flyingcat
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:33 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:35 pm

Technically SFO could, in theory, fill in more land, but the tradeoff is that they must restore an equal amount of wetland elsewhere. The restrictions were made to not seem like outright ban but the effect is just the same.

As for the costs in general, I think the outright graft is reaching a tipping point. the second avenue subway costs are astronomically high and there are already compromises in design that will not be good for service. Paris infrastructure work is a fraction of what it costs in major US metro areas and at higher productivity levels.

Politically I'm not sure when it will change but eventually things tip over, expect automation to be a big game changer. Construction companies and guilds have been walking a knifes edge and refuse to change.
Last edited by flyingcat on Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:40 pm

Also, one must also consider that JFK's operations also affect LGA's operations. If ILS 22 is in use at JFK, that likely takes out 31 approaches into LGA (also one must note that the navigational space for FLU was never removed and that also comes into play). 31 departures and 13 arrivals also affect LGA traffic. The Canarsie Approach and Climb are major limiting factors for JFK as well.
Last edited by aemoreira1981 on Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
evank516
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:44 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
As far as I know in both cases it's impossible to reclaim land from the water because that water is a protected nature area.

I agree that they should have thought about that many decades ago, and that goes for all airports that are completely built-in by the cities. Being built-in does limit the capacity of an airport and the only thing you can do is shift over capacity to other airports.

However this is where New York and San Francisco are different. San Francisco does have sufficient relief airports, namely Oakland and San Jose. All growth for the San Francisco area that can't take place at San Francisco can take place there. New York on the other hand has three airports with the same problem. JFK, La Guardia and Newark are completely built-in so they can't serve as relief airports for each other. There's limited growth possible at Long Island MacArthur and Westchester County, but those are just small and in the end they face the same problem. The only airport that can still grow is Stewart, but that's quite far away from the city. Still, if they invest in a fast and reliable connection between Stewart airport and New York City I think this place has a great future. It's the only airport where there's still serious growth possible. But we shouldn't say "Stewart is too small and too far away" and therefor not invest in it, because then in a few decades it'll have the same problem as the other airports. We have to invest in it now because we'll need it in a few decades.


ISP can totally expand more than it is. I don't know what you're talking about. HPN is basically at capacity, yes, but after HPN, ISP is the closest airport to NYC. It's about 10 miles closer than SWF too, and while the transport to the LIRR is not as ideal as it could be, it's very doable so ISP has rail and road access to NYC (the Long Island Expressway ends at the Midtown Tunnel, and it can be reached via Veterans Memorial Highway, Ocean Ave, and Smithtown Ave). There is room to lengthen the main runways (6/24 and 15R/33L which there is talk of extending to 8,000 feet and 7,000 feet respectively, and there is room to do it also). The problem with ISP has been lack of interest by the major airlines (DL, AA, UA, and B6) due to the proximity of JFK and LGA. In fact, the proximity of JFK and LGA should tell you that ISP could easily be an alternative to the NYC Airports based on location. JFK is much, much, closer to ISP than midtown is.
 
bagoldex
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:06 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
It is harder and more expensive to spearhead a project here than anywhere else. SF is close, if not on par with NY with regards to costs and difficulties.

That is why peoole leave NY.


Yet no one misses them. The people who leave are generally the ones who can't hack it.
 
muralir
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:09 pm

Environmental issues aside, another consideration is the costs of filling in and building over water, compared to building on pre-existing land. Especially in seismic areas like SF, reclaiming land is not simple (witness the leaning tower of SF, which was built on land reclaimed a long time ago).

I would bet good money that even if they could get over environmental restrictions, the costs of building on reclaimed land would be so high, it would drive landing fees through the roof and cause more flights to be shifted to cheaper airports elsewhere.

