Airlines Sue Over JFK Train
Bill Hough
Tuesday, September 15, 1998
Contact: Diana Cronan (202) 626-4172
Airlines Sue Over JFK Train
Trade Group Calls FAA Approval "Unlawful"
Washington, DC --The Air Transport Association (ATA) today submitted its
opening brief in its lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) over funding for a proposed train running between John F. Kennedy
Airport and the Long Island Railroad at Jamaica Station in Queens.
In February of this year, the FAA approved a plan from New York's Port
Authority to spend $1.2 billion in locally generated Passenger Facility
Charges (PFC) to construct an 8.4-mile light rail system. The FAA's
approval allows the Port Authority to charge passengers at all three New
York City area airports a $3 PFC tax to fund this local mass transit
project. In its filing today, ATA argued that the PFC is illegal.
"Under federal law, PFCs can be used for specific projects physically
located on the airport," said Carol Hallett, ATA's president and CEO.
"Airports are financed using money from passengers, airlines and
shippers without taking a single cent of local tax money. It's a
remarkable system that has built the world's most extensive aviation
infrastructure. If airport generated money is used off-airport, then the
entire system by which we finance airports is in jeopardy."
The ATA has long contended that this JFK train plan is flawed and that
it will not attract the enormous number of riders necessary to justify
its billion-plus cost; in its lawsuit, ATA contends that the Port
Authority dramatically manipulated projected riders by 2,500 percent to
win approval. Additionally, construction of the train will cause major
traffic disruption in Queens, specifically along the Van Wyck
Expressway. Since the plan calls for a train elevated above the Van
Wyck, this important area highway will be under construction for many
years. The proposed train has already generated widespread opposition in
nearby communities.
The ATA also contends that the FAA "unlawfully took behind-the-scenes
steps to bolster the Port Authority's case by privately requesting and
relying on additional information that was not made available to other
parties."
"This proposed train does not meet the federal requirements which allow
PFCs to be spent. The FAA improperly granted its approval and we hope
that the court will quickly agree with us and stop this ill-conceived
project," continued Hallett.
The Air Transport Association is the trade association for leading U.S.
airlines. ATA's 23 domestic and 5 foreign members transport over 95% of
all the passenger and cargo traffic in the United States.
--
Visit the Unofficial JFK Airport 50th Anniversary Page:
http://members.tripod.com/~psa188/index.html
CAVU Images:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/3964/
Attend the Newark Airport Airline Collectible Show & Sale:
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/psa188/page1.html
http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/mrpanam/ewr.html
Richard A. Schumacher
>Airlines Sue Over JFK Train
>Trade Group Calls FAA Approval "Unlawful"
What a bunch of whiners. I wonder how much of their income
ultimately comes from airport parking and taxi fees?
David McLoughlin
Actually I thought they had a good legal point. If airport taxes can
legally only be used for on-airport developments then it is illegal to
use the taxes to build a train line in Queens.
In addition, the extraordinary cost of what is described as a "light"
rail line seems off the planet. $1.2 BILLION for 8.4 kilometres. Who was
building it? The Mob? Or were the tracks to be made of solid gold?
David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand
Vidi, vici, veni . – Bill Clinton.
Daniel Salomon
: Airlines Sue Over JFK Train
: Trade Group Calls FAA Approval "Unlawful"
The project is already so deliberately inconvenient to anyone not going to
the airport that only airport users will benefit. So what's the problem?
Why wouldn't airlines want the project that will only increase the
convenience of the airport?
-Dan
muskrat
Daniel Salomon wrote in message <6udvaq$cl7$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
Because in the wonderful world of government sudsidies, you try to hold on
to every penny. The massive federal payment to keep the air control system
running (yes, $billions every year OVER and ABOVE airline fees) is already
in their pockets.
If they can bluff their way into getting something to enhance their business
free for nothing, they figure: "why not?"
Peter Rosa
David McLoughlin <dav...@REMOVEiprolink.co.nz> wrote in article
<3609AF...@REMOVEiprolink.co.nz>...
[snip]
> In addition, the extraordinary cost of what is described as a "light"
> rail line seems off the planet. $1.2 BILLION for 8.4 kilometres. Who was
> building it? The Mob? Or were the tracks to be made of solid gold?
>
Those are New York construction prices for ya!
al...@rev.net
>Airlines Sue Over JFK Train
>Trade Group Calls FAA Approval "Unlawful"
>Additionally, construction of the train will cause major
>traffic disruption in Queens, specifically along the Van Wyck
>Expressway. Since the plan calls for a train elevated above the Van
>Wyck, this important area highway will be under construction for many
>years. The proposed train has already generated widespread opposition in
>nearby communities.
There is already a track along the west side of the airport, running
up 99th Street. Why don't they run a spur in from that track and build
a connection that would allow the trains to run east along Atlantic
Avenue? After a mile, it could follow the LIRR into Jamaica. Although
the trip to Jamaica would be longer, the trip to Woodside and
Manhattan would be shorter. They would save enough money to build a
track along the Grand Central Parkway between LaGuardia airport and
the nearest railroad.
--Buster <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/transportation>
Unknown
28 Sep 1998 06:51:52 GMT we perused:
*+-There is already a track along the west side of the airport, running
*+-up 99th Street. Why don't they run a spur in from that track and build
*+-a connection that would allow the trains to run east along Atlantic
*+-Avenue? After a mile, it could follow the LIRR into Jamaica. Although
*+-the trip to Jamaica would be longer, the trip to Woodside and
*+-Manhattan would be shorter. They would save enough money to build a
*+-track along the Grand Central Parkway between LaGuardia airport and
*+-the nearest railroad.
