HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2014, 11:56 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
Yeah. It take substantial effort to get a project like the Astoria cove through. It would be easier and more cost efficient to develop intercontinental travel with work holes than it would be to get elevated train service to LGA.

Honestly, burying the entire N line from queensboro is the best bet, but that would require a competent, not corrupt MTA and God knows that isn't in the cards for us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2014, 5:57 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Modern jets can deal with significant crosswind. There are any number of major airports that function very well without crosswind runways (ATL, LAX, LHR, CDG, MUC, SEA, just off the top of my head.) Are the wind issues in NYC significantly different than these cities?

At both JFK and LGA, the crossing runways limit their capacity. And the Runway 4 approach at LGA interferes with Runway 31 departures at JFK. That entanglement needs to be eliminated. If they both went all parallel, they'd have a huge increase in capacity. Also, I wouldn't so much add runways as reorient them. I'd keep LGA two runways, but they'd both be 13-31s (I do have a wacky plan to add a third 13-31 runway, but even I think this is a bit nuts). JFK would have 4 13-31s (two would probably be designated as 12-30.) Whatever slowdowns there might be from crosswind issues, would be much smaller than the gains from being able to use all runways simultaneously. JFK would go from 60 operations an hour to 120. Also JFK could probably keep one crosswinder, and maybe add a second somewhere, if really necessary. And, especially at JFK, closing one of the crosswinders (4L-22R), would open up a lot of ground for remote concourse development.
I've talked to various people on forums who know about JFK, and they tell me that without the crosswind runways, capacity would be decreased. the RPA report shows that the two crosswind runways are kept with all options. Anyway, even if they could get around it, adding another two 13s is not doable because 1) there isn't the room because the terminal area is set, and 2) the bay can't be touched.

There is no point in adding another 31/13 on the north side of the field because they can't take off on 31R anyway because LaGuardia's airspace is right there. The airspace is so close to JFK that 22R is hardly used for landings due to the proximity of LGA 13 takeoffs. That would be a poor cost/benefit project.

Last edited by aquablue; Nov 14, 2014 at 6:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2014, 7:23 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
Yeah. It take substantial effort to get a project like the Astoria cove through. It would be easier and more cost efficient to develop intercontinental travel with work holes than it would be to get elevated train service to LGA.

Honestly, burying the entire N line from queensboro is the best bet, but that would require a competent, not corrupt MTA and God knows that isn't in the cards for us.
Best practical option, but not the preferred option, would be an airtrain-style operation from the LIRR station at Woodside or somewhere else to LGA using elevated tracks that wouldn't pass directly through a neighborhood but instead would follow highways. It would be far better than nothing or a bus. I think something needs to be done at LGA along those lines, is is a bit embarrassing for NY that it's closest airport to the central CBD has no rail connection and is surrounded by traffic clogged roads..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2014, 12:33 AM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 82
If you read the RPA report, the area of the bay adjacent to the airport is already a dead zone. It could probably be used. There's no wetland/habitat there. A landfill big enough to put a southside 10,000' 13-31 could be pushed through. And if you get rid of the 4-22 at LGA, that block on the northside 13-31 is removed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
I've talked to various people on forums who know about JFK, and they tell me that without the crosswind runways, capacity would be decreased. the RPA report shows that the two crosswind runways are kept with all options. Anyway, even if they could get around it, adding another two 13s is not doable because 1) there isn't the room because the terminal area is set, and 2) the bay can't be touched.

There is no point in adding another 31/13 on the north side of the field because they can't take off on 31R anyway because LaGuardia's airspace is right there. The airspace is so close to JFK that 22R is hardly used for landings due to the proximity of LGA 13 takeoffs. That would be a poor cost/benefit project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 2:42 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
If you read the RPA report, the area of the bay adjacent to the airport is already a dead zone. It could probably be used. There's no wetland/habitat there. A landfill big enough to put a southside 10,000' 13-31 could be pushed through. And if you get rid of the 4-22 at LGA, that block on the northside 13-31 is removed.
Yes, I read it. I also read various rebuttals to that by environmentalists who are dead set against it.

The reason they can't take off from 31R is because of LGA, especially the expressway visual landing to runway 31 and the takeoff from runway 13 too, not just the approaches to the other runway. The LGA airspace is very close to where the 31's are. So, just eliminating the 4-22 at LGA wouldn't solve that issue I don't think.