My hunch is that SFO will transition the way JFK has: reduce any transit traffic and become primarily an O&D site. Decades ago, JFK was the primary transit point for almost any international flight from the rest of the country. As New York O&D traffic grew, transit traffic got shifted to other airports (at first, other big airports like ORD and ATL, now to smaller cities with direct flights). It's amazing to see that JFK is now primarily an O&D airport, but that was a reasonable, cost efficient way to manage growth.

Similarly, LAX and SFO have always traded places as being the primary transit point for TPAC flights (and European, and even some domestic flights for the nearby states), depending on which one has room to grow. Right now, LAX is less constrained, so flights are shifting there, while SFO becomes more O&D focused. This is a reasonable approach to providing needed service in a cost efficient matter.

Think of it this way: for transit traffic, the alternative to SFO isn't SJC or OAK. It's LAX, Seattle, and even ORD/DFW/ATL. Why start talking about filling in the bay if we can shift transit traffic around and still provide convenient service to everyone?
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4835
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:32 pm

Actually we lost 2 US House seats in 2011 as we fell from third to fourth place behind Florida. Last year, we had a net loss of population.

Keep cheering and jeering from the stands as we lose political might in DC and tax dollars to fund our state and city government.
 
bagoldex
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:45 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Actually we lost 2 US House seats in 2011 as we fell from third to fourth place behind Florida. Last year, we had a net loss of population.

Keep cheering and jeering from the stands as we lose political might in DC and tax dollars to fund our state and city government.


Outside of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Westchester and the Hamptons the state is a shithole so let the upstate shitholers eat cake. NYC shouldn't need clout in Washington to be a great city.
 
NZ321
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:52 pm

Surely with some landfill at OAK the opportunities are significant. Why should SFO expand into the harbour further than it has when there is land to spare? OAK could add another significant (international and domestic) terminal to the mix in San Francisco Bay. Then people wouldn't have to trek across town to the degree that they do. Southwest could flesh out the existing terminal and a new terminal for long haul and Main Line domestic and link could be added. IMHO with a decent existing runway and an alternative, an alternative international airport to SFO is what is required not another expansion of SFO. BA, Norwegian, just wait. It will grow. There are plenty of eligible flyers on that side of the water. As for JFK, not sure. Seems there is room for terminal 9 on land currently occupied by Delta Cargo etc opposite the American Airlines Terminal up to Enterprise Rental Car and Hertz.. if they reconfigured the land to the right of 678 when approaching the airport that could take additional cargo capacity. Love to see the long term plan.
Plane mad!
 
AAvgeek744
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:08 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:04 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Both are in liberal cities filled with lots of NIMBYS. Nothing happening


There is a difference between NIMBY's and environmentalists. Environmentalists have a rational argument. NIMBY's who live near an airport only have an argument if they were there before any expansion plans.


Another oft repeated and untrue A.net piece of conventional wisdom. Any person who moves into a community has every right to try to make that community the best place it can be.


I consider a NIMBY someone who moves near an airport after it is there. They know what they are getting into. If they move under the traffic pattern of a runway, it's their decision,and their problem to deal with. People who want to protect the environment are not necessarily those who live near an airport. They see what long term effect killing off animal species and natural lands can do. I would like to see SFO had the opportunity to expand, but it's not going to happen.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:07 pm

AAvgeek744 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:

There is a difference between NIMBY's and environmentalists. Environmentalists have a rational argument. NIMBY's who live near an airport only have an argument if they were there before any expansion plans.


Another oft repeated and untrue A.net piece of conventional wisdom. Any person who moves into a community has every right to try to make that community the best place it can be.


I consider a NIMBY someone who moves near an airport after it is there. They know what they are getting into. If they move under the traffic pattern of a runway, it's their decision,and their problem to deal with. People who want to protect the environment are not necessarily those who live near an airport. They see what long term effect killing off animal species and natural lands can do. I would like to see SFO had the opportunity to expand, but it's not going to happen.