There's also an abandoned freight track going through Forest Park.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian http://WWW.Dorsai.Org/~vjp2
vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CompuServe.Com|Dorsai.Org}
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
rsjo...@my-dejanews.com
vj...@dorsai.org @smtp.dorsai.org (Vasos Panagiotopoulos +1-917-287-8087
Bioengineer-Financier) wrote:
> In <6unbgt$q07$1...@news1-alterdial.uu.net> by al...@rev.net on Mon,
> 28 Sep 1998 06:51:52 GMT we perused:
> *+-There is already a track along the west side of the airport, running
> *+-up 99th Street. Why don't they run a spur in from that track and build
> *+-a connection that would allow the trains to run east along Atlantic
> *+-Avenue? After a mile, it could follow the LIRR into Jamaica. Although
> *+-the trip to Jamaica would be longer, the trip to Woodside and
> *+-Manhattan would be shorter. They would save enough money to build a
> *+-track along the Grand Central Parkway between LaGuardia airport and
> *+-the nearest railroad.
>
> There's also an abandoned freight track going through Forest Park.
>
Everyone's been asking these questions for decades - it's amazing how the
Port Authority just rolls ahead with a completely lame-brained idea that, if
it ever gets built, will just be a $1 billion (if we're lucky) joke. There's
absolutely no accountability for this scheme. I don't agree with Giuliani on
much, but divorcing PA control of the airports is definitely a good idea.
JFK is a total mess, a huge, inefficient white elephant. The Airtrain is
just icing and ice cream on this cake-monument to American dis-ingenuity.
The inter-terminal light-rail line is one thing, but the whole Jamaica
connection is just stupid. As is the Howard Beach subway connection.
Service from that station is so irregular, it's a joke for them to claim
Manhattan is less than an hour away via that route (including the LR portion
of the journey). Last time I took it - midday on a weekend - it took over an
hour from the time I _boarded the train at Howard Beach_ before I was in
downtown Manhattan. And I had to change trains in the middle of East N.Y.
(yikes). No one with any choice ( = money) will ever take the Airtrain this
route.
What they should have done is this: build an LIRR-compatible light-rail line
(only the power-source and wheel guage have to be compatible, I think)
_within_ JFK with the money they raised, avoiding this lawsuit. Then cut
some kind of deal with the city and state to build an extension into
Manhattan, via the LIRR ROW or via the slated 63rd St. Grand Central
connection, using funds not raised _at_ the airport (maybe a $1 or so fee
charged to anyone using the Carey bus OR the subway connection). I'm sure
there's some ridiculous bureaucratic excuse why money can't be raised in a
creative way like this - but it all boils down to politics: NY politicians
refuse to sit down and cut deals with each other, because it makes them look
like they're _conceding_ something to rival politicians. And we all suffer
from it.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
George Conklin
<rsjo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
JFK is a total mess, a huge, inefficient white elephant. The Airtrain is
>just icing and ice cream on this cake-monument to American dis-ingenuity.
>
Based on flights, your statement is totally incorrect.
But based on logic, you are right. It makes no sense
today to concentrate transatlatic flights by first gathering
people in NYC to change planes. Direct flights by smaller
planes is more efficient. Only old habits keep the carriers
clustered in JFK anyway. Were the carriers to move away
from this clustering, you would not need the $1 billion
short rail link. Density costs a lot of money to maintain.
Cyrus Afzali
wrote:
Carriers cluster direct overseas flights in NYC because that's where
the demand is. There is much higher demand for overseas flights just
among NYC area people than in most areas of the country. That's why
American eliminated direct flights to London from its former hub in
Nashville. People have to have a reason to go to a certain area before
they add direct flights. That requires business travel which gives the
centers like NYC a big advantage.
George Conklin
<rsjo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <6uonho$5da$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>> In article <6uomcj$tnq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <rsjo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> JFK is a total mess, a huge, inefficient white elephant. The Airtrain is
>> >just icing and ice cream on this cake-monument to American dis-ingenuity.
>> >
>> Based on flights, your statement is totally incorrect.
>>
>> But based on logic, you are right. It makes no sense
>> today to concentrate transatlatic flights by first gathering
>> people in NYC to change planes. Direct flights by smaller
>> planes is more efficient. Only old habits keep the carriers
>> clustered in JFK anyway. Were the carriers to move away
>> from this clustering, you would not need the $1 billion
>> short rail link. Density costs a lot of money to maintain.
>>
>>
>
>ground and the design of the airport itself - actually, _lack_ of design: it
>was just patched together as it grew, haphazardly. It's a total mess. The
>intra-airport (between terminals) aspect of Airtrain is a step in the right
>direction, but the Airtrain connection to Jamaica and to Howard Beach will
>not solve any of the problem of getting to/from JFK. That's why it's a
>waste, and the only solution is to integrate, somehow, this new rail system
>into one of the various sets of tracks that go to Manhattan (where, I think
>someone said, 90 percent of the passenger volume at JFK is generated). But I
>think Airtrain's basic design, such as its motive power) will effectively
>prevent this. I hate to be so suspicious, but I'll bet this is a deliberate
>ploy on the part of the PA to keep the system totally under its control (and
>beyond any other authority's - and the public's - scrutiny).
>
>And I don't really get your point about flight clustering, anyway. Density
>is more efficient, in general, whereever it happens. Millions of people in
>New York do not own cars, in contrast to the rest of the country. These
>people do not consume nearly as much, per capita, of natural resources (to
>build/fuel the cars) to move around. That is more efficient. Density is a
>result of people wanting to be near each other for commercial reasons.
>
>The NYC area has 2 airports that have intecontinental flights, and 18 million
>people using these airports. And an economy that is unusually dependent on
>international business travel. Just where are these flights supposed to go
>instead of these two airports? The existence of New York itself is because
>businesses tend to cluster - thus flights cluster.
With sea travel and fixed-rail transit, NYC could really
prosper. But with a plane, people can and do change planes
almost anywhere convenient. It is only habit which keeps
people in JFK. Newark is more convenient to Manhattan
anyway.
You are overlooking the fact that many airports pay their
expenses from parking lot revenue. If you take that away,
the airports would go broke.
There are some rumblings
>that this trend might be slowing - or reversing - because of communications
>technology, but the jury's still out on that (and will be for a while).
