Just announced at a speech in Manhattan. Info on Gov's twitter feed.

Basics include a unified terminal design, address road bottlenecks, and expand mass transit. Also announced a training program in response to the panic last summer.

https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/8 ... 6370449409

update: this tweet has a nice photo of the proposed layout. Terminal 8 looks very, very different and terminal 7 is completely redone.
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/8 ... 5250668544

T5 still looks disconnected from the others.

gomuppets wrote:

Just announced at a speech in Manhattan. Info on Gov's twitter feed.

Basics include a unified terminal design, address road bottlenecks, and expand mass transit. Also announced a training program in response to the panic last summer.

https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/8 ... 6370449409

update: this tweet has a nice photo of the proposed layout. Terminal 8 looks very, very different and terminal 7 is completely redone.
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/8 ... 5250668544

T8 makes no sense. Are they going to redo the newest terminal?

Also, are T1 and T2 being demolished for a new terminal?

between this and his proposal to fund 4 year colleges, will NY have any money left for...well...anything?

This all looks great but it seems like this would have been a good idea a long time ago. The whole terminal complex is such a hodge podge and extremely inefficient. I haven't been to JFK for years but it seems like it would be wasteful to just replace T1 (built in 1998), T4 (built in 2001) and T8 (built in 2005) since they are newer. T2 and T7 should be leveled... It looks like they are planning on leaving T5 (completed in 2008)

United787 wrote:

This all looks great but it seems like this would have been a good idea a long time ago. The whole terminal complex is such a hodge podge and extremely inefficient. I haven't been to JFK for years but it seems like it would be wasteful to just replace T1 (built in 1998), T4 (built in 2001) and T8 (built in 2005) since they are newer. T2 and T7 should be leveled... It looks like they are planning on leaving T5 (completed in 2008)

Based on the rendering, it looks to me like T4 stays put, except for an extended concourse and a new physical connection to the new T1/2/3 terminal. Based on the roof designs, it looks like T4 is the prototype for the new terminals replacing T1/2/3/6/7. It looks like the T8 landside/headhouse building is doubled in size.

I need this graphic superimposed on the current layout to make much sense of it.

Seems to be some scale issues involved in the rendering. I would have to see some plans to make any real judgements.

Kudos to the Governor and JFK for thinking big.

Puts LAWA's patchwork plan to shame...

Demolish new terminals? What for? What's needed is nonstop train service from a terminal to downtown and midtown Manhattan. Add in airside connector trains between terminals. Also build 2 new runways. I think President Trump might be interested in making the EPA and other federal agencies streamline their permit process.

LGA should have been targeted for being shut down after expanding JFK and improving its connection to Manhattan. The land at LGA could have then been sold off for redevelopment. This is a much better option than demolishing and rebuilding brand new terminals at JFK and rebuilding terminals at LGA.

ldvaviation wrote:

Kudos to the Governor and JFK for thinking big.
Puts LAWA's patchwork plan to shame.

Any fool can 1) "think big"...

...let us know when they've succeeded in 2) getting big past regulations/politicians, 3) paying for big and 4) engineering big.

One often finds that cute renderings run up against harsh realities, in the time frame 1 and 2, and especially between 1 and 3.

Everyone relax. This is clearly just a long term directional plan. They're not going to start demolishing terminal anytime soon.

It's a decent, high-level long-term plan. Looks like they want to fill in the space between T1 and T4 - turn the thing into a connected mega-terminal. Also finish T8 and eventually, when T7 reaches its end-of-life, replace it and connect T-7 - T8.

Here is the full report:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/gover ... onPlan.pdf

blockski wrote:

Here is the full report:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/gover ... onPlan.pdf

This is definitely a longer-term vision -- recommendations from a panel. It proposes keeping terminals 4, 5 and 8, while replacing 1, 2 and 7.

Some points from the report regarding the passenger terminals:

• "The Panel recognizes that completely tearing down the Airport to build anew would be operationally impossible and cost prohibitive. However, the piece-meal, ad-hoc, and inconsistent terminal development of the past cannot continue. Therefore, the Panel recommends multiple critical improvements to the Airport and its supporting infrastructure—some near-team and incremental, and others more sweeping and transformational"
• "Today’s six terminals are fragmented and provide inconsistent levels of service that do not support the passenger growth needs of JFK. "
• "The Port Authority should develop global, world-class standards applicable to all JFK terminals to ensure a more consistent passenger experience, as today’s facilities are modernized and redeveloped."
• "All future terminal expansion and redevelopment projects should be planned with a focus on interconnection with other terminals to enable JFK to grow over time into an integrated airport experience."
• "Older terminals (such as Terminals 1, 2 and 7, opened in 1998, 1962, and 1972, respectively) should be redeveloped in partnership with their private lessees into terminal facilities that provide a world-class airport experience and accommodate additional gates."
• "The Port Authority should work with the private operators of JFK’s newer terminals (such as Terminals 4, 5, and 8, opened in 2001, 2008, and 2007, respectively) to enhance the passenger experience and provide additional capacity to accommodate the projected future passenger growth of JFK"

KrustyTheKlown wrote:

T5 still looks disconnected from the others.