But guess what? You can’t stop that phenomenon so you should let it go. SFO hasn’t approached their runway situation in almost 2 decades so who knows. Maybe this will surface again.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:08 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Surely with some landfill at OAK the opportunities are significant. Why should SFO expand into the harbour further than it has when there is land to spare? OAK could add another significant (international and domestic) terminal to the mix in San Francisco Bay. Then people wouldn't have to trek across town to the degree that they do. Southwest could flesh out the existing terminal and a new terminal for long haul and Main Line domestic and link could be added. IMHO with a decent existing runway and an alternative, an alternative international airport to SFO is what is required not another expansion of SFO. BA, Norwegian, just wait. It will grow. There are plenty of eligible flyers on that side of the water. As for JFK, not sure. Seems there is room for terminal 9 on land currently occupied by Delta Cargo etc opposite the American Airlines Terminal up to Enterprise Rental Car and Hertz.. if they reconfigured the land to the right of 678 when approaching the airport that could take additional cargo capacity. Love to see the long term plan.


OAK is not going to be filling in bay for all the same reasons as SFO mentioned above. OAK has plenty of existing space for terminal growth and runway capacity for arrivals at North Field if 18/30 ever comes close to reaching capacity. There's no point to forever insisting 80% of the region's air traffic go out to SFO on the peninsula while OAK and SJC sit underutitlized.
Image
 
YYZLGA
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:28 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:51 pm

The Regional Plan Association did a report on NYC airports' expansion possibilities. For JFK, it recommends a new western 4/22 parallel runway. It would require a bit of fill in the bay, though the RPA claims that it would have, if anything, a positive environmental impact since the area that would be filled has already been dredged very deep and it disrupts the water circulation in the bay. Nevertheless, any fill into the bay would require the federal legislation around the Gateway area to be changed.
 
AAvgeek744
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:08 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:57 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

Another oft repeated and untrue A.net piece of conventional wisdom. Any person who moves into a community has every right to try to make that community the best place it can be.


I consider a NIMBY someone who moves near an airport after it is there. They know what they are getting into. If they move under the traffic pattern of a runway, it's their decision,and their problem to deal with. People who want to protect the environment are not necessarily those who live near an airport. They see what long term effect killing off animal species and natural lands can do. I would like to see SFO had the opportunity to expand, but it's not going to happen.


But guess what? You can’t stop that phenomenon so you should let it go. SFO hasn’t approached their runway situation in almost 2 decades so who knows. Maybe this will surface again.


What am I supposed to let go of? Someone replied to my comment, and I replied to theirs. Pretty sure that how these forums work.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 827
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:44 am

AAvgeek744 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:

I consider a NIMBY someone who moves near an airport after it is there. They know what they are getting into. If they move under the traffic pattern of a runway, it's their decision,and their problem to deal with. People who want to protect the environment are not necessarily those who live near an airport. They see what long term effect killing off animal species and natural lands can do. I would like to see SFO had the opportunity to expand, but it's not going to happen.


But guess what? You can’t stop that phenomenon so you should let it go. SFO hasn’t approached their runway situation in almost 2 decades so who knows. Maybe this will surface again.


What am I supposed to let go of? Someone replied to my comment, and I replied to theirs. Pretty sure that how these forums work.


Let go of the fact that anyone who lives near an airport, irrespective of when they moved there, can and will get involved/have a say in expansion projects at that airport.
 
AAvgeek744
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:08 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:51 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

But guess what? You can’t stop that phenomenon so you should let it go. SFO hasn’t approached their runway situation in almost 2 decades so who knows. Maybe this will surface again.


What am I supposed to let go of? Someone replied to my comment, and I replied to theirs. Pretty sure that how these forums work.


Let go of the fact that anyone who lives near an airport, irrespective of when they moved there, can and will get involved/have a say in expansion projects at that airport.


Whatever. Just making comments. I'm not holding anything to let go of. Peace out.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:44 am

neomax wrote:
Man, those guys in Denver were really ahead of their time...


SFO will eventually have to be replaced by building an new airport adjacent to Travis AFB. BUT!! it will come with a HUGE price tag when they have to put local Transportation in there with highway access and BART.
 