>Thousands of years of civilization proving that cities are inevitable magnets
>for people will not be turned over in a few years by the latest technological
>fad.
>
Density raises taxes. If density lowered them, NYC would
not have really high taxes. It should have the nation's
lowest taxes. Does it?
John Kolassa
George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
> With sea travel and fixed-rail transit, NYC could really
>prosper. But with a plane, people can and do change planes
>almost anywhere convenient. It is only habit which keeps
>people in JFK. Newark is more convenient to Manhattan
>anyway.
Air routes are always in flux. Routes get added, routes get dropped,
routes get moved. JFK, as terrible a place to fly into and out of as it
is, still gets lots of traffic. Why don't the airlines move all East Coast--
Europe flights out to Logan, Newark, Philly, or Dulles? Beats me, but
the airline industry is fluid and competetive enough that habit is not
a plausible explanation. The quantity of local customers, especially
immigrant customers for international flights, is probably one explanation.
Newark may be closer to Manhattan, but has some problems of its own,
including:
1. being farther from Westchester and Long Island,
2. necessitating double bridge or tunnel tolls for cabs,
3. having to fight really nasty bridge or tunnel traffic for cars, cabs,
and busses.
>
> You are overlooking the fact that many airports pay their
>expenses from parking lot revenue. If you take that away,
>the airports would go broke.
>
Most airports pay a large portion of their expenses from landing fees.
Stewart airport went as far as providing free parking when it first
opened.
>
> Density raises taxes. If density lowered them, NYC would
>not have really high taxes. It should have the nation's
>lowest taxes. Does it?
>
I don't know what this has to do with discussions about JFK. How high
are NYC's taxes? Probably lower than taxes in Yonkers, Hoboken, Newark,
Mount Vernon, or New Rochelle.
George Conklin
John Kolassa <kol...@stat1.bst.rochester.edu> wrote:
>Most airports pay a large portion of their expenses from landing fees.
>Stewart airport went as far as providing free parking when it first
>opened.
I don't know where you get your figures from, but by law
only the airside pays for itself with landing fees.
Landside has to have another source of income, and that is
the parking lot. RDU has some cheap parking too, as in $3
for 24-hours. But the parking lot pays for the public
buildings, other than the AA terminal, which is paid for
directly by AA.
As for population density, I have posted elsewhere the
national evidence. Density raises taxes and costs of
government and business.
Joe Versaggi
JFK does not pay property taxes to the city and so the PA is a welfare
deadbeat by definition.
Peter T. Daniels
> >Stewart airport went as far as providing free parking when it first
> >opened.
>
> I don't know where you get your figures from, but by law
> only the airside pays for itself with landing fees.
> Landside has to have another source of income, and that is
> the parking lot. RDU has some cheap parking too, as in $3
> for 24-hours.
What's RDU? If Stewart, why? Were all the appropriate letter combos
already taken?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Peter T. Daniels
> With sea travel and fixed-rail transit, NYC could really
> prosper. But with a plane, people can and do change planes
> almost anywhere convenient. It is only habit which keeps
> people in JFK. Newark is more convenient to Manhattan
> anyway.
Is not.
Silas Warner
>
> Density raises taxes. If density lowered them, NYC would
> not have really high taxes. It should have the nation's
> lowest taxes. Does it?
Actually, AS HAS BEEN POSTED in replies to your messages, New
York's city taxes ARE lower than taxes in the nearby Long Island
and New York State communities. Go back and check DejaNews...
if your prejudices will let you.
Silas Warner
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On 29 Sep 1998 22:17:17 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >:George Conklin wrote:
> >:
> >:> With sea travel and fixed-rail transit, NYC could really
> >:> prosper. But with a plane, people can and do change planes
> >:> almost anywhere convenient. It is only habit which keeps
> >:> people in JFK. Newark is more convenient to Manhattan
> >:> anyway.
> >:
> >:Is not.
>
> Newark is a much easier place to get to than JFK and it can
> even be gotten to quicker than LGA in rush hours.
By helicopter, maybe. Most New Yorkers, most tourists, and most
international travelers (the topic of this thread) don't have cars
available.
T. Mennel
wrote:
> Once again, you don't have a clue as to what you speak,
> Newark is a much easier place to get to than JFK and it can
> even be gotten to quicker than LGA in rush hours.
Now, now, it all depends on where you start out. Newark is pretty
inconvenient to the UES, for example.
--
T. Mennel
ed...@mindspring.com
George Conklin
>> >opened.
>>
>> I don't know where you get your figures from, but by law
>> only the airside pays for itself with landing fees.
>> Landside has to have another source of income, and that is
>> the parking lot. RDU has some cheap parking too, as in $3
>> for 24-hours.
>
>What's RDU? If Stewart, why? Were all the appropriate letter combos
>already taken?
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
RDU is Raleigh-Durham. Stewart can provide free parking
if it puts in a hidden PFC. That charge is just added to
the ticket. RDU has no PFC and makes its money upfront.
Also, airports can hide revenue in high food prices and with
surcharges hidden in car rental fees. What I called the
'parking lot' at RDU includes the surcharges hidden in car
rental fees. Otherwise, your true cost of using the
terminal buildings per flight would be about $4 per person.
Of course, the 10% ticket tax covers some of the
airside, but mostly the air carriers pay for that through
the landing fees.
I can see why air carriers would challenge spending a
billion or so on a rail link when road transit would be so
much cheaper. Rail travel has always been expensive.
George Conklin
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> prosper. But with a plane, people can and do change planes
>> almost anywhere convenient. It is only habit which keeps
>> people in JFK. Newark is more convenient to Manhattan
>> anyway.
>
>Is not.
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Of course it is. I always fly to Newark, get on a bus,
and in minutes find myself in Manhattan.
John Kolassa
George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>In article <6ure2n$fr...@biko.cc.rochester.edu>,
>John Kolassa <kol...@stat1.bst.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
>>Most airports pay a large portion of their expenses from landing fees.
>>opened.
