Register
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 134
  1. #1
    guzzijason's Avatar
    guzzijason is offline Mostly Human
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The land of wind and ghosts
    Posts
    1,824

    Default PHL airport expansion approved by FAA

    Big Phila. airport expansion approved | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/04/2011

    Will require the demolition of 72 homes and 12 businesses.
    With no eminent domain. I'd hate to be the person that has to go around knocking on doors for this. I'm picturing something like the Monty Python "liver donor" bit.

    __Jason

  2. #2
    Hayden is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Northern Delaware
    Posts
    30

    Default

    I see no mention of anything in the upgrades that would decrease the amount of time it takes to get your baggage. With US Air especially, it's not uncommon for us to have to wait up to 45 minutes or more to get our bags after landing. That's asinine. Vehicular traffic flow around the terminals needs improving as well.

  3. #3
    Seanibus's Avatar
    Seanibus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hayden View Post
    I see no mention of anything in the upgrades that would decrease the amount of time it takes to get your baggage. With US Air especially, it's not uncommon for us to have to wait up to 45 minutes or more to get our bags after landing. That's asinine. Vehicular traffic flow around the terminals needs improving as well.
    The project will be done in 2023. Then they can set to work on your concerns. Promise.
    Owl looked at Rabbit and wondered whether to push him off the tree, but feeling that he could always do it afterward, he tried once more to find out what they were talking about.

  4. #4
    thunda is offline Local celebrity
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    6th & Souf
    Posts
    949

    Default PHL Airport Expansion

    Big Phila. airport expansion approved | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/04/2011

    A $5.2 billion expansion of Philadelphia International Airport aimed at reducing flight delays and accommodating growth has received the final sign-off from the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Interesting. What are people's thoughts on this?

    My first reaction is to wonder how much this will actually reduce delays, given that there's still a finite volume of airspace and the Northeast is crowded with major airports.

    Secondly, what if $2-3 billion of this was used to buy new train sets for Amtrak and increase speeds on the NEC and Keystone? Would it displace enough air traffic to obviate the need for so much expansion at PHL? (I think Illiniwik made a similar point about the Chicago airports.)
    "Don't forget to send in your ACLU donation, you sad rabid bitch" - The always estimable Dana Lynn

  5. #5
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    16,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guzzijason View Post
    Meaning this could get ugly if a bunch of home owners said to piss off and requiring the City to go to court to try to eminent domain.

  6. #6
    thunda is offline Local celebrity
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    6th & Souf
    Posts
    949

    Default

    The article also misspelled "eminent" domain. Ugh.
    "Don't forget to send in your ACLU donation, you sad rabid bitch" - The always estimable Dana Lynn

  7. #7
    ArcticSplash's Avatar
    ArcticSplash is offline Dixie Normus
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,736

    Default

    I've always thought it was stupid to try to keep expanding when the airport is cornered like it is, and the other side of the river has plenty of space to expand and far fewer homeowners. Putting in another terminal in New Jersey and to use TBMs to barrel under the river to extend PHL over to the Jersey side would be better for long-term expansion, AND reducing car traffic and parking problems.

    Jersey residents could park and enter on the Jersey side, and a people mover can move people securely between a new NJ terminal and the PHL terminals. One day if PATCO ever expands, it can turn to the SW and connect to the terminal, giving the RiverLine and PATCO a direct connection to the airport.



    Las Vegas has used the remote-terminal approach to solve an expansion problem and it's worked out for them. New Jersey would license and collect concessions on its side of Philly International and parking fees and revenue would go to NJ townships. It would be a big infrastructure improvement for both Philadelphia and for South Jersey and Delaware.

  8. #8
    puzzles is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    165

    Default

    It's great in my opinion. Plus, we finally get a people-mover!

  9. #9
    guzzijason's Avatar
    guzzijason is offline Mostly Human
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The land of wind and ghosts
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seanibus View Post
    The project will be done in 2023. Then they can set to work on your concerns. Promise.
    Two things come to mind:

    1. I started a thread that may be active for the next 12 years... woo!
    2. Won't the airport be obsolete by 2023? I mean, we'll all have hovercars and what-not, no?

    __Jason

  10. #10
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    16,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfairMeat View Post
    I've always thought it was stupid to try to keep expanding when the airport is cornered like it is, and the other side of the river has plenty of space to expand and far fewer homeowners. Putting in another terminal in New Jersey and to use TBMs to barrel under the river to extend PHL over to the Jersey side would be better for long-term expansion, AND reducing car traffic and parking problems.

    Jersey residents could park and enter on the Jersey side, and a people mover can move people securely between a new NJ terminal and the PHL terminals. One day if PATCO ever expands, it can turn to the SW and connect to the terminal, giving the RiverLine and PATCO a direct connection to the airport.



    Las Vegas has used the remote-terminal approach to solve an expansion problem and it's worked out for them. New Jersey would license and collect concessions on its side of Philly International and parking fees and revenue would go to NJ townships. It would be a big infrastructure improvement for both Philadelphia and for South Jersey and Delaware.
    You honestly think Philly wants to share revenue with NJ? Remember, the City owns the airport. They have vested interest in capturing all the revenue.

  11. #11
    ArcticSplash's Avatar
    ArcticSplash is offline Dixie Normus
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    You honestly think Philly wants to share revenue with NJ? Remember, the City owns the airport. They have vested interest in capturing all the revenue.
    That's where Tom Corbett and no more House appropriations committee beholden to Philly comes in handy.

  12. #12
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    16,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfairMeat View Post
    That's where Tom Corbett and no more House appropriations committee beholden to Philly comes in handy.
    But why would they want to share revenue with NJ either?

  13. #13
    Lakey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    368

    Default

    On the whole, this project should be a good thing for the city. The airfield expansion will help to address one of the sources of delays. Also, the FAA is in the early stages of implementing a GPS-based ATC system. That should address the other major source of delays. The people mover is a much needed addition and relocating car rentals to a centrally located and covered area will be a huge improvement as well.

    A satellite arifield/terminal in New Jersey is politically infeasible whatever its merits might be. The residents of South Jersey fought modifed approach patterns at PHL. There would be little, if any, support for a new airfield. MM, I'm not sure whether you are thinking of the D gates at Las Vegas, but if you are, they were built on land already within McCarran's boundaries (at least, I think they were), though they are remote from the main terminals.

    Expanding ACY gets considered periodically as a way of relieving congestion at PHL. I'm skeptical that it would ever succeed in attracting a significant number of passengers, because it's in a poor location. The majority of people and businesses in the Philly metro are west of the Delaware. IMO it will be difficult to pursude people to use ACY becuase it's too far from the final detisnation of most people traveling to the area and it's distant from the overwhelming majority of people living in the area. The secondary airports that get signifcant traffic are more centrally located to heavily populated areas than ACY.

  14. #14
    eldondre is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    20,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by puzzles View Post
    It's great in my opinion. Plus, we finally get a people-mover!
    will it come at the cost of one seat ride service to the CBD?
    "It has shown me that everything is illuminated in the light of the past"
    Jonathan Safran Foer

  15. #15
    Seanibus's Avatar
    Seanibus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guzzijason View Post
    Two things come to mind:

    1. I started a thread that may be active for the next 12 years... woo!
    2. Won't the airport be obsolete by 2023? I mean, we'll all have hovercars and what-not, no?

    __Jason
    Remember, the world is going to end in May anyway, so it's all rather academic at this point.
    Owl looked at Rabbit and wondered whether to push him off the tree, but feeling that he could always do it afterward, he tried once more to find out what they were talking about.

  16. #16
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    16,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seanibus View Post
    Remember, the world is going to end in May anyway, so it's all rather academic at this point.
    Yeah, right after the primary. Talk about a waste of effort.

  17. #17
    Seanibus's Avatar
    Seanibus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    Yeah, right after the primary. Talk about a waste of effort.
    Nutter just can't catch a break, can he?
    Owl looked at Rabbit and wondered whether to push him off the tree, but feeling that he could always do it afterward, he tried once more to find out what they were talking about.

  18. #18
    guinsu is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hayden View Post
    I see no mention of anything in the upgrades that would decrease the amount of time it takes to get your baggage. With US Air especially, it's not uncommon for us to have to wait up to 45 minutes or more to get our bags after landing. That's asinine. Vehicular traffic flow around the terminals needs improving as well.
    I've actually noticed over the past 2 years US Air has picked up the pace a good bit, I've gotten bags in 15-20 mins before. Well, until last Sunday, when I waited 45 minutes due to conveyor belt issues. That was annoying after a day of delays (ah Bahamas Air, you make US Air look wonderful)

  19. #19
    dontforget is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakey View Post
    Expanding ACY gets considered periodically as a way of relieving congestion at PHL. I'm skeptical that it would ever succeed in attracting a significant number of passengers, because it's in a poor location. The majority of people and businesses in the Philly metro are west of the Delaware. IMO it will be difficult to pursude people to use ACY becuase it's too far from the final detisnation of most people traveling to the area and it's distant from the overwhelming majority of people living in the area. The secondary airports that get signifcant traffic are more centrally located to heavily populated areas than ACY.
    ACY is undergoing expansion:
    Press of AC Link

    ACY won't have the same catchment area as PHL, but it can still draw from 2.3 million residents and be successful as a alternate airport in Southern NJ.

    Over 2.3 million people live in:
    Camden, Burlington, Gloucester (Philadelphia MSA)
    Cumberland (Vineland MSA/Philadelphia CSA)
    Atlantic (Atlantic City-Hammonton MSA)
    Cape May (Ocean City MSA)
    Ocean (New York MSA)

    Border fringe areas to pull from:
    Southern Monmouth Co.
    Center City Phila./Northeast Philly

    And the Shore area swells in population over the summer months, also with some from PA who have second homes by the shore.
    This is just outbound traffic.

    Inbound, AC wants tourists.

    As Southwest will be merging with AirTran that has both a PHL and ACY presence, Southwest may want to keep an ACY presence to hedge against the risk of higher operating costs at PHL. The casino coalition can also provide subsidy on routes to pull in tourists.

    The SJTA which operates the airport also has been advertising the airport (including buying TV spots on the local Philadelphia TV stations, and billboard ads even all the way up by Exit 13 of the NJ Turnpike). To me the latter is a bit too far, but ACY with Southwest could be attractive to those within an hours drive of the airport. SJTA seems to be doing its work on the marketing side.

    Southwest could channel new regional growth at ACY, while keeping its PHL presence/activity at status quo, or expand at ACY while decreasing its presence at PHL a little (i.e. move a MDW departure, a MCO departure, etc. to ACY).
    Last edited by dontforget; 01-05-2011 at 03:12 PM.

  20. #20
    gren's Avatar
    gren is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Walnut Hill
    Posts
    2,168

    Default

    Quick Question. Who pays for this? Does the airport have the cash and bonding power (separate from the city) to fund this or will it be a liability for the city and us its residents?

    Quote Originally Posted by thunda View Post
    Secondly, what if $2-3 billion of this was used to buy new train sets for Amtrak and increase speeds on the NEC and Keystone? Would it displace enough air traffic to obviate the need for so much expansion at PHL? (I think Illiniwik made a similar point about the Chicago airports.)
    That's the cost of replacing the B&P tunnels in and around Baltimore and the Portal Bridge. (Source: Amtrak Northeast Corridor Assessment) I'm not saying those projects aren't important (they are) but to get real HSR would cost much more.

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfairMeat View Post
    I've always thought it was stupid to try to keep expanding when the airport is cornered like it is, and the other side of the river has plenty of space to expand and far fewer homeowners. Putting in another terminal in New Jersey and to use TBMs to barrel under the river to extend PHL over to the Jersey side would be better for long-term expansion, AND reducing car traffic and parking problems.
    You tell me how much that idea costs and I'll tell you if it's a good one

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2