NZ321
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:28 am

ucdtim17 wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
Surely with some landfill at OAK the opportunities are significant. Why should SFO expand into the harbour further than it has when there is land to spare? OAK could add another significant (international and domestic) terminal to the mix in San Francisco Bay. Then people wouldn't have to trek across town to the degree that they do. Southwest could flesh out the existing terminal and a new terminal for long haul and Main Line domestic and link could be added. IMHO with a decent existing runway and an alternative, an alternative international airport to SFO is what is required not another expansion of SFO. BA, Norwegian, just wait. It will grow. There are plenty of eligible flyers on that side of the water. As for JFK, not sure. Seems there is room for terminal 9 on land currently occupied by Delta Cargo etc opposite the American Airlines Terminal up to Enterprise Rental Car and Hertz.. if they reconfigured the land to the right of 678 when approaching the airport that could take additional cargo capacity. Love to see the long term plan.


OAK is not going to be filling in bay for all the same reasons as SFO mentioned above. OAK has plenty of existing space for terminal growth and runway capacity for arrivals at North Field if 18/30 ever comes close to reaching capacity. There's no point to forever insisting 80% of the region's air traffic go out to SFO on the peninsula while OAK and SJC sit underutitlized.
Image


I like your plan. Similar to what I had in mind. Could include half a dozen international capable gates plus additional domestic.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:30 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
neomax wrote:
Man, those guys in Denver were really ahead of their time...


SFO will eventually have to be replaced by building an new airport adjacent to Travis AFB. BUT!! it will come with a HUGE price tag when they have to put local Transportation in there with highway access and BART.


SFO will never be replaced by an airport near or at Travis. It is too far for most passengers and a high speed rail spur would double the costs (yes at least as much as the airport cost). It would go over like a lead balloon. Imagine closing LAX and sending everything to ONT.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 2538
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:11 pm

Travis is indeed too far, but the general idea is not bad.

What about converting Moffett Field to a commercial airport? That can easily be done. Places like Half Moon Bay, San Carlos and Hayward can capture some small regional traffic. All airports together got plenty of capacity to serve this region.
 
CantbeGrounded
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:10 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:13 pm

SFOA380 wrote:
birdbrainz wrote:
RJNUT wrote:


I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!


Having grown up in the Bay Area, but thank God don't live there now, don't ever look for logic in the NIMBYs. They'll moan about the aircraft noise at SFO, but don't build a runway in the bay that will reduce the approach noise, as well as permit simultaneous ILS approaches. It would also greatly help with the problem of lining up incorrectly as that Air Canada flight did.

Also, SFO was quite lucky that the wreckage of Asiana accident didn't end up at the runway intersections or that place would have been closed for days (weeks?).

I always chuckle that Greensboro's airport has as much ILS bad weather landing capacity as SFO, at least in principle, and another parallel runway is already planned. Go figure.


If it weren’t for NIMBY-ism this place would’ve been ruined generations ago. Sounds like you found happiness in the south! Awesome for you! There’s a reason places like this are expensive...


So much contempt for the Bay Area in here! you SURE you don't miss it? We seem to be on your minds a lot :)
As if NIMBYism doesn't exist anywhere else.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:11 pm

DEN is a much different geographic situation than SFO which sits on a peninsula. Land is cheaper in Colorado and they had hundreds of square miles to choose from to build a massive airport. SFO has no additional room unless part of the bay is filled in; something which is a non-starter in California.

The new technologies coming on-line will increase capacity and the ability to fly in low vis conditions. Other options such as slot controls or even constraints on smaller commercial aircraft could be utilized if needed to maximize capacity.

Of course maybe there will be an offshore airport such as the one proposed once-upon-a-time for SAN?
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:19 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
What about converting Moffett Field to a commercial airport? That can easily be done. Places like Half Moon Bay, San Carlos and Hayward can capture some small regional traffic. All airports together got plenty of capacity to serve this region.