You can sort of see the TWA terminal/hotel in the drawing. I'd guess that might make it look that way. T5 iss already set back from the access roads more than the other terminals because of the TWA terminal.

Looks like another concourse could be built off of T5, roughly parallel to the T4 concourse.

Cuomo is running for president. One airport at a time.

LAX772LR wrote:

Any fool can 1) "think big"...

...let us know when they've succeeded in 2) getting big past regulations/politicians, 3) paying for big and 4) engineering big.

One often finds that cute renderings run up against harsh realities, in the time frame 1 and 2, and especially between 1 and 3.

Is now a good time? To tell you that they have succeeded at (2), (3), and (4), not just once, but at least three times in the recent past. See the Calatrava station, the East Side Access project under GC, and the new LGA.

New York has no trouble paying for big, engineering big, or even achieving political consensus for big.

The problem they have is overpaying for big and knowing when enough is enough.

In any case, it's all here for those who know nothing about the history of the aforementioned projects:

http://www.businessinsider.com/second-a ... re-2016-12

It's a nice concept but I can tell you why it won't happen in six letters:
PANYNJ

It looks very cluttered. People dont appreciate ramp space and widebodies at JFK. Those single lane alleyways will be trouble!

Airbus should be excited, that looks like a lot of a380s on the ramp...

But kidding aside, I like the direction, will be curious to see if this gets any traction while the LGA project continues to cause headaches...

There are only 3 things that can realistically happen:
1. Completion of Terminal 8
2. Demolition of Terminal 2, and expand Terminal 1 in its place. Add airside connection to Terminal 4.
3. Demolition of Terminal 7, and an extension of the international concourse of Terminal 5. Add airside connection to the extended Terminal 8.

And there you go, 4 terminals. 2 if you consider what is connected airside.
This will be tough however, as there is no where to put the airlines at T2 and T7 while all this is going on.

This costs relatively little, and will accomplish the goals put forth in that presentation. Whoever made that graphic really doesn't know about JFK or about airport planning.

Is it just my poor eyesight or did they manage to move Manhattan much closer to JFK in that perspective? Neat way to reduce commute time.

ldvaviation wrote:

Is now a good time?

Welllll, have they done any of the above for this specific proposal, as asked?
No? ...then there's your answer.

ldvaviation wrote:

To tell you that they have succeeded at (2), (3), and (4), not just once, but at least three times in the recent past. See the Calatrava station, the East Side Access project under GC, and the new LGA.

Then is not now, now is not then.

The past is no guarantee whatsoever for something like this getting accomplished in the manner desired. Regulations change, politicians come and go, access to capital changes, community will changes, etc etc.

Like I said, let me know when they do it for this proposal.

What a waste of money to redevelop Terminal 8, but at least they seem to agree with my long standing belief that the JFK Expressway is redundant and unnecessary. Seems to me that 3 terminals, 1)Connected 1-4, 2)Terminal 5 and 3)an expanded terminal 8 covering the footprint of 7 would be prudent and achieve most of their goals. Did anybody catch that picture of LGA at the end of the report? Question is, is that an outdated potential option, or have they already dramatically changed the plans now that DL is officially onboard the LGA project?

LAX772LR wrote:

Then is not now, now is not then.

The past is no guarantee whatsoever for something like this getting accomplished in the manner desired. Regulations change, politicians come and go, access to capital changes, community will changes, etc etc.

Like I said, let me know when they do it for this proposal.

We both know what you meant.

You claimed that New York could do nothing big.

You did not specify what you meant by big. It was a general statement.

You have been proven wrong. Instead of acknowledging that, you resort to sophistry. It's boring.

ldvaviation wrote:

You claimed that New York could do nothing big.

Lord.

....at no point was there a question of whether they can expand the airport as presented. Of course they possess the construction wherewithal to physically pull it off.

The question is: whether they would have both the community and political will to incur the cost of doing this, specifically as proposed-- relative to alternatives. A big alternative being the status quo course.

As statement, what was done in past eras, under past leadership, and past regulations, does not in any way guarantee success in doing so now; no matter how much you wish that to be the case.

ldvaviation wrote:

You have been proven wrong.

Apparently, you possess a rather loose understanding of the definition of "proof."

NY is going to go bankrupt at this pace. Jeez.
This looks quite nice, but are the airlines really onboard? those look like tiny ramps and alleyways and carriers like AA and DL have heavily invested in their terminals as of late.