>
> I don't know where you get your figures from, but by law
>only the airside pays for itself with landing fees.
>Landside has to have another source of income, and that is
>the parking lot. RDU has some cheap parking too, as in $3
>buildings, other than the AA terminal, which is paid for
>directly by AA.
>
Either way the costs are passed on to passengers without going through
parking funds. If you've got some evidence that any more than a small
proportion of non-parking airport costs are paid for by parking, post it.
>
> As for population density, I have posted elsewhere the
>national evidence. Density raises taxes and costs of
>government and business.
Yesterday's Chicago Tribune had a column (by McCarron, I think) comparing
taxes in various Chicago area communities. The city of Chicago had the
lowest listed. If you want to argue that NYC assesses more taxes (per
capita, or by some other reasonable standardization), cite some data.
If you've already cited it, give a DejaNews reference.
John Kolassa
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> >opened.
>>
>> I don't know where you get your figures from, but by law
>> only the airside pays for itself with landing fees.
>> Landside has to have another source of income, and that is
>> the parking lot. RDU has some cheap parking too, as in $3
>> for 24-hours.
>
>already taken?
Stewart is an airport in far northern suburban NYC area. I'm sure
that it has an airport code, but I don't know what it is. RDU is
Raleigh--Durham Airport.
Bob Scheurle
>
>On 29 Sep 1998 22:17:17 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
>>:George Conklin wrote:
>>:> Newark is more convenient to Manhattan anyway.
>>:
>>:Is not.
>
>Once again, you don't have a clue as to what you speak,
>Newark is a much easier place to get to than JFK and it can
>even be gotten to quicker than LGA in rush hours.
OHMYGOD, OHMYGOD, OHMYGOD! I actually _agree_ with both George and
Marc on this issue!! Oh my God.... I think I'm...going......to
faint.............. <crash>
--
Bob Scheurle
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net
sche...@z-avionics-z.itt.com
http://www.eclipse.net/~scheurle
Jeremiah Kristal
wrote:
>On 29 Sep 1998 22:17:17 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>:George Conklin wrote:
>>:
>>:> With sea travel and fixed-rail transit, NYC could really
>>:> prosper. But with a plane, people can and do change planes
>>:> almost anywhere convenient. It is only habit which keeps
>>:> people in JFK. Newark is more convenient to Manhattan
>>:> anyway.
>>:
>>:Is not.
>
>Once again, you don't have a clue as to what you speak,
>Newark is a much easier place to get to than JFK and it can
>even be gotten to quicker than LGA in rush hours.
Obviously you haven't been traveling out of Manhattan recently. While
the trip to JFK may be slightly longer, it's much cheaper by cab and a
hell of a lot faster on the return. If you're driving from anywhere
other then Tribeca, it's qucker both ways, though you pay more to
park. I've never spent 2+ hours in a cab waiting to cross into
Manhattan from JFK.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah Kristal
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Sep 1998 22:17:17 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >:George Conklin wrote:
>> >:
>> >:> With sea travel and fixed-rail transit, NYC could really
>> >:> prosper. But with a plane, people can and do change planes
>> >:> almost anywhere convenient. It is only habit which keeps
>> >:> people in JFK. Newark is more convenient to Manhattan
>> >:> anyway.
>> >:
>> >:Is not.
>>
>> Once again, you don't have a clue as to what you speak,
>> Newark is a much easier place to get to than JFK and it can
>> even be gotten to quicker than LGA in rush hours.
>
>By helicopter, maybe. Most New Yorkers, most tourists, and most
>international travelers (the topic of this thread) don't have cars
>available.
And if they do have cars, LGA is 20 minutes each way from the UWS of
Manhattan if it's not rush hour. If you can make NWK in an hour
you're ahead of the game.
I can actually make JFK quicker from Weehawken on a Friday than I can
make NWK. It's also cheaper, even with the ferry fee.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah Kristal
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:28:40 -0700, Silas Warner
><si...@value.net> wrote:
>NYC's property taxes are lower than the surrounding regions,
>but that is because of the other enormous taxes that NYC
>charges that other places don't. One way or another NYC has
>one of the highest tax rates anywhere.
Well, as someone who lives in NYC and works in NJ, I can say that NJ
certainly has it's share of obnoxious tax laws. If you live in NYC,
but earn a portion of you income in NJ, you must pay taxes on capital
gains realized in NYC.
I don't think that NJ is more densely populated than NYC.
Jeremiah
speaking from painful and expensive experience
David McLoughlin
>
> George Conklin wrote:
> John Kolassa <kol...@stat1.bst.rochester.edu> wrote:
> >Most airports pay a large portion of their expenses from landing
fees.
> >Stewart airport went as far as providing free parking when it first
> >opened.
> I don't know where you get your figures from, but by law
> only the airside pays for itself with landing fees. > Landside has to have another source of income, and that is
> the parking lot. RDU has some cheap parking too, as in $3
> for 24-hours. But the parking lot pays for the public
> buildings, other than the AA terminal, which is paid for
> directly by AA.
Here in New Zealand, FWIIW, our airports are paid for by a mix of landing
fees, rent paid by the numerous shopkeepers and concessions in the
terminals, a $NZ20 "departure tax" used to fund development and of course
parking fees for the carparks.
Apart from Christchurch, no New Zealand airport has scheduled city bus
services. Auckland has irregular mini-bus service. Most people travelling
to/from our airports go by private car or taxi (though when I fly to
Wellington, I walk a couple of blocks past the airport gate to catch the
No 11 Seatoun trolleybus which is nearby... I suspect I am the only
traveller to Wellington who does this <g> ).
Auckland and Wellington airports are largely privately owned now, with
Auckland's even listed on the Stock Exchange.
The Government recently announced it was imposing a hefty extra
"departure tax" of maybe $13 or so, can't remember the exact sum, to pay
for border control (ie, the immigration, customs and quarantine officials
stationed at the airports). Airlines are in a rage over this, saying
border control is a basic function of government and should be funded
from general tax revenues.