There's less than a 0 chance of any of that happening. Hayward has no place for a terminal, and San Carlos and Half Moon Bay both have runways which are far too short. Plus, there have been NIMBYs fighting SQL over Surf Air's entrance into the market. That's a few PC-12s a day.

Moffett will also never see commercial service because of the same NIMBY stuff. The only thing I *MAYBE* could see is it somewhat turning into a VNY of Silicon Valley, but even that is far-fetched.
A318/19/20/21/21N A332/3 A343/5 A388 B712 B722 B732/3/4/7/8/9/9ER B744/4M B752/3 B762ER/3/3ER/4ER B77E/L/W B788 CRJ2/7/9 Q400 EMB-120 ERJ-140/145XR/175 DC-10-10 MD-82/83/88/90

Long Live the Tulip, Cactus, and Redwood
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:56 pm

KLMatSJC wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
What about converting Moffett Field to a commercial airport? That can easily be done. Places like Half Moon Bay, San Carlos and Hayward can capture some small regional traffic. All airports together got plenty of capacity to serve this region.


There's less than a 0 chance of any of that happening. Hayward has no place for a terminal, and San Carlos and Half Moon Bay both have runways which are far too short. Plus, there have been NIMBYs fighting SQL over Surf Air's entrance into the market. That's a few PC-12s a day.

Moffett will also never see commercial service because of the same NIMBY stuff. The only thing I *MAYBE* could see is it somewhat turning into a VNY of Silicon Valley, but even that is far-fetched.


Also no one lives in Half Moon Bay or nearby.

The answer is the three main airports will continue to be the primary airports for the region 10/20/30 years from now and will expand as they can to accommodate expected growth. Ten years ago OAK expected between 23 and 35 million passengers in 2018, when in reality the number will be around 14 million. Recessions happen.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:21 am

You want something like that?
Image
 
User avatar
Keith2004
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:59 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:39 pm

evank516 wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
As far as I know in both cases it's impossible to reclaim land from the water because that water is a protected nature area.

I agree that they should have thought about that many decades ago, and that goes for all airports that are completely built-in by the cities. Being built-in does limit the capacity of an airport and the only thing you can do is shift over capacity to other airports.

However this is where New York and San Francisco are different. San Francisco does have sufficient relief airports, namely Oakland and San Jose. All growth for the San Francisco area that can't take place at San Francisco can take place there. New York on the other hand has three airports with the same problem. JFK, La Guardia and Newark are completely built-in so they can't serve as relief airports for each other. There's limited growth possible at Long Island MacArthur and Westchester County, but those are just small and in the end they face the same problem. The only airport that can still grow is Stewart, but that's quite far away from the city. Still, if they invest in a fast and reliable connection between Stewart airport and New York City I think this place has a great future. It's the only airport where there's still serious growth possible. But we shouldn't say "Stewart is too small and too far away" and therefor not invest in it, because then in a few decades it'll have the same problem as the other airports. We have to invest in it now because we'll need it in a few decades.


JFK is much, much, closer to ISP than midtown is.


:?: :?: :?:
Midtown to JFK = 15 Miles
ISP to JFK = 43 Miles
ISP to Midtown = 52 Miles
 
csavel
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:55 pm

Filling in Jamaica bay to expand JFK is a non-starter not just because of environmental concerns although you'd be surprised how interesting and full of diversity the marshland at Jamaica bay is. There is also...

1. In a crowded city like New York, which sits at the mouth of a river on an ocean, it is surpsingly difficult to actually interact with the ocean. An awful lot of fishermen, pleasure boaters, kayakers, etc. use Jamaica bay.
2. Most important, as New York is prone to coastal storms, JFK is already prone to flooding. filling in even part of the bay might mean even an average Nor'Easter floods half of the airport. A huge marsh like Jamaica bay actually does a pretty good job of absorbing storm surges.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
evank516
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:06 pm

Keith2004 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
As far as I know in both cases it's impossible to reclaim land from the water because that water is a protected nature area.