While I do hope that T8 will be finished sooner rather than later, I would question why the concourses would need to be torn down and rebuilt in a perpendicular direction; seems rather wasteful to me considering how new they are.

But the main issue which is only getting some tentative discussion is the need to finally build some sort of direct rail link to the heart of the city. Just about every other major world city (London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Zurich to name but a few) provide direct rail/subway service directly to or beneath the terminal area. There is a golden opportunity to reactivate the Rockaway Beach branch of the LIRR from the main line to Howard Beach and even extend it into the middle of the terminal zone. Yet our Governor, who is prolific at releasing pretty architectural renderings is clueless about transit. The new LGA might get its own Airtrain...going AWAY from Manhattan. Thanks Andy!

jco613 wrote:

between this and his proposal to fund 4 year colleges, will NY have any money left for...well...anything?

The whole point behind stuff like this - and this is what Americans of the past understood, when our economy was actually growing much faster than it is now - is that you have to spend money to make money. An "investment" is just that - the money doesn't go away, it just goes towards something that's going to make even more money back in return. This is what infrastructure *does*. This is why we built it in the first place. And this is why we have to keep modernizing, upgrading and building more of it.

Nobody thought the LGA project was going to happen, until one day they suddenly started working on it and everybody seemed surprised. This will be no different. Cuomo's got a track record now, and nothing's any different about JFK than LGA.

As to whether "the community" will support it... yes, *we* will.

Get on board or get out of the way; that's all I have to say about it.

ahj2000 wrote:

NY is going to go bankrupt at this pace. Jeez.
This looks quite nice, but are the airlines really onboard? those look like tiny ramps and alleyways and carriers like AA and DL have heavily invested in their terminals as of late.

Investing in infrastructure helps your economy grow. NY isn't Kansas.

spacecadet wrote:

The whole point behind stuff like this - and this is what Americans of the past understood, when our economy was actually growing much faster than it is now

Sure, but much of that was also during a time when compensation mirrored productivity. Not exactly the case today--- at all.




Bring the two back into line, and we'd probably see a whole different attitude about such, in terms of infrastructure.

Everything should be bulldozed. It's time to start from scratch. LHR has been doing it.
It's a question of extracting the most out of limited space.

LAX772LR wrote:

spacecadet wrote:

The whole point behind stuff like this - and this is what Americans of the past understood, when our economy was actually growing much faster than it is now

Sure, but much of that was also during a time when compensation mirrored productivity. Not exactly the case today--- at all.




Bring the two back into line, and we'd probably see a whole different attitude about such, in terms of infrastructure.

You have never lived such a coddled comfortable life living in a western rich nation.

b747400erf wrote:

You have never lived such a coddled comfortable life living in a western rich nation.

1) You have absolutely no idea as to how/where I have and have not lived, so that's a rather inane statement for you to make.

2) Even if taking that as presented, it doesn't do a thing to refute the data you were just shown.

Gov. Cuomo is really acting as if the state owns JFK, in fact they do not.

Their top priority should be a proper public transit system to the airport from the city. It is beyond comprehension how a major international gateway to the US lacks basic infrastructure. And no, the current setup with AirTan and subway is not adequate. JFK is a complete disgrace!

INFINITI329 wrote:

Gov. Cuomo is really acting as if the state owns JFK, in fact they do not.

Who owns it then?

I dont know how anyone who uses JFK with any frequency can state that the JFK Expressway is unnecessary.

Two summers ago the Van Wyck exit was closed for construction nightly...you had to see the mess that resulted with just one access roadway.

The airport is well served by two exits, and I im sure both will be retained.

There are many aspects of this plan that can and will get reworked.

In 1969 I wrote a letter from my school (PS106) in The Bronx to Mayor Lindsay suggesting a monorail from "downtown" (Manhattan from an outer borough pov) to JFK, like one I had recently seen in a DisneyWorld drawing (my drawing attached). My family went to Scotland every other summer on BOAC or PanAm...and I thought at 8 years old that it all needed modernization as the trip to/from JFK was most dreaded. Surprisingly, I did get a letter back saying my idea was great but that it would cost too much. Now, had they just listened to me in '69, we wouldn't be in this quagmire today would we?

VS11 wrote:

Their top priority should be a proper public transit system to the airport from the city. It is beyond comprehension how a major international gateway to the US lacks basic infrastructure. And no, the current setup with AirTan and subway is not adequate. JFK is a complete disgrace!

Especially in a city like New York!! Unlike most of the rest of the US, we have a huge mass transit system over 9 million people use it per week, next biggest is DC with about 800 *thousand* per week. I think I read that the New York subway carries more people than all the other US metro systems combined. Yet it doesn't go to the two New York airports.

