"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. Disdain about the disrepair,
crowds and grubbiness at La
Guardia is so pervasive that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has
likened La Guardia to an experience “in a third world country.”
But piling
billions of taxpayer dollars into upgrading La Guardia, which opened in 1939,
won’t solve its fundamental problems. It can’t easily expand. Its two runways
and four terminals are surrounded on three sides by water, making landing
difficult and hazardous. Parking is a nightmare.
Moreover, some
50,000 people who live near La Guardia are subjected to a level of noise higher
than the standard deemed acceptable by the Federal Aviation Administration,
according to a 2011 study by the Regional Plan Association. (Another 95,000
living near Kennedy International Airport, also in Queens, and 44,000 living
near Newark Liberty International Airport, are affected as well.)
The popularity
of La Guardia, which serves nearly 30 million passengers a year, is almost entirely
related to proximity — a typical nine-mile trip to Midtown Manhattan can be
done in about 20 minutes during off-peak hours, 10 to 30 minutes less than it
would take to get to Kennedy or Newark. But proximity comes with a price.
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.
Most flights
serving La Guardia already duplicate flights that serve Kennedy and Newark.
Many of these flights are to a relatively small number of regional hubs.
Average loads per flight at La Guardia are only two-thirds those at Kennedy.
Small regional jets, with fewer than 100 seats per plane, make up a little more
than half of La Guardia’s peak-period flights. Airline efficiency would be
improved by concentrating traffic on fewer, larger aircraft, while still
maintaining service to major hubs.
The Port
Authority, which operates all three major airports, is conducting noise
studies, at the request of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. The governor sees an overhaul
of the 1964 central terminal as the centerpiece of a $4 billion plan that would
also include a $450 million AirTrain connection to the No. 7 subway line in
Willets Point, Queens. But he should reconsider.
Mayor Bill de
Blasio should insist that the La Guardia study examine the feasibility of
closing the airport, and that plans for a new terminal be put on hold until the
study is completed.
That study
should take place in the context of a comprehensive aviation plan for the
region, which would examine, among other things: trends in the growth in air
travel; the environmental consequences of applying advanced air-traffic-control
technology; modernizing runway and terminal layouts and improving rail access
at Newark; and finding an appropriate role for secondary airports like Stewart,
Westchester and MacArthur, which currently handle a tiny fraction of the
region’s air passengers.
Stewart, over
60 miles north of Midtown, in Orange County, N.Y., has significant room for
expansion and can accommodate long overseas flights, and strong support exists
for an enhanced rail connection to MacArthur, in the town of Islip, on Long
Island.
New York has
three "bad" airports: JFK, LGA, and NWK. Why not have one good one?
Much of the negative experience is the problems of getting...
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. Currently, passengers
who use the AirTrain to reach Kennedy must transfer from subways or the Long
Island Rail Road. A world-class, direct rail trip to Kennedy could match the
current travel time of even a fast, off-peak car trip to La Guardia.
Finally, think
of what the 680 acres of city-owned land on which La Guardia sits could be used
for. If built at the density of Co-Op City in the Bronx — which has around
15,000 housing units on 338 acres — it could accommodate over 30,000 homes.
Even more could be built in nearby areas, where growth is currently restricted
because of La Guardia’s flight paths. This would contribute significantly
toward Mr. de Blasio’s plan to develop 200,000 units of affordable housing.
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 (not to mention the jobs
that would be created by redeveloping the La Guardia site).
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.
New York’s
importance to America’s economy demands a first world vision to shutter this
third world airport."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.