SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
George Haikalis writes in the NYT that last week, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey put off, yet again, deciding between two proposals for a nearly $4 billion project to rehabilitate the dilapidated Central Terminal Building at La Guardia Airport. But piling billions of taxpayer dollars into upgrading La Guardia, which has been likened to an experience “in a third world country," won’t solve its fundamental problems. "It can’t easily expand," says Haikalis. "Its two runways and four terminals are surrounded on three sides by water, making landing difficult and hazardous. Parking is a nightmare."
There are precedents for replacing airports close to the center city with modern, more outlying airports. Hong Kong and Denver are two examples; Berlin will soon follow suit. With the consolidation of the major United States airlines and the sluggishness in the global economy, the much larger Kennedy and Newark airports could accommodate La Guardia’s passenger load, by adding more frequent service and using larger aircraft, if the F.A.A. were to lift the caps on the number of flights allowed there. Kennedy, with its two sets of parallel runways, could handle many more flights, particularly as new air-traffic control technology is introduced in the next few years. The money budgeted for the La Guardia upgrades would be better used to create a long-proposed one-ride express-rail link between Manhattan and J.F.K., by reviving a long-disused, 3.5-mile stretch of track in central Queens and completing the modernization of the terminals at Kennedy. "By avoiding the costly replacement of outmoded terminals at La Guardia and by creating a new express rail link and upgrading terminals at Kennedy, the increased economic activity could more than make up for the lost jobs," concludes Haikalis. "New York’s importance to America’s economy demands a first world vision to shutter this third world airport."
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 09 2015, @10:00PM
As a German, I couldn't do other than laugh at that claim.
It was originally planned to open the new airport in 2011. The current plan, after several announced but later retracted opening dates, is to open it in 2017. But it's already likely that this date will have to be revised as well.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Saturday May 09 2015, @10:25PM
The thing that's really laughable, though, is that Berlin Tegel, the old airport they're thinking of shutting down, is much nicer and easier to move through than JFK.
Basically, any American who travels to Europe and isn't embarrassed by the state of American infrastructure is not paying attention.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 09 2015, @11:22PM
Is the new Berlin airport better? or perhaps rationally better but also sterile?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday May 11 2015, @12:34AM
No
With tegal I'm off the plane (ex. London, so immigration included) and in a taxi within 90 seconds, my best was 52. From there i get to my office down town in 20 minutes.
With SXF, which is at the same place as Bramdenburg will be, it's 45 minutes to my office, on top of at least 10 minutes plane to taxi. The train is even longer.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 11 2015, @01:06AM
I guess cities will be rated on the efficiency of their airports? Ie why make regular business where a lot of time and cognition is wasted?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday May 11 2015, @09:24AM
Unlikely given how airlines rely on the cheap seats to put on the business flights. Airports today are shopping malls with planes getting in the way. From Manchester to Brussels, Heathrow to Sydney, the walk to the gate is artificially extended to force you to walk (run) thought duty free.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 11 2015, @05:06PM
Time for that portable motor driven transport ;)
But one can still select which cities to prefer as destination.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday May 11 2015, @08:43PM
I'm not sure why anyone would go to Phoenix unless they had business on Phoenix, and therefore had to go. Same would apply to Essen, or Mumbai, or Johannesburg, or Abuja. Most places really - you go despite the city (and airport), not because of it.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 11 2015, @11:48PM
Suppose you have two offers which for practical purposes are in practice equal. One in a city with an efficient airport and rapid transport. The other one in a city with messy and rundown airport with transport that includes a high risk of robbery. And the government is corrupt. Hard choice?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday May 12 2015, @09:26AM
But you're not going to have equal choices where the airport is the only decision. More likely would be deciding to fly to LgA, JFK or EWR, rather than flying to NYC, BOs or WAS. Even then the choice comes more down to schedule and end-end journey time rather than minor annoyances. I've never had an issue on a cab from JFK to be honest, but I rarely fly out of New York (I usually get the train down to Washington)
I prefer MaN t3 to t1, but I'd rather suffer 30 mins in t1 and fly finnair via Helsinki than 20 mins in t3 and fly Ba via Heathrow. I'd rather turn up 40 minutes earlier than Ba and take a direct easyjet flight to SXF than transfer at Heathrow on Ba but go to txl. In an ideal would I'd take a direct LH flight from t3 to TXL, but the world isn't ideal.