Big Plan to Turn LaGuardia Into A Major International Airport By Expanding Into The Bronx and Taking Over Rikers Island (bankrupt, train)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh come on, now. You're talking about an airport that's at sea level and will never ever see anything like a 747 or A380. Even if it did, length like that at 0' MSL is simply overkill and would never be needed.
??? Its not overkill, but pretty standard in modern airports. I was at ICN recently, which is a modern airport sitting on its own separate island, pretty much at sea level, it has 12,000-13,000 ft runways. Another modern airport, DXB, at 70ft elevation has runways of almost 15,000 ft (although this one can be hot). HKG, at sea level, 12,500ft runways, they are thinking of expanding with land reclamation into the water as well. LGA with 9,000ft runways is not overkill at all, unless you are talking about some podunk fishing village airport nowadays.
Probably not. LGA has the perimeter rule in effect which means airlines cannot fly to destinations greater than 1,500 miles away.
The aerodynamics of large widebody aircraft make those kinds of routes generally unfavorable. And besides that, consumers have demonstrated time and time again they would prefer to have many departures throughout the day on smaller regional aircraft than one or two departure choices on a large aircraft.
The accident was due to runway contamination, not runway length.
Oh come on, now. You're talking about an airport that's at sea level and will never ever see anything like a 747 or A380. Even if it did, length like that at 0' MSL is simply overkill and would never be needed.
LGA needs some work. What that article proposes is vastly unnecessary overkill. JFK should remain the international hub airport.
What I would do with LGA is the following.
- Fill in the seaplane basin near the Marine Air Terminal. Run that landfill to the line of the Rikers Island bridge Replace that bridge with a tunnel through the new landfill. The end fo the landfill would run diagonally north, so that it would allow at least a 1000' extension to the existing runway 13-31. It would not create a land link to Rikers.
- Build another landfill on the east end of the airfield extending 13-31 500' in that direction, and expanding diagonally southeast.
- Decommission runway 4-22
- Build a new terminal complex in the southwest corner of the airport using the area recovered from the landfill over to the south end of 4-22.
- Demolish all the old terminal complexes.
- Extend the existing 13-31 to 9,000'
- Build another runway parallel to and south of 13-31. This will be 10,000'
- Build a spur off the N line right before the Astoria Blvd station that would run over the GCP, and right to the terminal.
When done, LGA will run on two parallel runways each significantly longer than the existing runways. Being parallel they will not have the intersection interference they have now, so LGAs normal rate of operations would likely double. There are some conditions where that lack of a crosswind runway will slow operations. But given how many airports now operate with only parallel runways, this will be a fairly minor problem. Also with the longer runways, larger aircraft can be used on longer routes.
that's not the point. it is one thing if you purchase a home under a flightpath and know about it, as many did, BUT its another when you didnt, and then years later the FAA changes the flight paths over your home.
Not fair or right. One thing to hear a plane fly overhead, fine, but when its every 30 seconds all day long, that is a problem, and constitutes noise pollution. The airports were built on the water for a reason, NOT to fly over residential neighborhoods.
for decades LGA had its flight paths and everyone was happy, but since 2012 when nextgen came in and disrupted all our lives, well thats is a different thing. The public was not aware of this change....and so on. I live in bath beach at the gravesend bay, CLEAR across the land, I shouldnt have to hear planes fly over my neighborhood every 30 seconds all day every day for the rest of my life, and thousands feel the same way i do.
And thousands out of 8 milmion people will have no choice but to deal with the air routes, plain and simple.
LGA needs some work. What that article proposes is vastly unnecessary overkill. JFK should remain the international hub airport.
What I would do with LGA is the following.
- Fill in the seaplane basin near the Marine Air Terminal. Run that landfill to the line of the Rikers Island bridge Replace that bridge with a tunnel through the new landfill. The end fo the landfill would run diagonally north, so that it would allow at least a 1000' extension to the existing runway 13-31. It would not create a land link to Rikers.
- Build another landfill on the east end of the airfield extending 13-31 500' in that direction, and expanding diagonally southeast.
- Decommission runway 4-22
- Build a new terminal complex in the southwest corner of the airport using the area recovered from the landfill over to the south end of 4-22.
- Demolish all the old terminal complexes.
- Extend the existing 13-31 to 9,000'
- Build another runway parallel to and south of 13-31. This will be 10,000'
- Build a spur off the N line right before the Astoria Blvd station that would run over the GCP, and right to the terminal.
When done, LGA will run on two parallel runways each significantly longer than the existing runways. Being parallel they will not have the intersection interference they have now, so LGAs normal rate of operations would likely double. There are some conditions where that lack of a crosswind runway will slow operations. But given how many airports now operate with only parallel runways, this will be a fairly minor problem. Also with the longer runways, larger aircraft can be used on longer routes.
So...did you submit this plan to the Governor's design competition?
LGA needs some work. What that article proposes is vastly unnecessary overkill. JFK should remain the international hub airport.
