boestar Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 http://patch.com/new-york/parkslope/breaking-cuomo-give-laguardia-4-billion-makeover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Thanks boestar;I certainly agree with the assessment regarding "what country are we in?", when walking into the terminal.However...Can't find with word "runway" anywhere in the article ;-\They need another thousand feet on both of them.Also, no mention of the same traffic issues, (airborne re Newark, Teterboro, Kennedy, not on the ground, although those need addressing).If we substitute the word "terminal" for "shopping mall"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 All airports should be torn down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 2 more miles of taxiways? How about some more runway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 2 more miles of taxiways? How about some more runway?Guess the "Perimeter Rule" could be why. No need for longer runways for heavier aircraft.http://crankyflier.com/2015/03/02/which-airlines-and-cities-stand-to-win-if-the-laguardia-perimeter-rule-disappears/http://crankyflier.com/2006/09/23/perimeter-rules-no-this-doesnt-involve/And of course one runway has water at both ends, the other ends on the water and is impeded by a rail line (major commuter line) at the other. So it would appear that any expansion would be physically limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan Vetter Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 $4B, 18 months. That is a proposal of Olympic proportions! I have no expertise to comment on how realistic the budget number is but 18 months seems particularly impossible. Even if we set the over/under at 2.5 yrs would you dare take the under? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 $4B, 18 months. That is a proposal of Olympic proportions!I have no expertise to comment on how realistic the budget number is but 18 months seems particularly impossible.Even if we set the over/under at 2.5 yrs would you dare take the under?Zan Vetter: I don't think you read far enough: According to Cuomo, the first half of the construction project will cost $4 billion and is slated to begin in early 2016, following final approval by the Port Authority’s board of commissioners. Here’s the full timeline:The majority of this first half of the project is expected to open to passengers in 2019, with full completion scheduled for approximately 18 months later. The second half of the new unified terminal is expected to be redeveloped by Delta Air Lines, which has indicated strong support for the new vision, and anticipates beginning the redevelopment of its terminals on a parallel track with the LaGuardia Gateway Partners project to complete the new unified airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 It does seem like a big investment into an old airfield (that's what it used to be) with two relatively short runways that will still intersect. Ground holds to get in and out, weather delays. I guess it may give passengers more time to shop in the new terminals/mall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan Vetter Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Sounds better when you read it. Long overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 All airports should be torn down. ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 ?????Flying is the biggest waste and the worst polluter.... and it's mostly for nothing important at all. We will have to stop this kind of nonsense if we're to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Flying is the biggest waste and the worst polluter.... and it's mostly for nothing important at all. We will have to stop this kind of nonsense if we're to survive. Guess you forgot this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Nope. wouldn't have winked after saying that. It be truth near as I can see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 So then I guess you have severed your ties to the industry? Just curious . You might be interested in this: The infamous list of the most polluting industries in the world:Recycling of lead batteriesLead IndustryMinesTanneriesIndustrial discharges and / or municipalIndustrial sitesArtisanal gold miningManufacturesPetrochemistryDrycleanersMost of these highly toxic industries are relocating to developing countries and they produce consumer goods for industrialized countries. Indeed, local people do not know how to protect themselves from the dangers of the industry and do not always have the means.. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Flying is the biggest waste and the worst polluter.... and it's mostly for nothing important at all. We will have to stop this kind of nonsense if we're to survive.So... the industry that fed and clothed your family for the last 35 years is a waste? Mostly for nothing important? I understand you've had a lot of time to think about things during the last 4 years... I dunno what to say. I'm not trying to be mean, and you have a LOT of respect from members of this forum, but... the industrialized world ain't going away. Until it goes away forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 "the industrialized world ain't going away. Until it goes away forever." Humans like to pretend all is well in their world and that the growth model of business and population dynamics is sustainable. Whether one depended on the industry for a living, or not, I think it's fair to note that aviation is responsible for its fair share of the degradation of the planet. Being unquantifiable, I wonder if those that produce lists that rate polluters consider the damage aircraft engines do to the atmosphere / ozone layer when they design the criteria for inclusion on said lists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Defcon: you will likely find the following article of interest. https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/environmental-issues-aviation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Flying is the biggest waste and the worst polluter.... and it's mostly for nothing important at all. We will have to stop this kind of nonsense if we're to survive. People travel. They have for tens of thousands of years. There are many reasons to do so... economics, family, political. Some may seem frivolous, but to the traveller it is important... or else they wouldn't be spending the time or money to do so.In the past when people traveled, they left behind corpses of humans and beasts of burden, not to mention their excrement. If people traveled like they used to, we'd be up to our ears in horse-**bleep**.But we have cars and airplanes. Two people travelling from YYZ to YYC in a car will travel 3400 km.If they are in a Toyota Corolla, they will burn 283 litres of fuel.A 320 holds 140 people. That's 70 carloads.... 20000 litres of fuel by car.A 320 will burn 11000 kg of fuel on that route today ... 13750 litres... saving 6000 litres of fuel. On the way back the aircraft fuel burn would be less. Probably not so much for the car.70 one way trips by car would cover 238000 km... the equivalent of 3 sets of tires.... saving 12 tires. 