March 1st, 2013 at 06:17 PM.

  3. #48

    Default

    Both LGA and JFK should have all their runways configured to lie on the 13-31 orientation, that would untangle them a bit. EWR would still be a problem.

    JFK could easily add 1 runway on that axis, and add another without too much problem (it would require a fairly narrow landfill into Jamaica bay.) That would double the number of operations it could do an hour. The area between the current 4-22 runways could be used for remote concourses with peoplemovers connecting to the existing terminals. This could add 50 gates or more. All this could be done without lowering JFK's existing capacity during construction. More could be done, especially with the terminal capacity, buy nuking it flat, and starting from scratch, but that can't happen.

    If LGA was converted from two crossing runways to two parallel runways, it would probably add 50% to it's capacity. And the land taken up by the land side of the 4-22 runway could be used for a new terminal. They should also get around to extending the subway to LGA.

    The wildcard is EWR. That fact that it's main runways are on a completely different orientation throws a monkey wrench in to the approach patterns, and they really can't be changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    I agree NYC has a problem with its airports, especially in capacity. Who knows what they will do, but if they don't do anything many studies have shown that economic growth will eventually be hurt by the airports being constrained. IMO, they should level JFK and add more runways while realigning the terminals, moving cargo off site, or find adjacent land off-airports (demolish nearby residential areas) for new terminals. I say this because JFK can not expand new runways outside its boundaries as of now (although anything can happen). An island airport would be perfect but would require massive federal investment and would be ridiculously expensive. There is sadly no good location for a new mega airport on a greenfield site within a reasonable distance from NYC thanks to suburban sprawl everywhere and protected lands.

    As for LGA, I believe they are working currently on the new Central Terminal rebuilding project last time I heard.. Sadly, LGA constrains JFK and any expansion at JFK in terms of new runways would also probably affect LGA's capacity.

  4. #49
    Random Personality
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Woodside, Queens
    Posts
    950

    Default

    They could never have parrallel runways. If the crosswinds were too strong on a certain day all flights would have to be grounded.

  5. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    Both LGA and JFK should have all their runways configured to lie on the 13-31 orientation, that would untangle them a bit. EWR would still be a problem.

    JFK could easily add 1 runway on that axis, and add another without too much problem (it would require a fairly narrow landfill into Jamaica bay.) That would double the number of operations it could do an hour. The area between the current 4-22 runways could be used for remote concourses with peoplemovers connecting to the existing terminals. This could add 50 gates or more. All this could be done without lowering JFK's existing capacity during construction. More could be done, especially with the terminal capacity, buy nuking it flat, and starting from scratch, but that can't happen.

    If LGA was converted from two crossing runways to two parallel runways, it would probably add 50% to it's capacity. And the land taken up by the land side of the 4-22 runway could be used for a new terminal. They should also get around to extending the subway to LGA.

    The wildcard is EWR. That fact that it's main runways are on a completely different orientation throws a monkey wrench in to the approach patterns, and they really can't be changed.
    I doubt LGA would ever be allowed to expand due to proximity to high density populated areas.

    The RPA study showed that adding one additional 31-13 runway would reduce LGA capacity by a large amount. NextGen advanced navigation procedures would also be require to avoid conflicts.

    Since you won't ever add another runway in Jamaica Bay unless congress acted to remove its protection, completely redoing the layout of the airport by changing terminal configuration in order to allow more runways on the airport footprint seems a more realistic solution and perhaps its is the only real solution that is doable. I can envisage removing all the terminals on the left side of the airport, putting another 31-13 runway in there, and rebuilding the terminal space elsewhere. perhaps cargo could move out to stewart.

  6. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ramvid01 View Post
    They could never have parrallel runways. If the crosswinds were too strong on a certain day all flights would have to be grounded.
    Correct, they would need the cross runways no matter. But, it is not true they could not add another two parallel runways in the 13-31 direction if they were allowed fill the bay if they kept the 4-22's for crosswind days.

  7. #52

    Default

    There are a number of major airports that operate without crosswind runways. ATL and LAX come immediately to mind. I don't know if NY weather conditions uniquely require crosswind runways, or if they are a vestige of earlier aircraft that can't buck the crosswinds as well as newer aircraft can. Also at least with JFK, additional 13-31s could be added without closing the 4-22s. Keeping the 4-22s would just not free up ground for more gate capacity.