Well, this is a user-pays society down here.
David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand
Monica: "Hey Handsome, are you pleased to see me, or is that a cigar in
your pocket?"
Peter T. Daniels
> >What's RDU? If Stewart, why? Were all the appropriate letter combos
> >already taken?
>
> Stewart is an airport in far northern suburban NYC area. I'm sure
> that it has an airport code, but I don't know what it is. RDU is
> Raleigh--Durham Airport.
I used to go to airshows at Stewart Air Force Base. Newburgh wasn't a
"far northern suburban" area at the time.
It wasn't nice of George to switch airports without notice and to talk
only in code.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:32:45 -0400, ed...@mindspring.com (T.
> Mennel) wrote:
>
> >:In article <3613959d...@news.monmouth.com>, mkort...@monmouth.com
> >:wrote:
> >:
> >:> Once again, you don't have a clue as to what you speak,
> >:> Newark is a much easier place to get to than JFK and it can
> >:> even be gotten to quicker than LGA in rush hours.
> >:Now, now, it all depends on where you start out. Newark is pretty
> >:inconvenient to the UES, for example.
>
And all the hordes of apartment-dwellers and hotel guests departing from
that neighborhood?
Could Marc possibly be admitting that he might have made ... perhaps ...
a tiny boo-boo?
As for cabs, they charge by the minute while sitting in traffic. It'll
probably cost you more to get to Newark much of the day than to fly to
London.
(And I've been driving to Woodbridge about once a month these two
summers, on weekend afternoons, and back in the evenings, so I do have a
sense of the river crossings and how far what is from where down there.)
Stephen Bauman
Marc wrote:
>
> NYC's property taxes are lower than the surrounding regions,
> but that is because of the other enormous taxes that NYC
> charges that other places don't. One way or another NYC has
> one of the highest tax rates anywhere.
Prior to taxing the income of its own residents, New Jersey taxed the
income of New York residents who worked in New Jersey.This was the
so-called New Jersey Emergency Transportation Tax. It has since been
ruled unconstitutional as an obvious interstate tariff.
Steve
rsjo...@my-dejanews.com
> >The NYC area has 2 airports that have intecontinental flights, and 18 million
> >people using these airports. And an economy that is unusually dependent on
> >international business travel. Just where are these flights supposed to go
> >instead of these two airports? The existence of New York itself is because
> >businesses tend to cluster - thus flights cluster.
>
> With sea travel and fixed-rail transit, NYC could really
> prosper. But with a plane, people can and do change planes
> almost anywhere convenient. It is only habit which keeps
> people in JFK. Newark is more convenient to Manhattan
> anyway.
I still don't get you. Newark is _slightly_ more convenient (to Manhattan),
but so what? It's still within the NYC area. I thought your point was about
NYC as a hub for intercontinental flights. There is a certain demand for
these flights from the area because of the nature of the economy here. Even
if Newark became the preferred NYC-overseas hub, plenty of flights would
still have to use JFK - there's a limit to how many flights Newark can handle
(and, from what I've read, and experienced, they're approaching it).
>
> You are overlooking the fact that many airports pay their
> expenses from parking lot revenue. If you take that away,
> the airports would go broke.
>
In what sense am I overlooking this "fact"? It's a point that's not been
considered here, but how is it relevant to the discussion about Airtrain?
> There are some rumblings
> >that this trend might be slowing - or reversing - because of communications
> >technology, but the jury's still out on that (and will be for a while).
> >Thousands of years of civilization proving that cities are inevitable magnets
> >for people will not be turned over in a few years by the latest technological
> >fad.
> >
>
> Density raises taxes. If density lowered them, NYC would
> not have really high taxes. It should have the nation's
> lowest taxes. Does it?
>
I don't recall saying density lowered taxes - it just makes for a more
attractive business environment in the larger sense: there are more better-
trained and highly-motivated people living here (for all kinds of reasons),
so corporations like to be here. And according to your logic, people would
be flocking in droves to whereever the lowest taxes are, for that reason
alone. Hello? Some do, most don't. I wouldn't live in South Dakota (or
whereever it is that taxes are so wonderfully low) if you paid me. People go
where economic opportunity is and where cultural vitality is. New York
happens to have both. People also go where costs are low and quality of life
is high - New York is a mixed bag on that one.
But just to follow your point: NYC also doesn't have taxes that are out of
whack with lower-density, but populous, places like California. Taxes there
are at least as high as here.
Jeff Zeitlin
>In article <6ur93n$664$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
>George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>> Density raises taxes. If density lowered them, NYC would
>>not have really high taxes. It should have the nation's
>>lowest taxes. Does it?
>I don't know what this has to do with discussions about JFK. How high
>are NYC's taxes? Probably lower than taxes in Yonkers, Hoboken, Newark,
>Mount Vernon, or New Rochelle.
Property taxes, yes; sales taxes, no - YNK (and WPL) has the same
sales tax as NYC; MTV and NRO are currently at 7.5%; the rest of
Westchester County is at 6.75%.
NYC could probably lower their sales tax if 40% of the population
wasn't dependent on government money (this includes salaries of
government employees, not just those on various forms of
government payments to non-workers), and their overall property
tax rate if they didn't have to keep giving massive subsidies to
every large company that threatened to move out of the city.
--
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.z...@mail.execnet.com
Charles Norrie
<dav...@REMOVEiprolink.co.nz> writes
>
>The Government recently announced it was imposing a hefty extra
>"departure tax" of maybe $13 or so, can't remember the exact sum, to pay
>for border control (ie, the immigration, customs and quarantine officials
>stationed at the airports). Airlines are in a rage over this, saying
>border control is a basic function of government and should be funded
>from general tax revenues.
>
they provide, or will it simply disappear into the general revenue.
2) Costs on entry are usually much higher than costs on exit (light exit
controls, near non-existent customs controls, virtual zero quarantine),
so shouldn't the tax be only entry not exit.