238000 km is equivalent to 39 oil changes at 4 litres .... saving 155 litres of oil. That's not including oil burn, which could be another 100 litres. Aircraft would burn maybe 2 litres on this route.238000 km is equivalent to 1 car's lifetime..... saving 1 car in the junkyard.Air Canada carries about 3000 people a day from YYZ to YEG, YYC and YVR, et al. 1500 cars per day on the westbound TransCanada Highway just for these three destinations. This would require an additional lane in each direction for the entire route. At about a $million per mile to build a lane of highway (probably more through the Canadian Shield).... $3 billion to build roads. Plus all of the fuel to run the machinery and the environmental damage caused by widening the road... requiring 7000 acres to add 20 feet of width... forget the additional width damaged by construction equipment and runoff into rivers and lakes due to the destabilized earth. Remember, this is just for 3000 people going to YYC, YEG and YVR. ONE WAY. If they took the train, it would require an additional track, at least. Same cost, same acreage, same environmental damage.The 20 or so flights that go out west also carry a lot of cargo. ... add in high NO2 (way worse than CO2 for greenhouse effects) diesel burn for those trucks to replace the cargo on aircraft.For these 3000 passengers (1500 cars) going to YVR, YYC and YEG with an average distance of about 4000 km, they would travel 6 million miles. In Canada, we have a highway fatality rate of 6 people per billion km. One person would die every month. Assumedly, with an accident rate maybe 10 times higher than the death rate and most accidents consuming 2 cars, 20 additional cars would end up in the dump every month... probably more with the higher density of traffic.Remember that all of these numbers are for 3000 people travelling from one departure point to 3 destinations, ONE WAY. Air Canada moved 150,000 people on Friday. Certainly not all on routes of this stage length, but it would be safe to say that all of these environmental savings could be multiplied by about 10, just for Air Canada.So, the next time we think of aviation as an environmentally negative means of travel, consider the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Thanks inchman...I had often wondered about the comparions.I have a friend who occasionally focussed on the same point - that jets leave CO2 in the upper atmosphere, and never let me forget what I did for a living for 35 years. But he and his family completely rely upon cars and ferries for their transportation. I have found the dialogue a one-way one so don't engage anymore as the question is insoluble at that level. It isn't so much as "my turf-your turf" as it is a question of an abiding if not silent respect for one's "choices" in a world in which many such choices are made for one.However, both are "of necessity" in a transportation system and burgeoning, worldwide infrastructure system with a 130-year fossil-fuel history, (now coming to an end) that can't respond to change quickly. But change we must, in all ways. I think of the world's shipping numbers and, given current stories about what washes up on our shorelines from ships as well as the carbon-effluent they drive into the atmosphere, none of us can claim sacred ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 As a percentage of the total global population, how many people will ever actually fly on an aircraft; 15 - 20% maybe? If you look at the mainstay of commercial aviation, moving people to vacation destinations, from the perspective of the guy that'll never fly, aviation is a wasteful arrogant polluting extravagance. On the other side, this guy poops too and will spawn a lot more offspring than his western counterpart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 So many ways by which comparisons may be arrived and (and engaged or given a miss - what is the question that asks the question...?); did flight, now about a millenium old in dream-form and a perhaps two centuries in reality, challenge our native imagination or trigger something in our primordial drive towards trade and commerce? I think a lot of the former and much later, the latter. "Because we can, should we" is an ethical question, not a question of ability or even commerce, both of which seem "pre-wired", but ethics and its softer cousin "morality" are not so, given both the disagreements we see on the subject and the actual "transgressions" of what we collectively choose as "a" (not "the"), moral standard.So "polluting" is contextual in a very real way, which is the reason that George Carlin is so funny - he knows/knew how ironic it all is but never took on "imagination" or "trade and commerce". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Thanks Malcolm. I think I can appreciate the why behind 'Eurocontrol's' placement of noise so high on the scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Thanks Inchman, you'll likely hate me for saying this, but that was hilarious! .... My point is.... very likely to be completely lost in this venue, since it involves notions of airy-fairy rights and wrongs and values and non-values....But yes Conehead, that's what I mean... if another large passenger airplane never left the ground, from this moment on..... I think we'd all be far better off. ..... I also think we'd all be far better off if some amazing disease killed off about 80% of us, or so.... -and sure, pick me, thats alright -.... I'm actually still quite amazed that human beings have allowed their whole planet to be controlled by corporate interests. ....and here I thought some Muslim behaviour was pretty silly! Compared to some of their stone-age idiocy, some of the Western world's "New World Order" looks pretty damned stupid. Lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussD Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Well... umm... hmm... ahh... Perhaps my logic is flawed, but I really can't see how any more than 20% of us would be better off if that were to happen.If I understand Mitch's point it is that your progeny (assuming you are the 20 %) may have an opportunity to pass their genetic material on. Where as if we continue on the current path as, the most destructive species that has ever visited the planet, that chance of that is '0' . If that was his point, I agree 100%. Easy to do when your approaching the 3rd act of life tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tailwheel Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Mitch Cronin said....Flying is the biggest waste and the worst polluter.... and it's mostly for nothing important at all. We will have to stop this kind of nonsense if we're to survive. But yes Conehead, that's what I mean... if another large passenger airplane never left the ground, from this moment on..... I think we'd all be far better off. ..... I also think we'd all be far better off if some amazing disease killed off about 80% of us, or so.... -and sure, pick me, thats alright -.... Hate to see the last aircraft takeoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.