STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17449 posts, RR: 49 Posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9726 times:
The Port Authority is seeking bids to begin construction of a new CTB at LGA, estimated to begin construction in 2014 and last until 2021. Estimated price tag would be $3.6 Billion, more than AA and DL's JFK projects combined.
Quote: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is eyeing a 2014 start to construction of a replacement for the cramped, outdated Central Terminal Building at La Guardia Airport.
The authority is seeking proposals from private terminal operators, bankers and consultants to finance, design and build a replacement terminal, according to a request for information issued quietly last month.
Quote: The current terminal has a semicircular concourse feeding out into four hallways with arrival and departure gates. The authority proposes replacing that with a three-level front terminal leading to three parallel "finger piers" that would be more spacious for passengers, shops and restaurants and give planes more room to maneuver.
The Port Authority wants that building to be designed in a way that would allow for a rail connection, in case the city and state ever find a way to pay for one and figure out where to put it.
This is a positive step forward, they are looking at their financing options. The Port Authority will pursue similar options with the new Terminal A at EWR:
Quote: Mr. Foye said the authority plans to issue a similar request for information soon to seek ideas for how to overhaul Newark Liberty International Airport's Terminal A.
In order to balance out the Bi-State agency's capital expeditures it's almost assured that a new LGA CTB will be approved together with a new Terminal A at EWR at the same board meeting. Same occured with AA and CO's mega terminal projects which were both approved at the same PA Board Meeting in 1999. Same with the remodeling at Terminal B at EWR which was approved at the same meeting as the new B6 T5.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13766 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9482 times:
The CBT needs a lot more room in it for sure, especially due to more space needed for sufficient post-9/11 security facilities, better and more room for roadway access and to allow for more revenue generating space from shops and restaurants.
I think they need to move all the parking to parking garages over the parkway over the south of LGA or even to other side of it so can have more room for a new CBT. I suspect that right now the PANYNJ will commission a preliminary design and engineering study as to what to and what can do, come up with possible costs as well as figure out how to minimise disruptions of the CBT during the construction. Of course as the initial post suggested the PANYNJ will have to do a big update of EWR terminal A to keep the NJ side politicians and citizens happy.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4999 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8746 times:
Good news for LGA!
I suppose they'll do it kind of like they did here in MIA with our new North Terminal - basically building a brand new facility on top of the existing facility while the existing facility continue to operate. Lots of "long, winding passageways" ahead for pax using LGA's CTB starting in 2014.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17449 posts, RR: 49
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6048 times:
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7): STT757, Do you have a source? I can't find anything on their website relating to a recent Press Release or RFP Release.
It's from a Wall Street Journal article, which I'm having trouble linking. Let me make it clear, they are moving forward with pursuing financing for the project. Final approval will not occur until all the finance and engineering work is complete, my guess would be 2013 for final approval with construction to begin in 2014.
The mere fact they are moving anything on this project at all, given their tight financial constraints, is progress.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 3): have said from the beginning that these projects will never get done without a pvt entity taking them over like JFK t4.
The Port Authority is also looking for private financing to build a new Goethals Bridge:
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4366 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5668 times:
For the bridge and the terminals, it is a good idea if done correctly.
The downside to single airline operated terminals is JFK in the 80s/90s. When TWA, Pan Am (then Delta), and AA were letting their facilities run into the ground due to financial issues or focus in other areas (Delta-ATL, AA DFW, ORD and MIA), the argument could be made AGAINST privately run terminals.
But in the case of Schipol USA running T4, it has been a huge success because their whole business is operating a modern terminal to attract more airlines thus bringing more revenue. The terminal condition is not tied to a single airline's finances or focus OR a government entity that is subject to politics du jour.
Unfortunatly for the PANYNJ, a few things have happened over the last few decades that have led to a day of reckoning
1. This lean, mean pioneering agency allowed itself to get fat and sluggish
2. In NY/NJ and in the United States, we have spent the last half decade in a great recession
3. We do not build great projects in this country quickly or cheaply anymore. The PA is stuck with many great facilities that are very old and are in need of replacement ON TOP OF new ideas/projects that need to be done for the region to remain competitive. One agency can no longer be expected to shoulder the scope of these projects without major funding
4. The PA has a self inflicted image problem of being a very top-heavy, overpaid burecracy
5. 3+4 means they are under assault from the governor of NJ, to a lessor extent the governor of NY, and the public at large. They have less political clout than ever and it will continue to erode
6. All of this is going on with a giant elephant in the room: the World Trade Center
When the WTC was destroyed, it was finally leased to 99 years to a pvt developer. This lease occurred 6 weeks earlier. The PA should have never built the original WTC. It was a compicated deal that involved a dying NJ railroad (now PATH) and NYs desire to build on the site of the Railroad's terminus in NY. NY also needed the $$ to do it.
Now, 50 years later, the PA finds itself spending tens of billions to rebuild a complex
1. That was empty for the first 10-15 years
2. That was outside the original scope of the agency to begin with
3. That it never wanted to run (99 year lease)
4. In a bad economy
5. That will be a terrorist target
6. That is surrounded by political complication
The agency will privatize big capital projects and the model to do this to terminals at LGA and EWR has been proven at JFK