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    Correct, they would need the cross runways no matter. But, it is not true they could not add another two parallel runways in the 13-31 direction if they were allowed fill the bay if they kept the 4-22's for crosswind days.

  8. #53

    Default

    Are you talking about additional 13-31 at JFK or LGA? I didn't pick this up in a quick go over of the report. However aligning both airports solely on 13-31 would probably untangle the traffic problem quite a bit. EWR would remain a problem, but not having to provide for the 4 approach to LGA would open up things for JFK.

    Also, the part of Jamaica Bay that would need to be landfilled for a southern addtional 13-31 it apparently a dead zone (as per the report.) A landfill there could probable be sold to the feds. It would not have to be very far out into the bay (maybe 300 yards)

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    I doubt LGA would ever be allowed to expand due to proximity to high density populated areas.

    The RPA study showed that adding one additional 31-13 runway would reduce LGA capacity by a large amount. NextGen advanced navigation procedures would also be require to avoid conflicts.

    Since you won't ever add another runway in Jamaica Bay unless congress acted to remove its protection, completely redoing the layout of the airport by changing terminal configuration in order to allow more runways on the airport footprint seems a more realistic solution and perhaps its is the only real solution that is doable. I can envisage removing all the terminals on the left side of the airport, putting another 31-13 runway in there, and rebuilding the terminal space elsewhere. perhaps cargo could move out to stewart.

  9. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    Are you talking about additional 13-31 at JFK or LGA? I didn't pick this up in a quick go over of the report. However aligning both airports solely on 13-31 would probably untangle the traffic problem quite a bit. EWR would remain a problem, but not having to provide for the 4 approach to LGA would open up things for JFK.

    Also, the part of Jamaica Bay that would need to be landfilled for a southern addtional 13-31 it apparently a dead zone (as per the report.) A landfill there could probable be sold to the feds. It would not have to be very far out into the bay (maybe 300 yards)
    JFK. Page 150 of the report explains this, about how 1 additional runway would cause a reduction at LGA and that two runways would be needed to make up for this deficit

    http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class.pdf

  10. #55

    Default

    I see that. They don't say why (at least there), but I assume that it would impinge on the runway 4 approach at LGA (see page 66). I'd get rid of the 4-22 runway at LGA and put two runways their on 13-31 orientation. That would deal with that conflict.

    What I'd use for JFK is their option 7. As I stated above, this would provide two pairs of closely spaced runways. Even without the Nextgen air traffic control system, this would greatly increase capacity at JFK. Right now, if operating on the 13-31s One runway, usually 13R-31L is designated for departure and the other one for arrival. Alternately they could use both runways in mixed mode, but the departure holds waiting for the landing aircraft mean that this doesn't really increase capacity. If there were two runways on each side, the inner runway would be designated for departure, and the outer runway for arrival. They would not interfere with each other. The separation between the two outer runways on each side means that they could have simultaneous arrivals in IFR conditions.


    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    JFK. Page 150 of the report explains this, about how 1 additional runway would cause a reduction at LGA and that two runways would be needed to make up for this deficit

    http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class.pdf
    Last edited by BBMW; March 1st, 2013 at 06:21 PM.

  11. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    I see that. They don't say why (at least there), but I assume that it would impinge on the runway 4 approach at LGA (see page 66). I'd get rid of the 4-22 runway at LGA and put two runways their on 13-31 orientation. That would deal with that conflict.

    What I'd use for JFK is their option 7. As I stated above, this would provide two pairs of closely spaced runways. Even without the Nextgen air traffic control system, this would greatly increase capacity at JFK. Right now, if operating on the 13-31s One runway, usually 13R-31L is designated for departure and the other one for arrival. Alternately they could use both runways in mixed mode, but the departure holds waiting for the landing aircraft mean that this doesn't really increase capacity. If there were two runways on each side, the inner runway would be designated for departure, and the outer runway for arrival. They would not interfere with each other. The separation between the two outer runways on each side means that they could have simultaneous arrivals in IFR conditions.
    I agree that option 7 would be the best option if they somehow won the fight to add fill to the bay.

  12. #57

    Default

    ^
    Option 7 is and extension to option 6 (adding a 13-31 to the north) . They could start with that, while they push to get the south 13-31 approved. That alone would add a lot of capacity, allowing two parallel approach streams with one dedicated departure runway. It would be a little awkward, because the current southern 13-31 is JFK's longest runway, so it more appropriate for primary departure, and some aircraft probably need that length to get off the ground (think a fully laden 747 or A380.) With a three runway setup, the near north 13-31 (which at that point would be 13C-31C) would, from a ground traffic flow standpoint, the proper designated departure runway. But it would be 4000' shorter.

  13. #58
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,478

    Default

    It's Terminal, but Backers Hope to Keep Worldport at JFK Alive

    Former Pan Am Building Is Added to Endangered List

    By LANA BORTOLOT


    http://www.savetheworldport.org/index.html

    Advocates for the now-vacant Worldport terminal at Kennedy Airport hope their preservation efforts will gain momentum with the bittersweet designation of the former Pan Am building as one of America's 11 most-endangered historic places.

    Construction workers put up a fence at the former Worldport terminal at Kennedy Airport on Tuesday.

    The annual list, compiled by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and slated for release Wednesday, selects architectural and cultural heritage sites in danger of destruction or damage. The flying-saucer shaped Worldport, long-slated for demolition to make room for more operating space at the airport, was cited for its symbolic jet-age architecture.

    Constructed in 1960 by Pan American World Airways, the building was known for its large elliptical roof canopy, measuring 450 by 350 feet, which allowed aircraft to taxi under it, providing protective covering for passengers between the plane and the terminal. It was famously featured as a backdrop for the Beatles as they departed on a Pan Am Boeing 707 after their 1964 U.S. tour, and epitomized the glamour of jet travel in movies such as "Come Fly With Me" and the 1962 "That Touch of Mink," starring Cary Grant and Doris Day.

    Delta Air Lines assumed the building and other Pan Am assets when the carrier collapsed in 1991. Renamed Terminal 3, it was in use until May 23, when Delta opened the adjacent $1.4 billion Terminal 4 the next day.

    "This is the last moment of [modernist buildings] being unloved; the tide is turning," said Roberta Lane, the National Trust's New York-based senior field officer. "It's painful to think we might lose this on the cusp of this time when people are starting to get it." The Worldport is the only site in the tristate area on the group's latest endangered list.

    Past efforts to protect the building were unsuccessful. Though determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places in 1988, it was never so designated. By the time the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, requested a 2001 review of the building, it had lost much of its panache, especially in the shadow of the more illustrious TWA terminal designed by Eero Saarinen.

    "They almost ridiculed the architecture, saying it wasn't interesting and it's not what it used to be," said Anthony Stramaglia, an organizer, along with Kalev Savi and Lisa Turano Wojcik, of a group called Save the Worldport. Ms. Wojcik's father, Emanuel Turano, was one of the building's principal designers.

    The trio has petitioned Delta, the Port Authority and the National Parks Service to stay demolition of the site. They hope that what National Trust designation did for the TWA Flight Center—named an endangered site in 2004 and listed on the National Register the next year—will also help the Worldport. The TWA building underwent a $20 million restoration and is slated to become a boutique hotel under proposals being solicited by the Port Authority.

    "We're hoping the announcement will carry us a little further," Mr. Stramaglia said. "I think if there's more public awareness, there would be more backlash about this. It just hasn't hit home. It's an airport—it's nothing [people] think of every day."

    Architectural writer John Morris Dixon, who sits on the board of the local chapter of Docomomo, an organization dedicated to preserving modernist architecture, said that while the canopy was dramatic and romantic, "It was somewhat dated when people started using jet ways. It was a fascinating idea, but no one ever really copied that one."

    Delta spokeswoman Leslie Scott said the Worldport could no longer serve either the airline or its passengers.

    "Space-wise, it really wasn't designed for today's air travel," she said. "You had a small lobby and the queue for security was in a tight space. Terminal 4 is by far a better customer experience by leaps and abounds." She added, "The path we're going down is exactly what we announced. Space at JFK is restricted, and that space is valuable to us operationally."

    Though the Port Authority also restored the Marine Air Terminal at La Guardia and Building 51 at Newark Liberty—a National Historic Landmark that is now used for administration—it is unable to justify adaptive reuse for the Worldport.

    "The old Pan Am Worldport terminal at JFK served this region for more than a half century, but is obsolete for 21st century aviation purposes," a Port Authority spokesman said. "JFK is a land-constrained airport and the space where the Worldport is located cannot be set aside for preservation because it is needed for other aviation uses that will lead to job creation and economic growth."

    If efforts fail to prevent the terminal's destruction, preservationists hope for restoration of a Worldport relic—the Zodiac Screen of bronze sculptures by Milton Hebald. The bas-relief work, once one of the largest sculptural pieces in the world, is now in Port Authority storage.

    Alex Herrera, a technical director at the New York Landmarks Conservancy, who has worked on the TWA restoration, says that while it might be too late to save the Worldport building, displaying the bronzes would provide a fitting memory.

    "The screen and the TWA terminal would be the two iconic relics of the airport in its early heyday," he said. "I think those two items will be real contributions to the airport, which needs something in terms of an aesthetic or visual uplift."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection

  14. #59

    Default

    According to this article, it's definite.


    More Than Just ‘Endangered,’ a J.F.K. Terminal Is to Be Demolished
    Building Blocks June 20, 2013, 2:44 pm

    By DAVID W. DUNLAPDavid W. Dunlap/The New York Times Terminal 3 at Kennedy International Airport, which is to be torn down, was once known as the Worldport. But it has also been likened to a flying saucer.


    The roof of the Pan Am Worldport was cantilevered to protect passengers from rain and snow.
    Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton

    Workers are now preparing the 53-year-old terminal for demolition.
    David W. Dunlap/The New York Times


    It is still possible, in certain light, to conjure the glamour of international jet travel in the 1960s.
    Anthony Stramaglia/Save the Worldport


    Today, views of the terminal are blocked by the AirTrain viaduct and station.
    David W. Dunlap/The New York Times


    The cables used to support the cantilevered roof almost look like small suspension bridges.
    David W. Dunlap/The New York Times


    The Port Authority has preserved and restored Eero Saarinen's T.W.A. Flight Center.
    David W. Dunlap/The New York Times


    But the National Airlines Sundrome, by I. M. Pei & Partners, was demolished in 2011.
    David W. Dunlap/The New York Times



    Now departing from Kennedy International Airport: the Pan Am flying saucer.

    With its elliptical four-acre parasol roof — cantilevered so far out that it almost seemed to be floating over the tarmac — Terminal 3 has long been a distinctive remnant of early jet travel and an emblem of Pan American World Airways, once considered the most glamorous American carrier (when “glamour” and “airline” could occupy the same sentence without irony). Pan Am called it the Worldport. Almost everyone else thought of it as a flying saucer.

    By extending the roof 114 feet out from the terminal, through a cable system that made the top of the building look like an ensemble of small suspension bridges, Pan Am’s architects sought to protect passengers from the rain and snow. “It will eliminate the huddled dash through bad weather by extending the roof like a huge oblong umbrella over the aircraft parking space,” Richard Witkin wrote in The New York Times in 1957 as he described the plan.

    Pan Am went under in 1991. Delta Air Lines then began using the Worldport. Last month, Delta decamped to greatly expanded space in Terminal 4 and closed Terminal 3 for good, after 53 years of service.
    Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the National Trust for Historic Preservation placed the terminal on its annual roster of America’s 11 Most Endangered Places, released Wednesday, saying that the building “symbolizes America’s entry into the Jet Age.”
    While the trust has no regulatory or legal power to impede demolition, its national imprimatur is often used by local preservationists to bolster their attempts at persuasion.
    In the case of Terminal 3, however, “endangered” may be an understatement. “Doomed” is more like it.

    Despite the existence of an impassioned grass-roots Save the Worldport campaign and an online petition that has attracted more than 3,000 supporters, there seems to be no cosmic scale on which the structure’s fate rests, capable of tipping one way or another.
    Delta has every intention of demolishing Terminal 3. Workers are already removing asbestos and lead paint to prepare it for wrecking crews.