My hypothesis is that people who flew were probably the upper class who wouldn't be taking the subway anyway so there wasn't a need, but that all changed by the 70s and by then NIMBY and cost made extending the subways prohibitive - just look @ the second Ave. subway.

Click on this page for subway ridership. Yeah, it is Wikipedia, but as long as the page cites their source, and it does, and the source checks out then it is legit.

spacecadet wrote:

jco613 wrote:

between this and his proposal to fund 4 year colleges, will NY have any money left for...well...anything?

The whole point behind stuff like this - and this is what Americans of the past understood, when our economy was actually growing much faster than it is now - is that you have to spend money to make money. An "investment" is just that - the money doesn't go away, it just goes towards something that's going to make even more money back in return. This is what infrastructure *does*. This is why we built it in the first place. And this is why we have to keep modernizing, upgrading and building more of it.

Nobody thought the LGA project was going to happen, until one day they suddenly started working on it and everybody seemed surprised. This will be no different. Cuomo's got a track record now, and nothing's any different about JFK than LGA.

As to whether "the community" will support it... yes, *we* will.

Get on board or get out of the way; that's all I have to say about it.

It was kind of a joke...I get it, but it does seem like a bit much to announce on back to back days

"The transfer in Jamaica is particularly difficult to navigate for passengers with baggage, and is in a dated facility that
lacks basic amenities such as climate control and information displays."

Amen! A lot of people here are clamoring for a direct rail link and that is a worthy goal. I think, however, that there is tremendous potential to simply improve the AirTrain experience in the short term. The AirTrain should be providing a 35-45 min, stress free trip to midtown. I'm a lifelong New Yorker, however, and I find the whole thing rather messy.

A few ideas:

-Large display screens for tourists that indicate the next train to NYC Penn Station & Brooklyn Atlantic Terminal (and soon Grand Central too with East Side Access)
-Find a way not to confuse passengers with peak versus off-peak LIRR pricing
-LIRR Ticket Windows, information, and more ticket machines on the elevated concourse above the tracks
-Make the AirTrain free OR free with an LIRR ticket
-AirTrain arrival displays at all stations that show a list of trains with arrival times (right now they just show the next train list)
-Separate walkways from the AIrTrain to the LIRR and subway (E,J,Z) trains. I've spoken to tourists who are very confused by the LIRR versus subway split

So not only do relatively new terminals get rebuilt but AirTran is gone too. Definitely bold moves, but not surprising considering what going on at LGA. Funny, not too long ago, EWR had the most modern facilities of the three major NYC airports and it propelled Continental's growth.

In the near future with LGA and now JFK if this goes through, NYC will have finally gateways to the world befitting its status as a city.

idlewild wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Gov. Cuomo is really acting as if the state owns JFK, in fact they do not.

Who owns it then?

The City of New York owns both JFK & LGA. The PANYNJ is the lessee

Also included in proposal is Van Wyck widening from 6 lanes to 8.

This frankly is 20 years too late and needs to happen

What should be done is to extend T4A, and build a single terminal in the space occupied by 2, and the space left by 3. This will alleviate holding for gates.

I have no dog in this fight because I have never flown to JFK and haven't been to NYC in two decades, but I do have one question:

"Where is the money coming from to do this?"

People are leaving New York state like mad, and with all the problem that state and state government seems to have where is the $$$$ going to come from to do such a rebuild? It is possible that such a plan could end up being another mess like BER is.

Maybe the City should sell the airport to private investors who take the risk to do the work to make it a world-class airport. Maybe the state and city governments should try to do something about the political and other barriers such a redesign would face so it will be cheaper and easier to do. From afar it seems like this plan is nothing but a pipedream, and if any of it ever gets done it will be so expensive to complete the rest of the project will never get done. The posts above about infrastructure and the old "growing economy" is so sad, but true. Sadly those old days are never coming back it seems, and many people do not want to see it.

A vibrant, growing economy with positive citizens pushing it will never happen again. Too many people are opting for government to control the flow of the economy, and unless that changes the old days are never coming back.

ahj2000 wrote:

NY is going to go bankrupt at this pace. Jeez.

StuckinCMHland wrote:

"Where is the money coming from to do this?"

The state of New York would be the world's 12th largest economy were it not part of the US (so, just behind South Korea, or thereabouts). And, of course, the recommendation is to pursue a public/private partnership. Paying for this is not going to be an issue.

The Calatrava transit hub mentioned earlier cost 4 billion by itself.

csavel wrote:

Especially in a city like New York!! Unlike most of the rest of the US, we have a huge mass transit system over 9 million people use it per week, next biggest is DC with about 800 *thousand* per week.

Minor nit on amosyl agreeable post: DC is second with 5.25 MILLION passengers a week. It's about 800,000 per DAY. (Not bad for a city with only 500,000 residents!)