I agree that they should have thought about that many decades ago, and that goes for all airports that are completely built-in by the cities. Being built-in does limit the capacity of an airport and the only thing you can do is shift over capacity to other airports.

However this is where New York and San Francisco are different. San Francisco does have sufficient relief airports, namely Oakland and San Jose. All growth for the San Francisco area that can't take place at San Francisco can take place there. New York on the other hand has three airports with the same problem. JFK, La Guardia and Newark are completely built-in so they can't serve as relief airports for each other. There's limited growth possible at Long Island MacArthur and Westchester County, but those are just small and in the end they face the same problem. The only airport that can still grow is Stewart, but that's quite far away from the city. Still, if they invest in a fast and reliable connection between Stewart airport and New York City I think this place has a great future. It's the only airport where there's still serious growth possible. But we shouldn't say "Stewart is too small and too far away" and therefor not invest in it, because then in a few decades it'll have the same problem as the other airports. We have to invest in it now because we'll need it in a few decades.


JFK is much, much, closer to ISP than midtown is.


:?: :?: :?:
Midtown to JFK = 15 Miles
ISP to JFK = 43 Miles
ISP to Midtown = 52 Miles


Sorry, that meant to say SWF. ISP is closer to Midtown than SWF.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 2538
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:26 pm

evank516 wrote:
Sorry, that meant to say SWF. ISP is closer to Midtown than SWF.


True, but actual distances don't really matter. Travel time does. As it is now Stewart is a long way from central New York, but that can be fixed by adding a high speed connection to the airport. The actual distance doesn't change, the travel time does. With a high speed connection Stewart can become a serious alternative to JFK or Newark, all the growth that can't take place at those airports can then take place at Stewart.
 
User avatar
Keith2004
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:59 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:36 pm

evank516 wrote:
Keith2004 wrote:
evank516 wrote:

JFK is much, much, closer to ISP than midtown is.


:?: :?: :?:
Midtown to JFK = 15 Miles
ISP to JFK = 43 Miles
ISP to Midtown = 52 Miles


Sorry, that meant to say SWF. ISP is closer to Midtown than SWF.



Oh ok cool
 
evank516
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:38 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
Sorry, that meant to say SWF. ISP is closer to Midtown than SWF.


True, but actual distances don't really matter. Travel time does. As it is now Stewart is a long way from central New York, but that can be fixed by adding a high speed connection to the airport. The actual distance doesn't change, the travel time does. With a high speed connection Stewart can become a serious alternative to JFK or Newark, all the growth that can't take place at those airports can then take place at Stewart.


True, however ISP already has rail access to NYC via a shuttle around the property to Ronkonkoma. There is also a much larger population in the area, but no one is interested because they're too invested in JFK and LGA.
 
tphuang
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:56 pm

evank516 wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
Sorry, that meant to say SWF. ISP is closer to Midtown than SWF.


True, but actual distances don't really matter. Travel time does. As it is now Stewart is a long way from central New York, but that can be fixed by adding a high speed connection to the airport. The actual distance doesn't change, the travel time does. With a high speed connection Stewart can become a serious alternative to JFK or Newark, all the growth that can't take place at those airports can then take place at Stewart.


True, however ISP already has rail access to NYC via a shuttle around the property to Ronkonkoma. There is also a much larger population in the area, but no one is interested because they're too invested in JFK and LGA.

Stewart will not get a high speed connection. That would cost too much money. Isp does have some potential if they can get better management and bring in delta or JetBlue.

