Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does It Make Sense To Add A Runway To EWR?  
User currently offlineJEdward From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 134 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Morning/Evening a.net

The search tool was useful in flushing out pieces of information on the subject, but it did not answer my questions entirely. With that said, if you guys and gals could take a few to share your thoughts I’d greatly appreciate it!

As the title suggests, I am curious as to the prospects/fiscal sense of adding runways to EWR.

As y’all already know: it’s packed. 4L and 4R are too close together to allow simultaneous operations and runway 29/11 is too short to accommodate a European bound 757 (to say nothing of widebodies, fully loaded 737's or the fact it bisects the other two runways.) Throw in the congested airspace of the NYC area, banked flights, winter snowstorms and the precious little functionality of the two main runways (4L and 4R) can easily become compromised. Further complicating matters, you’ve got the eastern side of EWR bounded by the turnpike, a missive transit artery, and to the opposite side one finds terminals, parking, hotel, rail tracks and other support buildings. Moreover, I-78 bounds the northern end while commercial/residential development is along the southern “curve” of the airport.

Assuming the Port Authority decides to go ahead with the project, if they look due east than the Turnpike will have to be crossed (i.e. buried or bridged) and the problem still remains that taxi traffic to/from the terminal will cross two active runways. However, if they do go east of they turnpike could they build the runway “offset” from 4L and 4R so the main taxi way to/from the terminal would be at enough of an angle to avoid crossing the active runway?

If the west is considered than train tracks, sky-train, parking lots, distribution centers, streets and local business will have to be relocated. However, building on the western side would allow access to the terminal without having to cross an active runway.

To the north and south… well… that seems even more difficult than going east or west due to the even higher level of development.

Anyway, the point from all this is: should the powers that be decree more runways are to be built, serious “reconstruction” will have to be done somewhere at tremendous cost --which leads me to my question to the board:

Would it be cost effective to add an additional runway(s) to EWR?

If no, than what should be done about the current level of congestion and delays - if anything?

If so, where do you think the new runway(s) should be placed and how should the existing infrastructure be rearranged?

Here are some links to maps of the area for reference:

EWR Airport Diagram

GoogleMaps Link (unable to code it in as a hyperlink):

Thanks  Smile

As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich. --S.C.
3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4307 times:

Anything is possible but it is not very likely. There is nothing planned for a new runway or major alteration of the runways. Even if open land was available and the Port Authroity was determined to start it now, it would take at least 10 years. SFO has been trying to fix their runway configuration problems for years and they are still far away from building anything. ORD's runway realignment is years off as well, although there is more of a commitment to it than at SFO.

User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9412 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4282 times:

Yeah, where would it go? It faces almost the same problems as PHL, although I doubt they'd be quite as severe... But still, they both deal with the close proximity of I-95...

EWR still has room to expand, I think, with its terminals; PHL has problems with the entire layout pretty much...

Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineFewsolarge From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4222 times:

I don't know how they could possibly do it on the West side. Even if they do all the land purchasing, including sound abatement, there are bound to be serious obstructions in the glideslopes. The port is such an economic machine that that land use can't be ignored. There has been conjecture for years about building the runway over the expressway. But if you look at the cost of making just two relatively small sections of bridging for the fifth runway at ATL, there's no way it could be financially feasible.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US To PTY On February, Does It Make Sense? posted Fri Jan 14 2005 15:26:59 by CM767
Would It Make Sense For WN To Move To A At Cle? posted Sat Feb 9 2002 21:53:41 by N766UA
It Does Not Make Sense For Airlines To Lose Money posted Fri Mar 18 2005 06:24:08 by Tonytifao
How Long Does It Take For An Airline To Change? posted Sat Jul 28 2001 11:19:45 by Naimas
FKB-STR...does That Make Sense? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 17:06:40 by Gearup380
Ryanair? How Does It Make A Profit? posted Fri Dec 16 2005 04:01:53 by ScotspanGSM
Samedan Airport... Does This Make Sense? posted Thu Nov 13 2003 11:35:33 by Maiznblu_757
Wouldn't it make more sense for BA to fly DFW - ORD - LHR? posted Fri Feb 20 2004 04:38:07 by ORDnDFW777
How Long Does It Take To Replace A Busted Tyre? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 09:58:24 by Kwcarolma
Why It Makes Sense For Airlines To Keep The A380 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 05:06:27 by WingedMigrator