What I would do with LGA is the following.
- Fill in the seaplane basin near the Marine Air Terminal. Run that landfill to the line of the Rikers Island bridge Replace that bridge with a tunnel through the new landfill. The end fo the landfill would run diagonally north, so that it would allow at least a 1000' extension to the existing runway 13-31. It would not create a land link to Rikers.
- Build another landfill on the east end of the airfield extending 13-31 500' in that direction, and expanding diagonally southeast.
- Decommission runway 4-22
- Build a new terminal complex in the southwest corner of the airport using the area recovered from the landfill over to the south end of 4-22.
- Demolish all the old terminal complexes.
- Extend the existing 13-31 to 9,000'
- Build another runway parallel to and south of 13-31. This will be 10,000'
- Build a spur off the N line right before the Astoria Blvd station that would run over the GCP, and right to the terminal.
When done, LGA will run on two parallel runways each significantly longer than the existing runways. Being parallel they will not have the intersection interference they have now, so LGAs normal rate of operations would likely double. There are some conditions where that lack of a crosswind runway will slow operations. But given how many airports now operate with only parallel runways, this will be a fairly minor problem. Also with the longer runways, larger aircraft can be used on longer routes.
Serious question: by the time any major plans could be built and used literally decades would pass. Wouldn't the rise in sea level screw up these plans? I can hardly imagine getting things passed through if they cost a bunch of extra money to account for sea level change that plenty of people, especially politicians, do not acknowledge as a real future consideration. To me it sounds like any expansion is doomed to never be completed, kind of like the 2nd Ave subway line. The city is ridiculous with drawing out repairs and construction. It is really upsetting, because NYC isn't likely to remain a power hub if it doesn't get its act together regarding infrastructure.
I wish they would do the long abandoned extension of 287 to LI (with train connection too.) That would help, but it'll never happen. Same with more subway connections between Queens and Brooklyn or with Jersey and Staten Island for that matter.
LGA needs some work. What that article proposes is vastly unnecessary overkill. JFK should remain the international hub airport.
What I would do with LGA is the following.
- Fill in the seaplane basin near the Marine Air Terminal. Run that landfill to the line of the Rikers Island bridge Replace that bridge with a tunnel through the new landfill. The end fo the landfill would run diagonally north, so that it would allow at least a 1000' extension to the existing runway 13-31. It would not create a land link to Rikers.
- Build another landfill on the east end of the airfield extending 13-31 500' in that direction, and expanding diagonally southeast.
- Decommission runway 4-22
- Build a new terminal complex in the southwest corner of the airport using the area recovered from the landfill over to the south end of 4-22.
- Demolish all the old terminal complexes.
- Extend the existing 13-31 to 9,000'
- Build another runway parallel to and south of 13-31. This will be 10,000'
- Build a spur off the N line right before the Astoria Blvd station that would run over the GCP, and right to the terminal.
When done, LGA will run on two parallel runways each significantly longer than the existing runways. Being parallel they will not have the intersection interference they have now, so LGAs normal rate of operations would likely double. There are some conditions where that lack of a crosswind runway will slow operations. But given how many airports now operate with only parallel runways, this will be a fairly minor problem. Also with the longer runways, larger aircraft can be used on longer routes.
I agree with much of your proposal. However, you cannot spur off the N Line before Astoria Blvd for two reasons. The Astoria Line is part of the B division, and as such its large trains require a huge turning radius (just compare the turning radius between the east bound 7 train approach at queens borough plaza, and the west bound N train approach at queens borough plaza.) 31 Street at Astoria Blvd had no room for such a turning radius. And even if were to acquire all the land necessary between 30th Ave and astoria Blvd, you still have the problem that even if you build an expensive flying junction, you're going to severely limit the number of trains that can terminate at Ditmars BLVD, which the Astoria Line's busiest station by far. The only logical connection is to extend the elevated line 2 blocks past ditmars and bury it at the Con Ed plant.
No more than it would screw up LGA as it sits. In point of fact, it wouldn't be too difficult to add perimeter dikes to all the landfill, and surround LGA. And flood prevention measures could be worked into the project.
Funny you mention the cross sound link. I another plan for another airport expansion that would use that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alba!ny
Serious question: by the time any major plans could be built and used literally decades would pass. Wouldn't the rise in sea level screw up these plans? I can hardly imagine getting things passed through if they cost a bunch of extra money to account for sea level change that plenty of people, especially politicians, do not acknowledge as a real future consideration. To me it sounds like any expansion is doomed to never be completed, kind of like the 2nd Ave subway line. The city is ridiculous with drawing out repairs and construction. It is really upsetting, because NYC isn't likely to remain a power hub if it doesn't get its act together regarding infrastructure.
I wish they would do the long abandoned extension of 287 to LI (with train connection too.) That would help, but it'll never happen. Same with more subway connections between Queens and Brooklyn or with Jersey and Staten Island for that matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