--
Charles Norrie
George Conklin
Airports in the USA are under Federal law which forbids
funds collected at airports from being spent on general
municipal projects such as off-site transit systems or
highways. RDU did fund a $40 million interchange with I-40
at airport expense, and the air carriers did not object.
Nor do they object to an airport's having its own police,
fire, roads, telephone switch, transit system, and even
water and sewer systems. They do object when airport
revenues are spent at remote locations for other projects.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Airports in the USA are under Federal law which forbids
> funds collected at airports from being spent on general
> municipal projects such as off-site transit systems or
> highways. RDU did fund a $40 million interchange with I-40
> at airport expense, and the air carriers did not object.
> Nor do they object to an airport's having its own police,
> fire, roads, telephone switch, transit system, and even
> water and sewer systems. They do object when airport
> revenues are spent at remote locations for other projects.
Good points, George.
A major airport doesn't just serve the airlines, the picture in fact is
much more complex.
A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business
aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military. Few
major airports are able to double as an Air Force base, but most host
National Guard wings, and all airports could be required for use by the
military in wartime. So a major airport has a diversity of obligations,
and it should not be owned by one or more commercial airlines, and I
don't see how this would be feasible anyway. Since at least 5 different
diverse interests use a major airport, IMO the airport should be
administrated by a public agency who can fairly consider all the various
interests.
The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
administered.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > A major airport doesn't just serve the airlines, the picture in fact is
> > much more complex.
> >
> > A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business
> > aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military. Few
> > major airports are able to double as an Air Force base, but most host
> > National Guard wings, and all airports could be required for use by the
> > military in wartime. So a major airport has a diversity of obligations,
> > and it should not be owned by one or more commercial airlines, and I
> > don't see how this would be feasible anyway. Since at least 5 different
> > diverse interests use a major airport, IMO the airport should be
> > administrated by a public agency who can fairly consider all the various
> > interests.
> >
> > The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
> > systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
> > reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
> > administered.
> >
> > --
>
> access to American airports suck. Every other nation in western and Asian
> society has direct rail access to the airport.
"Corporate welfare"? An oxymoron if I've ever heard one. Tell us,
exactly who should administer the major airports, and how?
Please provide a list of the major airports in the other countries, and
tell us who administers them.
Besides you're way off base about U.S. airport rail transit.
A list of US airports with rail transit, with open date and type:
Cleveland, 1967, rapid rail
Boston, 1952, rapid rail (near airport)
Washington National, 1977, rapid rail
Philadelphia, 1985, commuter rail
Chicago O'Hare, 1984, rapid rail
Chicago Midway, 1996, rapid rail
Atlanta, 1988, rapid rail
Baltimore-Washington Intl., 1997, light rail
St. Louis, 1995, light rail
All these U.S. cities have built rail transit lines to their airports,
but NYC hasn't. It is the fault of NYC area local decisions. The
biggest metro area in the country could certainly build at least some of
these rail facilities if they really wanted to.
George Conklin
Scott M. Kozel <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>>
>> Airports in the USA are under Federal law which forbids
>> funds collected at airports from being spent on general
>> municipal projects such as off-site transit systems or
>> highways. RDU did fund a $40 million interchange with I-40
>> at airport expense, and the air carriers did not object.
>> Nor do they object to an airport's having its own police,
>> fire, roads, telephone switch, transit system, and even
>> water and sewer systems. They do object when airport
>> revenues are spent at remote locations for other projects.
>
>Good points, George.
>
>much more complex.
>
>A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business
>aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military. Few
>major airports are able to double as an Air Force base, but most host
>National Guard wings, and all airports could be required for use by the
>military in wartime.
Correct. RDU, for example, has the National Guard,
cooperates with county rescue squads, and I might add has
its own fire department too. General aviation is a
declining part of the business.
So a major airport has a diversity of obligations,
>and it should not be owned by one or more commercial airlines, and I
>don't see how this would be feasible anyway.
Of course, one of our terminals IS owned by American
Airlines.
BAA, formerly British Airport Authority, Michael Bell,
President, is putting on a major push take over management
of airports in the USA, saying they can increse non-airport
revenue and community satisfaction.
Since at least 5 different
>diverse interests use a major airport, IMO the airport should be
>administrated by a public agency who can fairly consider all the various
>interests.
Of course, privatization is the rage......
>The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
>systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
>reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
>administered.
>
>--
>Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
>Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
>Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
>http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
We are falling behind on ATC compared to Europe.
Joe Versaggi
>
> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> >
> > Airports in the USA are under Federal law which forbids
> > funds collected at airports from being spent on general
> > municipal projects such as off-site transit systems or
> > highways. RDU did fund a $40 million interchange with I-40
> > at airport expense, and the air carriers did not object.
> > Nor do they object to an airport's having its own police,
> > fire, roads, telephone switch, transit system, and even
> > water and sewer systems. They do object when airport
> > revenues are spent at remote locations for other projects.
>
> Good points, George.
>
> A major airport doesn't just serve the airlines, the picture in fact is
> much more complex.
>
> A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business
> aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military. Few
> major airports are able to double as an Air Force base, but most host
> National Guard wings, and all airports could be required for use by the
> and it should not be owned by one or more commercial airlines, and I
> diverse interests use a major airport, IMO the airport should be
> administrated by a public agency who can fairly consider all the various
> interests.
>
> systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
> reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
> administered.
>
> --
Corporate welfare in captalist America - which is why ground airport
Peter Rosa
Jeremiah Kristal <jere...@idt.net> wrote in article
<3614a7d6....@news.iconnet.net>...
[re relative travel time to JFK and Newark]
> Obviously you haven't been traveling out of Manhattan recently. While
> the trip to JFK may be slightly longer, it's much cheaper by cab and a
> hell of a lot faster on the return. If you're driving from anywhere
> other then Tribeca, it's qucker both ways, though you pay more to
> park. I've never spent 2+ hours in a cab waiting to cross into
> Manhattan from JFK.
Is that $25 fixed-rate fare to and from JFK still in effect?
Actually, even if JFK taxi travel is at the standard metered rate, it
probably will be a lot cheaper than Newark. About a year and a half ago, I
took a taxi from Newark to Bayonne, where I'd left my car at a friend's
house. The taxi fare for what was maybe a 10-minute trip was $21. It
turns out that the rates are/were based on the number of county lines
crossed. While most of Newark Airport is in Essex County, the southernmost
terminal, where my TWA flight arrived, is in Union County. Hence I had to
pay for a three-county trip (Union to Essex to Hudson). I was *not*
pleased with that fare!
Scott M. Kozel
> >and it should not be owned by one or more commercial airlines, and I
> >don't see how this would be feasible anyway.
>
>
> >diverse interests use a major airport, IMO the airport should be
> >administrated by a public agency who can fairly consider all the various
> >interests.
>
Actually public-private partnerships. A major element of public
oversight is retained, while portions of the airport system are
privatized. Such as the RDU example, where AA owns a terminal on an
airport that is managed by a public agency.
Peter T. Daniels
> A list of US airports with rail transit, with open date and type:
> Chicago O'Hare, 1984, rapid rail
This was Jane Byrne's major achievement as mayor (1979-1983); did it
really not open until Harold Washington's first term?
> Chicago Midway, 1996, rapid rail
It was October 1994.
John Rowland
>Corporate welfare in captalist America - which is why ground airport
>access to American airports suck. Every other nation in western and
>Asian society has direct rail access to the airport.
I don't think any airport in Ireland has a rail link.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Maps of tube stations at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069
This message has been awarded a Certificate of Excellence from the
Concrete Society for the quality of its 35,000 cubic metres of concrete
Joe Versaggi
>
> Joe Versaggi <JOEM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Corporate welfare in captalist America - which is why ground airport
> > access to American airports suck. Every other nation in western and Asian
> > society has direct rail access to the airport.
>
> exactly who should administer the major airports, and how?
>
If the government must administer them, then the corporate users can
reimburse them in full for it. ATC operations of $6 billion currently
come out entirely out of General revenue, not the trust fund. Then put
the airports on the tax rolls like a railroad.
Until then, Delta, United, et al, are on welfare.
Ken M. K.
> A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business...
> Since at least 5 different
> diverse interests use a major airport, IMO the airport should be
> administrated by a public agency who can fairly consider all the various
> interests.
Mr. Kozel, please take a look at railroad history. In many cities,
competing railroads got together and built Union Stations to avoid
wasteful duplication. Such stations remain in Chicago, Washington DC,
and Los Angeles, among others.
The railroads worked out a system for sharing costs and revenues of
operating the station among its owners and of course dispatching
schedules.
As to providing for military services, during both World Wars the
railroads provided substantial transportation services for the
military. In the first war, the Government had heavy involvement
and that didn't work out very well. In the second war, the railroads
ran things themselves and carried an enormous amount of freight
and troops.
If the railroads were able to work things out among themselves to
build and operate stations, as well as serve the nation's defense,
the airlines should be able to do the same thing.
> The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
> systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
> reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
> administered.
Again, we can look to the railroads for years of successful shared
dispatching. There are thousands of small junctions across the country
where one railroad has responsibility for the control tower and it all
works out.
Indeed, some railroads, such as CSX and Amtrak, are ahead of the
Government in the latest technology of dispatching systems. Amtrak
has consolidated Northeast Corridor control to central centers using
the latest computer technology, and is using Global Positioning to
track trains nationwide. But in contrast, the air traffic control
system uses ancient computers from the 1960s that are so obsolete
no one can maintain them. A retired pilot told me how the system
would crash while he was on approach to a major airport. To say the
least, not a pleasant situation. It seems to me that we'd be better
off with the airlines running the air traffic control system
themselves. Let them build it and pay for it and keep the government
out of it altogether.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please reply as a public post. Can't accept private e-mail. Thanks.
Ken M. K.
> "Corporate welfare"? An oxymoron if I've ever heard one. Tell us,
> exactly who should administer the major airports, and how?
Business travelers make up a substantial number of plane users.
Please see my other post on why the airlines should own and run the
airports.
A friend of mine is a pilot. He pays a fee of only $5 to fly out of
NE Philadelphia. This to me, IMO, is a ridiculously low charge for
the services an airport is providing to the pilot--keeping the
runway free of snow, lit, navigational aids, and tower control.
But the real kicker is when he arrives at a place like Lancaster PA
where the charge is FREE. That obviously means local tax dollars
are paying for his trip, which is absurb.
Ken M. K.
for people carrying luggage. Travellers arriving at Philadelphia
airport by train have to carry their baggage themselves a
considerable distance to the ticket counters. In contrast, auto
drop offs are met at the curb by Skycaps and curbside check-ins.
For people going on a long trip with heavy luggage, or elderly
people who can't carry too much, this is too much of a burden
and they avoid the train altogether as a result.
--
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business...
My full statement was:
A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business
aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military.
Nothing like creative snipping, eh?
> > Since at least 5 different
> > diverse interests use a major airport, IMO the airport should be
> > administrated by a public agency who can fairly consider all the various
> > interests.
>
> Mr. Kozel, please take a look at railroad history. In many cities,
> competing railroads got together and built Union Stations to avoid
> wasteful duplication. Such stations remain in Chicago, Washington DC,
> and Los Angeles, among others.
>
> The railroads worked out a system for sharing costs and revenues of
> operating the station among its owners and of course dispatching
> schedules.
Mr. M.K., please use some logic here, a Union station is not at all
comparable to a jet airport.
It's very simple. A Union station uses a _tiny_ amount of land, in
comparison. There are many different urban locations that would have
been feasible there, unlike an airport that requires a massive tract of
land, 500 to 1,000 acres or more. Bringing trains from several
different railroads together on one square city block of land, is
totally different from bringing jet airliners into a major airport with
multiple runways 10,000 feet long. Even in the days of the
propeller-driven aircraft, the runways were 5,000 to 6,000 feet long.
