Port Authority: Fourth big airport may be needed in metro NYC
By ROSA CIRIANNI
20 June 2005

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - The head of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Monday that the metropolitan region may need a fourth major airport to meet the great demand for air travel.

"At some point someone thought of building the George Washington Bridge and eventually built it," Port Authority Chairman Anthony Coscia told reporters after testifying to lawmakers. "We have an obligation to ourselves and to the future to be able to build for that growth."

Coscia, who testified before a state Senate committee, also said his agency has asked federal regulators to reduce flights in and out of Teterboro Airport, where two planes have skidded off runways and a third crashed while landing this year.

Located in a densely populated area near New York, Teterboro has grown into one of the nation's busiest small airports. It had 202,720 arrivals and departures in 2004, a 4 percent increase from 2003.

The airport has been a longtime sore spot for neighboring residents, who have complained of aircraft noise and exhaust odors.

The Port Authority is proposing $20 million in upgrades to the airport, including barriers that expand on impact to slow or stop a plane at the end of a runway. On Feb. 2, a plane ran off the end of a runway after an aborted takeoff, crossed a busy road and slammed into a warehouse, injuring 20 people.

"The fact that there was no loss of life in that incident is a miracle," said Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen, chairman of the Senate Legislative Oversight Committee.

Port Authority officials and lawmakers said they want to band together to lobby the Federal Aviation Administration to limit Teterboro's flights. Closing the airport, they said, is not an option because it employs 1,200 people and contributes $1.8 billion to the economy each year.

Coscia said the authority intends to limit the weight of aircraft that use Teterboro, complete a study evaluating airport space in the region, increase landing fees, buy specialized fire equipment and ban some corporate jets to reduce noise and lower the overall number of flights at Teterboro. The authority also plans to ask the Federal Reserve Bank, which accounts for about 50 percent of the airport's nighttime flights, to fly there during the day.

Small New York airports, including White Plains, Macarthur and Stewart, and New Jersey airports such as Morristown, Atlantic City and McGuire, might be able to handle some of Teterboro's volume, Coscia said.

LaGuardia, Newark Liberty and John F. Kennedy international airports all serve the area. Coscia said adding an airport to the region, to which about 100 million people travel for business and pleasure annually, is worth considering.

"Whether that includes a fourth major airport, whether that includes additional capacity, all of those things should be on the table and we're going to spend the resources on studying it intelligently because what we don't want to do is to see the problems that we have today at Teterboro," Coscia said.

I think they should build a 4th airport somewhere. I know London has at least 5 airports. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City.....wait there's also Southend Airport which makes it 6.

I think they should build a 4th airport somewhere. I know London has at least 5 airports. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City.....wait there's also Southend Airport which makes it 6.
Stansted, Luton and Southend aren't London airports, though Stansted includes London in it's name. None of them are in London. It's further from Stansted to the centre of London than it is from the centre of Manchester (or Manchester Airport) to the centre of Liverpool (or Liverpool John Lennon Airport)!

^NY's airports save maybe Newark are horribly outdated in layout and efficiency, especially La Guardia. JFK's runways are fine, but its terminals could be in a better layout to facilitate passenger flows.

Sadly, I think NY would actually save money by building a fourth major airport somewhere... now where, I have no clue... is there room on Staten Island for something the size of JFK? Or would that put it too close to Newark? They could build a new one somewhere in Jersey between NY and Philly, too... along the northeast corridor. Wherever they build it, they'd better incorporate transit into it. JFK was stranded from the subway until a few years ago, Newwark is only accessible by commuter rail, and La Guardia forces you to take a shuttle for a few miles. I think that's ridiculous when you compare it to London, Paris, Tokyo, or Chicago... the first three having express airport service, the last one due for it in a few years.

The US was the first part of the world to have high volume commercial service to everywhere and thus has some of the oldest most outdated major airports still in service anywhere. Almost every major US airport has either been recently renovated, newly built (to transfer traffic from an older airport), or is slated for that and/or huge expansion in the next ten years. And this process is 10 years overdue, like everything else.