Last edited by aquablue; Nov 17, 2014 at 3:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 3:36 AM
toxteth o'grady's Avatar
toxteth o'grady toxteth o'grady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
A lot of the airspace around NYC is restricted, mostly for military use. They need to open this up. They also need to redesign the ATC system to have more capacity.

Another problem is all the crossing runways (along with crossing approaches.) I'd put LGA and JFK only on the 13-31 orientation, which would have the effect of streamlining the approaches and departures. I'd love to do the same for EWR, but that just isn't happening (even in my imagination.)
First, the military restrictions are less than you imagined; all of it is the conflicts between the three airports, plus Teterboro. They have opened up the airspace quite a bit as a result of the Metroplex plan that was one of the elements of NextGen, but there is no real way to detangle the three airports from each other.

And having the runways go only in one direction isn't happening, as it would reduce rather than increase capacity at the three airports. LGA operates both runways at the same time, and Kennedy uses all four when possible. They're doing about all they can do safely.
__________________
"This will be good for the city"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 3:38 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by toxteth o'grady View Post
First, the military restrictions are less than you imagined; all of it is the conflicts between the three airports, plus Teterboro. They have opened up the airspace quite a bit as a result of the Metroplex plan that was one of the elements of NextGen, but there is no real way to detangle the three airports from each other.

And having the runways go only in one direction isn't happening, as it would reduce rather than increase capacity at the three airports. LGA operates both runways at the same time, and Kennedy uses all four when possible. They're doing about all they can do safely.
I don't think JFK ever uses 4 at a time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 10:41 PM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 82
I'd have to go back and look again, but I distinctly remember the reason LGA blocks takeoffs on the 31 orientation at JFK is the Runway 4 approach. If you think about it, that make perfect sense, as these orientations cross (as they do on the ground with the existing runways. I don't remember anything about any 13/31 activity at LGA affecting 13/31 activity at JFK.

In point of fact, for this to happen, there'd have to be federal funding involved. That would require legislation, if that can passed, it could probably include a piece to invalidate an environmental challenge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Yes, I read it. I also read various rebuttals to that by environmentalists who are dead set against it.

The reason they can't take off from 31R is because of LGA, especially the expressway visual landing to runway 31 and the takeoff from runway 13 too, not just the approaches to the other runway. The LGA airspace is very close to where the 31's are. So, just eliminating the 4-22 at LGA wouldn't solve that issue I don't think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 12:58 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
I'd have to go back and look again, but I distinctly remember the reason LGA blocks takeoffs on the 31 orientation at JFK is the Runway 4 approach. If you think about it, that make perfect sense, as these orientations cross (as they do on the ground with the existing runways. I don't remember anything about any 13/31 activity at LGA affecting 13/31 activity at JFK.

In point of fact, for this to happen, there'd have to be federal funding involved. That would require legislation, if that can passed, it could probably include a piece to invalidate an environmental challenge.
If you look at the map, the arrival to runway 31 (visual expressway) is very close to JFK airspace, and runway 31 straight out takeoffs would come dangerously close to the arrival path to LGA. Runawy 4 isn't even used very much for landings and it still isn't allowed to have a departure of 31R.

There would be a huge fight and years of courtroom battles. A more efficient solution would be to reconfigure the terminals at JFK and build another runway on existing land. The airfield is bigger than LAX and that has 4 runways in parallel. JFK is just poorly configured and the use of space is poor.

Last edited by aquablue; Nov 18, 2014 at 1:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 11:08 PM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 82
We do agree on that. But reconfiguring the terminal block properly would be extremely difficult while trying to keep the airport open at anything like it's normal capacity. Adding/reconfiguring runways would be a more easily accomplished without disrupting operation. This would be especially true if some landfill could be added on the southern edge of the airfield.

One thing I did notice in the RPA report is that the location of downtown Manhattan, and it's skyscrapers are an issue with approaches on the 13 axis. I hadn't thought of this. This could also be solved, but it would require rotating the axis of the 13-31s 20-25 degrees counter clockwise. This would also help disentangle JFK from LGA. I played with this a little on Google Earth, it's possible do to this, and put four parallel runways on that axis. It would require the above mentioned landfill. This puts the axis of all the runways over the harbor, not Manhattan. It also puts them pretty much right over the EWR airfield and not it's approaches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
JFK is just poorly configured and the use of space is poor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2014, 2:11 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,828
On a side note, one of the NY airports will get a new terminal. Good old Newark.