Also the catchment area around isp is much wealthier than Newburgh.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:43 pm

Patrick Smith on how big planes used to fly short routes - http://www.askthepilot.com/big-planes-short-haul/. Perhaps the future will look more like the past at major airports. Reducing the number of CR2s/CR7s/E175s/etc at SFO frees up a lot of runway capacity for larger planes (as is normal on poor weather days).
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:43 pm

CR2s/CR7s/E175s/etc at SFO (and elsewhere) is how you get good frequency which has become the big selling point
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:31 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
CR2s/CR7s/E175s/etc at SFO (and elsewhere) is how you get good frequency which has become the big selling point


They also create a large portion of the runway/gate traffic. Status quo is probably the way forward - small planes get to fly to SFO but on bad weather days they are the first to get cut. If delays/cancellations reach an unacceptable level, airlines can fly fewer flights in larger planes or flow more traffic through OAK and SJC, something they've mostly avoided to date.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:08 pm

chunhimlai wrote:
You want something like that?
Image


Impossible.

Can't block bay access from any land, can't use land not currently apart of airport. Not a NIMBY issue but legal. SFO is owned by the city/county of SF however San Mateo county surrounds it. The airport can't force itself onto San Mateo since San Mateo does not participate in airport operations and would not be compensated for loss of taxable property of the resulting loss of property values due to SFO expansion. The city/county of SF could give up control to a regional authority that includes San Mateo but SF is not THAT generous.

This is what makes SFO expansion more difficult than all other issues put together. Can't blame San Mateo for not allowing the airport to impact the tax revenue when it would get nothing for it.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:40 pm

So in a very seismically active zone, you propose expanding an airport onto landfill that is extremely susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake?
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:57 am

We could always you know, upgauge equipment and free some slots :duck: . Works for China.
 
brian415
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:00 am

uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both? [..]

The proposal that has not been explored, that I would like to suggest is to apply Concorde pilot Jock Lowe's Heathrow proposal (that was not adopted) to SFO. It would involve extending the north-south runway to 4.5 miles, and extending the east-west runways to roughly 3.5 miles, with buffer zones in between. These would in effect be 2 runways each that are strung together, but there would be runway safety areas in the middle boundaries of the runways.

Once these runway extensions are built, SFO could give back land into the bay for the now disused two runways.

http://www.heathrowhub.com/our-proposal.aspx
https://web.archive.org/web/20180304043 ... posal.aspx

A new naming scheme would be needed. For example, instead of 28L and 28R, it would need to be called something like 28S (south) and 28N (north).
 
brian415
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:05 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
So in a very seismically active zone, you propose expanding an airport onto landfill that is extremely susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake?

A floating runway that is anchored to bedrock will not be impacted by liquefaction.
 
brian415
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:37 am

chunhimlai wrote:
You want something like that?


Here is one (actually my) interpretation of Jock Lowe's LHR 4.5 mile proposal superimposed on SFO's runway.

https://imgur.com/a/DjOJq
https://archive.is/YHo9a/image

A few notes:
● The extended runway segments are shown in green.
● The runways have been re-numbered with north/south or east/west markings.
● The removed runways are shown in white outline, with a red "X" marking. Runway removal will guard against excessive traffic growth.
● The runway safety areas + EMAS between the two runways are not drawn to scale, but you get the idea.
● I haven't bothered to draw the taxiways, but you get the idea.
● These are assumed to be floating runways and taxiways to limit environmental impact.

This make the 750 ft lateral separation problem go away. Does anyone know the FAA's vertical separation requirement (as aircraft approach the runway threshold)?

A few other asides:
● 28N and 28S could just as easily be renumbered 28 and 29
● 10N and 10S could just as easily be renumbered 10 and 11
● 19W and 19E could just as easily be renumbered 19 and 20
● 1W and 1E could just as easily be renumbered 1 and 2

I could not get the picture to appear nicely inline with my post. What's the trick?
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:16 am

Updated

New S shape Airport layout

Image
 
brian415
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:42 am

chunhimlai wrote:
Updated

New S shape Airport layout

Silly you! I like your diagram because it causes SFO and OAK to merge. I had a dream like two decades ago as a kid that a Bay Taxiway Bridge could link SFO and OAK. It would have been long and narrow to allow SFO-based and OAK-based aircraft to share each others runways. It would have helped SFO a great deal during Flow Control situations.
 
brian415
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:45 am

flyingcat wrote:
Technically SFO could, in theory, fill in more land, but the tradeoff is that they must restore an equal amount of wetland elsewhere. The restrictions were made to not seem like outright ban but the effect is just the same.