The US was the first part of the world to have high volume commercial service to everywhere and thus has some of the oldest most outdated major airports still in service anywhere.

Very true. LaGuardia is a relic of the 50s that needs to be closed, because there's no room to expand. JFK's terminal complex looks like a jumbled mess... sure it was neat for each airline to build their own terminal back in the day, but today it's really inefficient. Newark's got just one major runway, perhaps if they put a parallel one distanced enough away from it to handle two simultaneous flows of traffic, it can be salvaged.

It's not just the runways that need re-configuring, it's the terminal buildings themselves. They're old, crampt and in a lot of cases prone to breaches in security even after 9/11. This is why I applauded Denver's decision to demolish their old airport back in the 90s and start from scratch with DIA, a model for what the rest of the aviation infrastructure should look like in the U.S. Other airports like LAX and O'Hare are spending billions to re-configure runways, but they really need to look to new airports instead.

But the land problem in NYC is quite the pickle... not sure where they could put a fourth airport, perhaps somewhere north of the GW Bridge in Jersey?

^LAX is running into bureaucratic troubles and NIMBYism as well, has been for years. I doubt we'll see much change anytime soon over there. LAX needs to be modernized and just slightly reconfigured (it's actually a good layout). A second major international airport for LA needs to be built or expanded from one of their existing airports... probably Orange County or Ontario.

O'hare expansion is pushing ahead for a realignment of runways and a new terminal complex on the west side of the airport... but this is just to reduce current delays and bring it up to today's capacity standards. After this, O'hare is done. Chicago is actually looking at a third airport in Gary... but state politics is being a barrier as they want an airport about 50 miles south of downtown in Peotone, right off of I-57.

The land problem is something for NY to consider... it might be easiest to just expand Newark, but I don't think NY State would like that. Perhaps they could expand JFK as well and reconfigure the terminal complex... the problem with JFK though is with wetlands. Environmentalists will scream murder.

I only see somewhere in Jersey between Elizabeth and Princeton as feasible, to be honest... it would be a bit of distance, but that could be covered with an express commuter rail service.

^ Yeah I think having it in Jersey's the key. Because there's a ton of people from New Jersey, southern NY State and Connecticuit that would be using it, so you don't want to force them to pass through the burrows to get to it.

LAX is an excellent layout, but they need to move the nothernmost and southernmost runways further away so they can put a center taxiway in between the two parallel sets. The terminals are generally cramped and overcrowded though, they need to be replaced with what the LAX Master Plan proposes.

O'Hare is running into trouble too, the city needs to come up with another $250M for taxiway expansions or the FAA won't approve Daley's plan. The Gary idea is kind of dead. Most people are advocating for a third airport on the southwest outer skirts of the metropolis. I would agree with this too... $20 Billion for a few runways and not even replacing those nasty old terminals? Gimme a break. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Stansted, Luton and Southend aren't London airports, though Stansted includes London in it's name. None of them are in London. It's further from Stansted to the centre of London than it is from the centre of Manchester (or Manchester Airport) to the centre of Liverpool (or Liverpool John Lennon Airport)!Southend isn't a London airport (although it is marketing itself, just is Southend is towards a connecting London international airport), but Stansted and Luton are airports that serve London. For a start there is an express train service from London Stansted Airport into London Liverpool Street Station (just as there is for Heathrow and Gatwick). London Luton Airport also technically also has an express train service under the Thameslink/Midland Mainline livery. London City Airport is the only London airport to lack a direct airport-city centre express rail link even though it is the closest to the centre of London (although the new DLR extension will solve some of these problems, it wont be express though).

For example for New York, Newark isn't in New York, but it is still a New York airport, these three New York airports like the 5 London airports all feed into their respective cities. London Stansted for instance doesn't cater for my local area, but for low cost carrier flights for those wanting to get into London from Europe. Gatwick is also an airport not located within the city proper or urban area of London, but does that mean London has only 2 airports and New York 2? No, its all about markets and servicing those markets.


I think that something New York really lacks is express rail services that go from the airport direct into Manhattan. This I believe would allow for greater flexibility (afterall most problems with airports is transport connections) and more scope for expansion. Looking at London as a role model to try and work out a solution other than just building another airport (crazilly that was just the other year ago an option) might also prove interesting :yes:

why don't they built the fourth aiport on the water like that japanese airport.
Or how about somewhere north of bronx or westchester.

^ Yeah I think having it in Jersey's the key. Because there's a ton of people from New Jersey, southern NY State and Connecticuit that would be using it, so you don't want to force them to pass through the burrows to get to it.

LAX is an excellent layout, but they need to move the nothernmost and southernmost runways further away so they can put a center taxiway in between the two parallel sets. The terminals are generally cramped and overcrowded though, they need to be replaced with what the LAX Master Plan proposes.

O'Hare is running into trouble too, the city needs to come up with another $250M for taxiway expansions or the FAA won't approve Daley's plan. The Gary idea is kind of dead. Most people are advocating for a third airport on the southwest outer skirts of the metropolis. I would agree with this too... $20 Billion for a few runways and not even replacing those nasty old terminals? Gimme a break. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

At the very least, O'hare needs to redo its runways anyway... and that's what the most important part of the project is about. They're also in the midst of rennovating their terminal complex. I think most of the $20 billion is actually for terminal expansion and the connecting infrastructure. The Gary idea also isn't dead as there are plans on the drawing boards for capacity expansion to 40 million per year. The quesiton is getting the funding. However, Peotone, the other airport location you mentioned, isn't any further ahead in that arena.

Nick, NY has plans for express service to JFK and Newark from Penn Station in Midtown Manhattan. That can be implemented easily if the MTA and NJ Transit could get past all their bureaucracy and get the ball rolling. My guess as to what is holding up the implementation of that service is the rebuilding of Penn Station across 8th Avenue from its current location, slated to begin soon. But there's even bureaucratic fighting over that. Amtrak doesn't want to pay for a new building. MTA also wants to extend the LIRR from Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn to Lower Manhattan (Fulton Street) and operate express service to JFK from there. The could also feasibly extend PATH from Newark Penn one stop further south and do express service to Newark from Lower Manhattan as well. NY has so much potential to do all of this, and it's got the vision... but bureaucrats are holding up the process (kill them all I say) as well as transit luddites who don't know the difference between capital and operating expenses.

Chicago is a little further ahead in implementing express services to O'hare and Midway using Block 37 as a launching station in downtown. Private developers (Mills Corporation) are actually footing a sizable portion of that bill and a lot more of the funding is coming from airport landing fees.

....I think that something New York really lacks is express rail services that go from the airport direct into Manhattan....


You can take the train from Penn Station to Newark airport, which is 15 miles from Manhattan, in 22 minutes.

You can take the train from Penn Station to Newark airport, which is 15 miles from Manhattan, in 22 minutes.But that isn't a direct express train service though is it! You firstly have to alight at Newark International Station and then get on to the AirTrain which takes you to the terminals. In London (as you might be aware) with the Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow Express train services: they all go direct to the terminals (the new Heathrow Terminal 5 curently being built will also have a dedicated Heathrow Express station), Amtrak or NJ Transit do not go direct to the terminals. Secondly, its not really an express service as there are 2 stops before the station, much like the link from London Kings Cross - London Luton Airport service. Thirdly they aren't dedicated train services but through services and handle local traffic as well as airport traffic.

JFK could handle a lot more traffic during most of the day. It just needs to find a better way to fit many more domestic flights that don't interfere with the five or six hours a day that it's busy with incoming and outgoing international flights.

Stansted, Luton and Southend aren't London airports, though Stansted includes London in it's name. None of them are in London. It's further from Stansted to the centre of London than it is from the centre of Manchester (or Manchester Airport) to the centre of Liverpool (or Liverpool John Lennon Airport)!Stansted and Luton are most definitely London airports. The fact that they (also Gatwick) are outside the the official boundary of Greater London does not diminish that. Do you really think that Paris Charles de Gaulle is not "Paris" because it's outside the 109km2 of the City of Paris? :| Southend Airport is tiny and irrelevant and Liverpool and Manchester are virtually one conurbation. London has five international airports as every Londoner and travel agent will verify. :yes:

Stansted and Luton are most definitely London airports. The fact that they (also Gatwick) are outside the the official boundary of Greater London does not diminish that. Do you really think that Paris Charles de Gaulle is not "Paris" because it's outside the 109km2 of the City of Paris? :| Southend Airport is tiny and irrelevant and Liverpool and Manchester are virtually one conurbation. London has five international airports as every Londoner and travel agent will verify. :yes:

Though somebody must have realised that London Manston was taking the piss just a bit, as they renamed it Kent International :)

Though somebody must have realised that London Manston was taking the piss just a bit, as they renamed it Kent International :)

Yeah, I looked on a map to see where Manston Airport was when I saw an advertisement saying it was a London airport and I had to laugh. It is very far away.

Liverpool and Manchester are virtually one conurbation.
Don't go telling any Scousers that if you value your life... :laugh:

Note to self: Don't tell "Scousers" that Liverpool and Manchester are virtually one conurbation.

Got it!

^NY's airports save maybe Newark are horribly outdated in layout and efficiency, especially La Guardia. JFK's runways are fine, but its terminals could be in a better layout to facilitate passenger flows.

Sadly, I think NY would actually save money by building a fourth major airport somewhere... now where, I have no clue... is there room on Staten Island for something the size of JFK? Or would that put it too close to Newark? They could build a new one somewhere in Jersey between NY and Philly, too... along the northeast corridor. Wherever they build it, they'd better incorporate transit into it. JFK was stranded from the subway until a few years ago, Newwark is only accessible by commuter rail, and La Guardia forces you to take a shuttle for a few miles. I think that's ridiculous when you compare it to London, Paris, Tokyo, or Chicago... the first three having express airport service, the last one due for it in a few years.

The US was the first part of the world to have high volume commercial service to everywhere and thus has some of the oldest most outdated major airports still in service anywhere. Almost every major US airport has either been recently renovated, newly built (to transfer traffic from an older airport), or is slated for that and/or huge expansion in the next ten years. And this process is 10 years overdue, like everything else.
There is some thing called a car which most people use to get to the airport which means in a new airport they should build an airport highway that has lets say 4 lanes that lead to the airport and circles around it and then 4 lanes that lead back to the nearest highway like in Tampa's International Airport i never see the airport highway with heavy traffic its always flowing efficiently unlike the rest of the cities highways and unlike JFK which other people use besides the airport goers. Which means only the people who are going to the airport can use the highway meaning less traffic. Also JFK i noticed had many blacktop parking lots which takes up space build a big parking garage its expensive but efficient in NY's case efficient would be the key this is also and idea from Tampa's airport.

The airport should have transit within itself i mean like a mini train that takes people to their terminal and each terminal would have one. and all of these would connect into one large hub which would have a train that went to parking areas. Another problem i noticed is people waiting to meet the arrivals wait in the baggage claim they should make a specific area for that and also the pickup/dropoff place should only be for that and they should make several levels of it. This would make the 4th airport very efficient and relieve the others also my refferences to Tampa Internationl come from the fact it is the #1 medium sized city airport in the usa and 4th in the world and always gets good reviews etc.

What are Scousers?

^I don't know, but don't tell them that Liverpool and Manchester are virtually one conurbation!^

new york had 3 airports?? wow lol ....so its jfk, la guardia..and?

new york had 3 airports?? wow lol ....so its jfk, la guardia..and?
Newark Liberty

An Airport Whose Time May Not Come
31 January 2011
The New York Times

Stewart International Airport was supposed to be the long-sought fourth major airport to serve the New York metropolitan area. But four years after the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey took control of it, Stewart remains a mystery to most travelers.

More than 60 miles north of Midtown Manhattan just west of Newburgh, N.Y., Stewart is a sleepy outpost of the region's transportation system. Indeed, though the airport is big enough to handle jumbo jets that can make nonstop flights to Mexico and beyond, it attracts fewer passengers in a year than Kennedy, La Guardia and Newark Liberty International Airports draw in a holiday weekend.

Last week, when transportation officials gathered in Manhattan to discuss the future of air travel in the region, Stewart was no more than a footnote. The authors of a study that concluded that Kennedy and Newark would need additional runways within 25 years said Stewart would provide scant relief to the clogged airspace.

Officials of the Port Authority, which paid $79 million for a 93-year lease on Stewart in 2007, have projected that it could serve as many as 7 million passengers a year, many of whom would otherwise use Kennedy, Newark or La Guardia. The Port Authority has already spent about $50 million on improvements at Stewart and, the study said, plans to spend as much as $450 million more redeveloping Stewart over the next 15 years.

But Jeffrey M. Zupan, an analyst with the Regional Plan Association who led the study, said he forecast that Stewart would draw only about half the traffic the Port Authority hoped for. By the time the four airports controlled by the Port Authority are drawing 150 million passengers a year, only about 3.5 million of them, or just over 2 percent, will be using Stewart, Mr. Zupan said.

Stewart appeared to be on a path to growth in late 2006 when JetBlue announced that it would begin flying there. But since then, other carriers have pulled out of Stewart and traffic has shrunk by more than half.

Through the first 11 months of 2010, Stewart was on pace to attract fewer than 400,000 passengers for the year. That was down from about 790,000 in 2008 and almost 915,000 in 2007.

Port Authority officials attribute the decline to the recession and the toll it took on the airline industry. A spokesman for the Port Authority said its managers still had ''high hopes'' for Stewart and had not considered abandoning their plans to expand it, despite the drop-off in activity.

AirTran, which had served Stewart before the Port Authority came in, stopped its service. Skybus, a discount airline, ceased operations in 2008, about half a year after first landing at Stewart.

Today, only JetBlue, Delta and US Airways serve Stewart, and only about a dozen flights depart from there each day. On Friday, when the three big airports were crowded with travelers whose itineraries were complicated by the snowstorm that had struck the city the previous day, all was calm and quiet at Stewart.

Customers trickled in to a Quiznos sandwich shop in the terminal while the Hudson News store nearby was empty. Kathleen MacDonald, a regular user of Stewart who lives about 22 miles away in Chester, N.Y., was there to pick up her brother, who had flown in from Tennessee.

''It's so quick to go in and out of,'' Ms. MacDonald, 48, said of Stewart. She said she was glad to have JetBlue there because she could board its planes there and be in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in two and a half hours.

At best, Mr. Zupan said, Stewart could ''fill a niche'' by attracting operators of charter flights from overseas and discount carriers catering to vacationers.

But for Stewart to succeed as a reliever for the Port Authority's other airports, its appeal would have to extend past local sun-chasers like Ms. MacDonald. The main obstacle to doing so is the lack of transit links from New York City, and that problem is unlikely to be solved for years to come, Mr. Zupan said

The best prospect for luring travelers from the city and close-in suburbs to Stewart is an express train, Mr. Zupan said. But elected officials, most notably New York's senior senator, Charles E. Schumer, had pinned hopes on running trains from Midtown Manhattan through a new tunnel under the Hudson River and up the west side of the Hudson.

Now that New Jersey's governor, Chris Christie, has scrapped the plan for that rail tunnel, the idea of direct trains to Stewart appears to be fading. Senator Schumer said, however, that a rail link to Stewart was still more feasible than some of the ideas for airport expansion laid out in the study last week, like filling in part of Jamaica Bay to add a runway at Kennedy.

''Stewart will still be a needed airport, but without the rail link, the chance of its really alleviating the overcrowding at the other airports is minimal,'' Mr. Schumer said in an interview. ''It will be a secondary airport -- important but secondary.''