Renderings and info: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3038636/...?partner=rss#1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2014, 7:53 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
On a side note, one of the NY airports will get a new terminal. Good old Newark.

Renderings and info: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3038636/...?partner=rss#1
It's a nice renovation, but the focus on celebrity chefs and strange decor doesn't really intrigue me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2014, 7:56 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
We do agree on that. But reconfiguring the terminal block properly would be extremely difficult while trying to keep the airport open at anything like it's normal capacity. Adding/reconfiguring runways would be a more easily accomplished without disrupting operation. This would be especially true if some landfill could be added on the southern edge of the airfield.

One thing I did notice in the RPA report is that the location of downtown Manhattan, and it's skyscrapers are an issue with approaches on the 13 axis. I hadn't thought of this. This could also be solved, but it would require rotating the axis of the 13-31s 20-25 degrees counter clockwise. This would also help disentangle JFK from LGA. I played with this a little on Google Earth, it's possible do to this, and put four parallel runways on that axis. It would require the above mentioned landfill. This puts the axis of all the runways over the harbor, not Manhattan. It also puts them pretty much right over the EWR airfield and not it's approaches.
Yeah, of course if would be very difficult. Yet, Given the difficulty of fighting a protracted environmental battle though today, it could be the only scenario left someday. The chances of another runway are remote anyway for a long time, might as well talk about something else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2014, 11:08 PM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 82
Going big picture, there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the NYC airports. This has gotten up to the highest level of NYS politics (Cuomo has made it an issue), and it's getting some national exposure. LGA is almost a side issue, but if JFK's capacity constraints impact it's ability to stay viable as a domestic/international hub, it could have serious implications for the city's economy. That could have the effect of overcoming the political problems impeding it's expansion.

And, of course, there would be a lot of money to be made for a lot of companies that can exert a lot of political influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Yeah, of course if would be very difficult. Yet, Given the difficulty of fighting a protracted environmental battle though today, it could be the only scenario left someday. The chances of another runway are remote anyway for a long time, might as well talk about something else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2014, 4:36 AM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
I agree. put Rikers in the ocean and then build a new airport in Central Park too for a380 planes too while your at it.
Hey! I like idea. I think old Rikers facility will be relocate to near the ocean. This is where they used to be. I think old prison will be demolish and they will sent all inmates to new correctional facility. It's time to built a new prison.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2014, 9:47 PM
Perklol's Avatar
Perklol Perklol is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Going big picture, there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the NYC airports. This has gotten up to the highest level of NYS politics (Cuomo has made it an issue), and it's getting some national exposure. LGA is almost a side issue, but if JFK's capacity constraints impact it's ability to stay viable as a domestic/international hub, it could have serious implications for the city's economy. That could have the effect of overcoming the political problems impeding it's expansion.

And, of course, there would be a lot of money to be made for a lot of companies that can exert a lot of political influence.
Its nice that he focused his attention to airports a few months before election day but talk is cheap, you know?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 9:41 PM
sparkling's Avatar
sparkling sparkling is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 765
Processes Started to Redevelop LaGuardia, JFK and Republic Airports

Quote:
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will host international design competitions to generate a vision on how to transform and modernize the New York Airports for the 21st Century. These competitions invite aviation experts, architects, designers, planners and others to submit visionary Master Plans for LaGuardia and/or John F. Kennedy International Airports that create 21st Century, state-of-the-art airports. The Master Plans should be bold and comprehensive, completely re-envisioning the passenger experience beyond 2050 including how passengers and their baggage get to, from and around the airports, while providing world-class customer service facilities and amenities. An Advisory Panel, selected by the Governor, will make recommendations to the Port Authority Board of Commissioners with respect to the Master Plan submissions. More information on these competitions is available here.

Both the LaGuardia and JFK Master Plan Design Competitions will commence on December 2, 2014, with final submissions due January 30, 2015. The Port Authority requests that contestants provide a Letter of Intent to register as a contestant by December 15, 2014. Initial Draft Submissions, including images of the airport as proposed to be modernized, are due on December 31, 2014. If a contestant does not provide an Initial Draft Submission by the December 31 deadline, their proposal will not be considered.

Following the Final Submission date of January 30, three finalists will be identified to make public presentations and compete for the Design Prize in the Master Plan Competition. The three selected plans will present their final submissions to the Governor and the Port Authority after finalists have been announced. Each of these finalists will receive up to $500,000 to further develop their plan for final consideration.