I believe SFO bought up Cargill's salt ponds as currency to effect the expansion.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 2538
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:38 am

chunhimlai wrote:
Updated

New S shape Airport layout

Image


Absolutely impossible! You're building on a protected nature reserve. By law that area is to remain as it is, nothing is allowed to be built there. That goes for all of it. The red, blue and orange areas are all out of the question. Nothing is allowed to be built upon the bay, end of discussion.
 
User avatar
BartSimpson
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:50 am

chunhimlai wrote:
Updated

New S shape Airport layout



Just curious - why would you need 15 runways?
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:17 am

BartSimpson wrote:
chunhimlai wrote:
Updated

New S shape Airport layout



Just curious - why would you need 15 runways?



1. To form S shape

2. Sounds more powerful
 
babastud
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:38 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:01 am

CarlosSi wrote:
We could always you know, up-gauge equipment and free some slots :duck: . Works for China.


Works for most of Asia!

I think one of the most simple and effective measures that SFO could use in the short run is to financially incentivize higher capacity planes. Granted SFO has been pushing Higher Capacity for awhile and it's shown positive effects. However, they could do even more by say offering a reduction in % of landing fee's per person inbound and outbound falling within a range and equipment requirement . An example of course is SFO- Lax, Sea, Pdx, Las, etc. Say take 10% per passenger? deplaning from a 777 from DFW rather then a a320. You would have to work out the math and make it worthwhile for the airlines and airport, but the effects would be two-fold. Saving money for the airlines on landing fee's, and overall less congestion and more gate space. This would then help to mitigate delays, gate space, etc , thus saving the airlines even more by time not wasted on tarmacs, lines for departure, etc. Where not talking about real regional routes that could only require a commuter anyways, but a number of destinations could work and qualify. Would a AA CLT-SFO work? probably not! considering maybe 3 flights a day, but a AA lax or DFW could work.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3181
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:24 pm

chunhimlai wrote:
Updated

New S shape Airport layout


This is all very funny. Thank you!
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:12 pm

incitatus wrote:
chunhimlai wrote:
Updated

New S shape Airport layout


This is all very funny. Thank you!


My pleasure
 
brian415
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:24 am

babastud wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
We could always you know, up-gauge equipment and free some slots :duck: . Works for China.


Works for most of Asia!

I think one of the most simple and effective measures that SFO could use in the short run is to financially incentivize higher capacity planes. Granted SFO has been pushing Higher Capacity for awhile and it's shown positive effects. However, they could do even more by say offering a reduction in % of landing fee's per person inbound and outbound falling within a range and equipment requirement . An example of course is SFO- Lax, Sea, Pdx, Las, etc. Say take 10% per passenger? deplaning from a 777 from DFW rather then a a320. You would have to work out the math and make it worthwhile for the airlines and airport, but the effects would be two-fold. Saving money for the airlines on landing fee's, and overall less congestion and more gate space. This would then help to mitigate delays, gate space, etc , thus saving the airlines even more by time not wasted on tarmacs, lines for departure, etc. Where not talking about real regional routes that could only require a commuter anyways, but a number of destinations could work and qualify. Would a AA CLT-SFO work? probably not! considering maybe 3 flights a day, but a AA lax or DFW could work.

Slot controlled during daily peak hours and sliding-scale slot controlled shoulder/peak hours for domestic flights might be the solution. There could be some exceptions to this, such as on Saturdays.

Another solution is the potentially dangerous Hyperloop that is built to link SFO to OAK and SJC, as well a theoretical fourth Bay Area airport at KNUQ (Moffett Field). It could function somewhat like the proposed Heathwick virtual hub. Trains would provide airside only links.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos