Originally Posted by BBMW (Post 6805259)

Modern jets can deal with significant crosswind. There are any number of major airports that function very well without crosswind runways (ATL, LAX, LHR, CDG, MUC, SEA, just off the top of my head.) Are the wind issues in NYC significantly different than these cities?

At both JFK and LGA, the crossing runways limit their capacity. And the Runway 4 approach at LGA interferes with Runway 31 departures at JFK. That entanglement needs to be eliminated. If they both went all parallel, they'd have a huge increase in capacity. Also, I wouldn't so much add runways as reorient them. I'd keep LGA two runways, but they'd both be 13-31s (I do have a wacky plan to add a third 13-31 runway, but even I think this is a bit nuts). JFK would have 4 13-31s (two would probably be designated as 12-30.) Whatever slowdowns there might be from crosswind issues, would be much smaller than the gains from being able to use all runways simultaneously. JFK would go from 60 operations an hour to 120. Also JFK could probably keep one crosswinder, and maybe add a second somewhere, if really necessary. And, especially at JFK, closing one of the crosswinders (4L-22R), would open up a lot of ground for remote concourse development.

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6805324)

Yeah. It take substantial effort to get a project like the Astoria cove through. It would be easier and more cost efficient to develop intercontinental travel with work holes than it would be to get elevated train service to LGA.

Honestly, burying the entire N line from queensboro is the best bet, but that would require a competent, not corrupt MTA and God knows that isn't in the cards for us.

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6807647)

I've talked to various people on forums who know about JFK, and they tell me that without the crosswind runways, capacity would be decreased. the RPA report shows that the two crosswind runways are kept with all options. Anyway, even if they could get around it, adding another two 13s is not doable because 1) there isn't the room because the terminal area is set, and 2) the bay can't be touched.

There is no point in adding another 31/13 on the north side of the field because they can't take off on 31R anyway because LaGuardia's airspace is right there. The airspace is so close to JFK that 22R is hardly used for landings due to the proximity of LGA 13 takeoffs. That would be a poor cost/benefit project.

Originally Posted by BBMW (Post 6809130)

If you read the RPA report, the area of the bay adjacent to the airport is already a dead zone. It could probably be used. There's no wetland/habitat there. A landfill big enough to put a southside 10,000' 13-31 could be pushed through. And if you get rid of the 4-22 at LGA, that block on the northside 13-31 is removed.

Originally Posted by BBMW (Post 6803809)

A lot of the airspace around NYC is restricted, mostly for military use. They need to open this up. They also need to redesign the ATC system to have more capacity.

Another problem is all the crossing runways (along with crossing approaches.) I'd put LGA and JFK only on the 13-31 orientation, which would have the effect of streamlining the approaches and departures. I'd love to do the same for EWR, but that just isn't happening (even in my imagination.)

Originally Posted by toxteth o'grady (Post 6810181)

First, the military restrictions are less than you imagined; all of it is the conflicts between the three airports, plus Teterboro. They have opened up the airspace quite a bit as a result of the Metroplex plan that was one of the elements of NextGen, but there is no real way to detangle the three airports from each other.

And having the runways go only in one direction isn't happening, as it would reduce rather than increase capacity at the three airports. LGA operates both runways at the same time, and Kennedy uses all four when possible. They're doing about all they can do safely.

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6810128)

Yes, I read it. I also read various rebuttals to that by environmentalists who are dead set against it.

The reason they can't take off from 31R is because of LGA, especially the expressway visual landing to runway 31 and the takeoff from runway 13 too, not just the approaches to the other runway. The LGA airspace is very close to where the 31's are. So, just eliminating the 4-22 at LGA wouldn't solve that issue I don't think.

Originally Posted by BBMW (Post 6811193)

I'd have to go back and look again, but I distinctly remember the reason LGA blocks takeoffs on the 31 orientation at JFK is the Runway 4 approach. If you think about it, that make perfect sense, as these orientations cross (as they do on the ground with the existing runways. I don't remember anything about any 13/31 activity at LGA affecting 13/31 activity at JFK.

In point of fact, for this to happen, there'd have to be federal funding involved. That would require legislation, if that can passed, it could probably include a piece to invalidate an environmental challenge.

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6811344)

JFK is just poorly configured and the use of space is poor.

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6812862)

On a side note, one of the NY airports will get a new terminal. Good old Newark. ;)

Renderings and info: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3038636/...?partner=rss#1

Originally Posted by BBMW (Post 6812639)

We do agree on that. But reconfiguring the terminal block properly would be extremely difficult while trying to keep the airport open at anything like it's normal capacity. Adding/reconfiguring runways would be a more easily accomplished without disrupting operation. This would be especially true if some landfill could be added on the southern edge of the airfield.

One thing I did notice in the RPA report is that the location of downtown Manhattan, and it's skyscrapers are an issue with approaches on the 13 axis. I hadn't thought of this. This could also be solved, but it would require rotating the axis of the 13-31s 20-25 degrees counter clockwise. This would also help disentangle JFK from LGA. I played with this a little on Google Earth, it's possible do to this, and put four parallel runways on that axis. It would require the above mentioned landfill. This puts the axis of all the runways over the harbor, not Manhattan. It also puts them pretty much right over the EWR airfield and not it's approaches.

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6815967)

Yeah, of course if would be very difficult. Yet, Given the difficulty of fighting a protracted environmental battle though today, it could be the only scenario left someday. The chances of another runway are remote anyway for a long time, might as well talk about something else.

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6804194)

I agree. put Rikers in the ocean and then build a new airport in Central Park too for a380 planes too while your at it.

Originally Posted by BBMW (Post 6817755)

Going big picture, there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the NYC airports. This has gotten up to the highest level of NYS politics (Cuomo has made it an issue), and it's getting some national exposure. LGA is almost a side issue, but if JFK's capacity constraints impact it's ability to stay viable as a domestic/international hub, it could have serious implications for the city's economy. That could have the effect of overcoming the political problems impeding it's expansion.

And, of course, there would be a lot of money to be made for a lot of companies that can exert a lot of political influence.