Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Saturday May 09 2015, @08:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the Bella-notta-Fiorello dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday May 11 2015, @12:34AM

    by isostatic (365) on Monday May 11 2015, @12:34AM (#181270) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 11 2015, @01:06AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday May 11 2015, @01:06AM (#181283) Journal

    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

      by isostatic (365) on Monday May 11 2015, @09:24AM (#181416) Journal

      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

        by kaszz (4211) on Monday May 11 2015, @05:06PM (#181539) Journal

        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

          by isostatic (365) on Monday May 11 2015, @08:43PM (#181631) Journal

          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

            by kaszz (4211) on Monday May 11 2015, @11:48PM (#181705) Journal

            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

              by isostatic (365) on Tuesday May 12 2015, @09:26AM (#181882) Journal

              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.