With 112.5 million passengers in 2013, the Port Authority airport system is the largest in the United States. LGA and JFK account for 27 million and 50.4 million passengers, respectively. These airports are also vital economic engines, employing nearly 50,000 people and generating $53 billion in economic activity each year.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/gov...k-republic-and
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 4:33 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,828
Cuomo proposes $450M AirTrain to LaGuardia Airport

Quote:
LaGuardia Airport has long been an island unto itself, lacking any rail link and contributing to its reputation, immortalized by Vice President Joe Biden, as a Third World facility. But that could change if Gov. Andrew Cuomo has his way.

The governor proposed Tuesday to build a mile-and-a-half AirTrain link along the Grand Central Parkway from the No. 7 subway station at Willets Point to the airport. The project would cost approximately $450 million—about $300 million per mile—and take about five years, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cuomo said after his speech. It would be run by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey in conjunction with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
It is unclear whether the governor wants to put any portion of the state's $5 billion budget surplus toward the project.

"We will construct an AirTrain which will connect with the 7 subway line and the Long Island Rail Road at Willets Point and will take you into LaGuardia," Mr. Cuomo said, adding the project was "long overdue."

During a short Q&A period following his speech to an Association for a Better New York breakfast in midtown, the governor was asked by Stephen Sigmund, executive director of airport-advocacy group Global Gateway Alliance, when the project would start. Mr. Cuomo said he wants to "do it quickly," adding, "We need a couple of months to work up the design."

[...]
====================================
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...uardia-airport
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 8:43 PM
sparkling's Avatar
sparkling sparkling is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 765
Cuomo’s LaGuardia Train Would Be Slower Than Existing Transit

Brad Aaron
Wednesday, January 21, 2015



When it comes to travel times, Cuomo’s proposed LaGuardia AirTrain wouldn’t fare well compared to existing bus and subway service. Graph: The Transport Politic

Quote:
The centerpiece of Governor Cuomo’s second-term transportation agenda for New York City isn’t closing the $15 billion gap in the MTA capital program or taking serious steps to relieve the city from suffocating traffic. Instead, Cuomo’s big idea is a new rail link to LaGuardia Airport.

The idea captivated the Times and distracted from the meat of Cuomo’s proposals, which mostly involve subsidizing highways and bridges so Thruway tolls don’t go up. But it won’t make it any faster to get to LaGuardia without driving, writes Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic.

As difficult as it can be to get to LaGuardia now, Freemark says Cuomo’s AirTrain proposal — which would run along public rights-of-way between the airport and the 7 train at Willets Point — would have longer travel times than existing transit routes from most parts of the city. ”As proposed, the project would do next to nothing to improve access to the airport,” he writes.

Freemark’s analysis, which he summarized in the above chart, finds that the Cuomo AirTrain would offer no improvement over current transit service for travelers heading from the airport to Grand Central, Penn Station (except via the LIRR on Mets game days, when trip times would be slightly faster than today), the World Trade Center, Borough Hall/Jay Street, and Jamaica. Travel times to the South Bronx (Yankee Stadium) would be nearly twice as long as existing options. If you happen to live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Willets Point AirTrain connection, then you might save some time.


Freemark writes:

The truth is that the City and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have significantly improved bus service to LaGuardia over the past few years, introducing an improved limited-stop service from Woodside and Jackson Heights in 2013 and an improved M60 bus from Manhattan in 2014. These services are still slower than they ought to be, but, when combined with the subways they link to, they’re faster than the AirTrain would be, primarily because Mets-Willets point is not only too far east from the center of the region’s population but also because it is not a major interchange point.

Even if a LaGuardia AirTrain did improve airport access, Freemark argues that it shouldn’t take precedence over under-construction rail projects like the Second Avenue Subway, or unrealized proposals like the Nostrand subway spur and the Triboro-Rx, which would serve many more people but have limited appeal to “the economic and social elite.”

“The fact is that the governor of New York State, like most people in elected office, doesn’t take transit much,” Freemark writes, “and can only envision taking a train in one circumstance: When traveling to and from the airport.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 8:59 PM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,098
So the criticism here is that sending the Airtrain east would add to the travel time, so then why don't they send it WEST along the Grand Central Parkway to meet up and connect with the N train in Astoria instead?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.