    By 2015, the airline plans to have turned the site into a parking zone for aircraft that cannot be accommodated or are not needed at the gates of Terminals 2 and 4, both of which are used by Delta. As it is, idle aircraft must be towed across the airport, said Leslie P. Scott, a spokeswoman for Delta. “This aircraft parking will drive a lot of operational efficiencies for us,” she said. “Planes will get to the gates quicker.”
    The National Trust’s suggestion to incorporate the terminal into a connecting passageway between Terminals 2 and 4 has been rendered moot by Delta’s abandonment of the connector plan, Ms. Scott said.
    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and runs Kennedy, could conceivably interfere with Delta’s plans. But it is a very willing partner in the redevelopment.
    “The old Pan Am Worldport terminal at J.F.K. served this region for more than a half century, but is obsolete for 21st-century aviation purposes,” said Ron Marsico, a spokesman for the authority. “Unfortunately, J.F.K. is a land-constrained airport, and the space where Worldport is located cannot be set aside for preservation because it is needed for other aviation uses that will lead to job creation and economic growth.”
    Anthony Stramaglia/Save the Worldport
    In fact, the authority was persuaded more than a decade ago — sometimes kicking, if not screaming — to preserve and restore Eero Saarinen’s T.W.A. Flight Center, which is a landmark in every sense, including officially. Today, its low-slung, bird-winged profile is easily the most memorable work of architecture in the airport complex. However, it has not returned to full-time use. Mr. Marsico said the authority was negotiating with a hotelier.
    The former National Airlines Sundrome, by I. M. Pei & Partners, was torn down in 2011. Protests were lodged, but no serious preservation effort was made. The building may have been too austere to engender the kind of affectionate embrace that Kalev Savi, Anthony Stramaglia and Lisa Turano Wojcik have thrown around Worldport in their Quixotic campaign to save it.
    Mr. Savi’s mother worked for Pan Am, as he did part-time when he was in college. Mr. Stramaglia flew Pan Am frequently as a youth. And Ms. Wojcik’s father, Emanuel N. Turano of Ives, Turano & Gardner, was one of the architects of the Worldport, along with Walter Prokosch of Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton.
    They professed encouragement on Wednesday.
    “A year or so ago, Anthony and I felt like we were the only two people in the world who seemed to care that the flying saucer building was going to be demolished,” Mr. Savi wrote in an e-mail. “This announcement of having made the most endangered 11 sites in America list for 2013 is validation by the U.S.A.’s leading historical preservation society that the claims we have been making are true.”
    Mr. Stramaglia said he hoped to inspire interest in a building that was designed to be a showcase. “Public apathy toward mundane things like air terminals these days, especially in today’s world,” he wrote, “make a trip to the airport more like a trip to the dentist.”
    David W. Dunlap/The New York Times

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ished/?hp&_r=0
    Last edited by mariab; June 20th, 2013 at 11:38 PM.

  15. #60
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,478

    Default

    ^ Very sad .


    Photos: A Look Back At JFK's Soon-To-Be Extinct Terminal 3

    By Jen Carlson


    The Flying Saucer(via Save Pan Am Worldport)



    Pan Am's (and later Delta's) flying saucer building, aka Terminal 3 or the Worldport Terminal at JFK Airport, has long been on the chopping block, set to meet its end in 2015. But despite its almost certain demise, the National Trust for Historic Preservation named it one of the 11 most endangered historic places, giving some hope that it may stick around. The NY Times countered this with, basically, an obituary. But the NTHS says there is an alternative to demolishing the building, including a plan to demolish the south concourse instead and use building as a connecting facility between Terminals Two and Four—it could be a terminal, or it could house restaurants, a museum, etc.

    While we don't need to engrave the tombstone yet, it couldn't hurt to look back at The Worldport Terminal's glory days, which started when it opened in 1960—on June 3rd of that year, The NY Times wrote, "Idlewild Skyline Gets An Addition; New Pan Am Terminal Looks Like Parasol to Motorists Approaching Airport." They called it a "showpiece."

    http://gothamist.com/2013/06/21/a_lo..._e.php#photo-1

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. JFK Airport Terminal 5 - by Eero Saarinen | Renovation & Expansion - by gensler
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: April 16th, 2015, 01:43 AM
  2. Replies: 140
    Last Post: July 20th, 2013, 05:57 PM
  3. West Midtown Ferry Terminal on Pier 79
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 12th, 2005, 01:23 AM
  4. A triplex in Trump International for sale
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 18th, 2005, 08:49 AM
  5. Future of Flushing Airport Site
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 13th, 2004, 08:15 PM

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