An Airport for Lower Manhattan

[Marksix]

I am canvassing views and opinions about a small (1,500m runway) "City" airport for Lower Manhattan.

The facility would be analagous to London City Airport (http://www.londoncityairport.com) using sub 150PAX aircraft operating short, sub 700 mile sectors.

The rational is to serve principally in-bound travellers to lower & mid town and intercept out bound travellers from the existing airports saving up to two hours surface transport time.

Over to you.....

[ZippyTheChimp]

Absolutely not, but where would you put it?

[Schadenfrau]

No, that's an absurd idea.

[Gulcrapek]

Rail link is much, much better and 300x more practical.

[Deimos]

I'd be scared to work in a building next to the runway, and that's not even taking 9/11 into account.... there's just too many skyscrapers in lower manhattan to make it practical to think that a wayward plane wouldn't be guaranteed to steer clear (especially in stormy weather)

[BrooklynRider]

A runway belching jet exhaust should help the burgeoning residential development.

[Schadenfrau]

Not to mention the roar of jets and the quaking that accompanies them.

[Schadenfrau]

I saw a jet flying over midtown this morning and nearly had a heart attack, as did about half of everyone else standing on the street.

[BPC]

How about a Six Flags and a drag racing track while we're at it?

[knickerbocker G]

Dude where is the logic in that?

[Marksix]

The location for the runway would be on the Hudson River somewhere between the Holland Tunnel and 27th St. It will accupy the same area as a large ship but with a freeboard of less than two metres. A small terminal will be on-shore.

These kind of "City" airports are common in Europe and the example shown is London City Airport situated on the River Thames.

The type of aircraft would be small regional airliners which are quieter than a bus and do not "belch" fumes. Perhaps 24 movements an hour max. operating five and a half days per week.

Environmental impact would be to remove up to 60,000 car journeys per day through the boroughs to & from the existing airports removing the consequent congestion & pollution.

The business case is to serve the business travellers needs of lower and mid-town Manhattan and creating an economic asset.


Thank you for the feedback.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Ignoring for the moment the quality-of-life aspects and the fact that the Hudson is a federally controlled waterway, and dealing only with the problem of location, I thought about a possible site. The East River is out for obvious reasons. Governors Island is the right size, but would never happen.

The Hudson River looks acceptable if you only consider ground logistics and ignore airspace. The Hudson River sits between terminal approaches for Newark and Laguardia (JFK?) airports. I think the river may be the actual boundary (Maybe Bob (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/member.php?u=3245) can answer this). Placing an airport here would have the same disruptive effect on air traffic as Teterboro Airport, about 10 miles from Newark.

Also, there is already considerable air traffic over the river that is now uncontrolled to about 1000 ft. That airspace would become controlled space, and all small craft and helicopter flights would cease.

The only possible place is further south in New York Bay, but then the advantage of location to Manhattan is lost - Newark Airport is only 12 driving miles from Manhattan.


a large ship
1500 meters is a few large ships.

[Ninjahedge]

The additional fact tat it would only be for about 24 flights a day for "buisness customers" makes me even less inclined to support this.

This is a convenience for the few that would use it and could afford it.

It is not worth the annoyance, the risk, or any cost the city might incur.

[Marksix]

....24 movements per hour

[NYatKNIGHT]

Don't the heliports serve this purpose?

[Marksix]

Don't the heliports serve this purpose?

Helicopters can fly at 100mph and are good for short range, vertical take-off, search & rescue etc. They carry only 3 - 6 people and are noisier than fixed wing.

A short flight from Manhattan in a quiet, new generation regional airliner to i.e. Boston, Washington DC or Philadelphia (amongst others), could be accomplished in the time it takes to get to LaGuardia or Newark. On a 50 minute flight, two hours surface transport time can be saved at the Manhattan end.

Poor communications are becoming a major disincentive to business remaining or coming to a city such as New York.

New techniques enable floating runways to be employed. Such a runway would be moored (like a floating landing stage) no more that 30 metres from land.

[Schadenfrau]

What exactly do you mean by "poor communications"?

I have serious doubts that flying into Queens prevents anyone from visiting New York City.

Have you ever flown into Tokyo?

[Gulcrapek]

Also, there are many herlicopters that fly faster than 100 mph. Including all of this page:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/commercial/

[NYCResident]

Poor communications are becoming a major disincentive to business remaining or coming to a city such as New York.

The lack of an airport in Manhattan has not up to now, caused NYC to risk losing its status as the financial/business/advertising/cultural/etc. capital of the world, so don't really see any added value here..

[PHLguy]

ABSOLOUTLY NOT!!, that would slow down skyscraper development BIG TIMES and would be noisy and congested.

[NewYorkYankee]

Not having an airport in Manhattan risks losing the title of Capital of the World? I dont think so. A 30 minute commute into the city from QNS isnt an eternity. (Although it would be nice for a 1 seat rail ride.) NY isnt going to lose its title.


EDIT: NVM, I misread your post.

[NoyokA]

ABSOLOUTLY NOT!!, that would slow down skyscraper development BIG TIMES and would be noisy and congested.

I for one saw that coming....

Personally in this age of opening NYC ports and expanded access, I would support a landing strip off derelict west side piers. An airport is better than a cruise-ship port because it brings people and money to Manhattan instead of taking them off. I see it as a contribution like the Concord in the interest of efficiency, however in the post 9-11 world caution overrules haste. Too many New Yorkers are too critical for it to work, it could however, theoretically be a huge economic boon to the city.

[ZippyTheChimp]

What is being overlooked is the volume of space that an airport requires, and the relationship to other airports in the region.

London City Airport is about 20 air miles east of Heathrow. For comparison, Newark is 15 miles from Laguardia, and 18 miles from JFK. A Manhattan airport in the Hudson would be less than 8 miles from Newark and Laguardia, and the approach would cut across the east-west approach to Newark.

As anything more than a "thought experiment," the concept is ridiculous. The location of the three airports to Manhattan is the best that can be expected in a dense skyscraper environment. What is needed is rapid transport from the airports into Manhattan, not another airport.

[fioco]

What is needed is rapid transport from the airports into Manhattan, not another airport.

Amen to that. And rapid transport to the three existing airports would serve a far larger customer base and offer a far greater economic stimulus.

[NYatKNIGHT]

They need to work on the "rapid". It shouldn't take as long as it does for those distances.

[Marksix]

Thank you for your contributions so far. Re. ATC issues, whilst valid these technicalities can be overcome.

In a perfect world a rapid transit system to the major airports would be a good solution. London has, after 20 years consideration, finally consented to such a system know as "crosslink" which extends from LHR to LCY, mostly beneath the river. The cost is estimated at £20billion+.....

A "city" type airport as envisaged would cost in the region of $50m so the economics favour this solution, in the immediate term at least.


Would not such a "city" airport conform to the aspitations of the "Grand Vision for Remaking the West Side"?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Although more costly, London is taking the correct approach with the link, because it is long-term planning. Your solution for New York is expediency, typical of the short-sighted thinking that has brought us to this situation. We need to eat the cost, and just build the link to JFK, and start planning something similar for LAG.

Does anone see any mass transit along West St from the Holland Tunnel to W 27th St? What do do with passengers?

Taxis and limos. A "quiet" airplane every 2 minutes 100 feet from the pierline. Jet fuel is similar to kerosene, and airplanes have no pollution control. Forget about a walk out on the Hudson River Park piers to escape the noise of the city. Don't bring a camera either.

Grand Vision for the Westside, indeed.