Considering the various diverse operators, it is not logical for major
airports to be owned by airlines.
> As to providing for military services, during both World Wars the
> railroads provided substantial transportation services for the
> military. In the first war, the Government had heavy involvement
> and that didn't work out very well. In the second war, the railroads
> ran things themselves and carried an enormous amount of freight
> and troops.
The military shipped their cargo on the railroads. That is quite
different driving a tank or an armored personnel carrier on the
railbed. <humor> The point is, military aircraft use major airports
now, and could use them extensively in wartime, and their performance
characteristics are mostly very different from airliners.
> If the railroads were able to work things out among themselves to
> build and operate stations, as well as serve the nation's defense,
> the airlines should be able to do the same thing.
I've seen this "Union Station" argument before, and IMO it is a bogus
argument, and it's completely illogical to compare a Union Station to a
modern airport.
> > The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
> > systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
> > reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
> > administered.
>
> Again, we can look to the railroads for years of successful shared
> dispatching. There are thousands of small junctions across the country
> where one railroad has responsibility for the control tower and it all
> works out.
A railroad is a one-type-vehicle, one-dimensional system. Aircraft
range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft that cruises at a few
thousand feet altitude, all the way to a 700,000-pound 550-mph B-747
that cruises at 40,000 feet altitude, and lots of variance in between,
like a National Guard 20,000-pound 1,500-mph F-16 fighter. The airways
are 3-dimensional, multi-vehicule-type, with great speed variances. No
comparison whatever.
> It seems to me that we'd be better off with the airlines
> running the air traffic control system themselves.
You completely missed my point. The airlines are only one of the users
of ATC. Private aviation, business (corporate) aviation, the military
(Air Force, Marines, National Guard), air cargo operators .... and the
airlines.
What makes you think that any of the other users would want the airlines
to own and control ATC? I think you would see great resistance to that
concept.
> Let them build it and pay for it and keep the government
> out of it altogether.
It is not "theirs", it shouldn't be "theirs" to own, they are only one
user.
Scott M. Kozel
> > >
> > > Corporate welfare in captalist America - which is why ground airport
> > > access to American airports suck. Every other nation in western and Asian
> > > society has direct rail access to the airport.
> >
> > exactly who should administer the major airports, and how?
>
> reimburse them in full for it. ATC operations of $6 billion currently
> come out entirely out of General revenue, not the trust fund. Then put
> the airports on the tax rolls like a railroad.
> Until then, Delta, United, et al, are on welfare.
OK then, by your logic, the subways, the ports, the sewer systems and
the parks are "on welfare" too.
Scott M. Kozel
> > comparable to a jet airport.
> >
> > It's very simple. A Union station uses a _tiny_ amount of land, in
> > comparison. There are many different urban locations that would have
> > been feasible there, unlike an airport that requires a massive tract of
> > land, 500 to 1,000 acres or more. Bringing trains from several
> > different railroads together on one square city block of land, is
> > totally different from bringing jet airliners into a major airport with
> > multiple runways 10,000 feet long. Even in the days of the
> > propeller-driven aircraft, the runways were 5,000 to 6,000 feet long.
> >
> > Considering the various diverse operators, it is not logical for major
> > airports to be owned by airlines.
>
> totally irrelevant,
I hope you're not suggesting that a 747 could land on one city block.
It is totally relevant.
> other than the airlines wouldn't be able to pay the
> property taxes with $69 fares.
Many fares go over $1,000. Plus you have all the other airport users.
See below.
> The concept is the same and the Union
> station analogy holds. Is your definition of "logic" that the
> accountants wouldn't know how to figure out cost allocation ? That is
> still no excuse for government control.
Says you? The burden of proof is on you. There are normally very good
reasons why things are done the way they are in transportation.
By your logic, the rapid rail transit lines, the ports, the sewer
systems and
the parks are guilty too.
> > I've seen this "Union Station" argument before, and IMO it is a bogus
> > argument, and it's completely illogical to compare a Union Station to a
> > modern airport.
>
> See above. It is a perfect analogy. Multiple users to a jointly
> owned/operated terminal by a terminal subsidiary.
It is a completely bogus analogy. See above.
> > > Scott Kozel said:
> > > > The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
> > > > systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
> > > > reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
> > > > administered.
> > >
> > > Again, we can look to the railroads for years of successful shared
> > > dispatching. There are thousands of small junctions across the country
> > > where one railroad has responsibility for the control tower and it all
> > > works out.
> >
> > A railroad is a one-type-vehicle, one-dimensional system. Aircraft
> > range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft that cruises at a few
> > thousand feet altitude, all the way to a 700,000-pound 550-mph B-747
> > that cruises at 40,000 feet altitude, and lots of variance in between,
> > like a National Guard 20,000-pound 1,500-mph F-16 fighter. The airways
> > are 3-dimensional, multi-vehicule-type, with great speed variances. No
> > comparison whatever.
>
> How heavy they are and how high they go is irrelevant at the airport.
> An RDC is very different from TGV and both can operate out of the same
> privately-owned Union Station.
Read the statement you responded to. My statement responded to the ATC
issue, not the airport issue.
> > You completely missed my point. The airlines are only one of the users
> > of ATC. Private aviation, business (corporate) aviation, the military
> > (Air Force, Marines, National Guard), air cargo operators .... and the
> > airlines.
> >
> > What makes you think that any of the other users would want the airlines
> > to own and control ATC? I think you would see great resistance to that
> > concept.
>
> Of course there would be. Generational Welfare dependence is very hard
> to kill.
Let's see, in another post of yours, you said that ATC costs $6 billion
per year in the U.S. If that figure is correct, then that averages out
to $125 million annually per state. Virginia is an average-population
state, and the state government annual budget is $30 billion.
Considering that the ATC system serves private aviation, business
(corporate) aviation, the military (Air Force, Marines, National Guard),
air cargo operators, and the airlines, that amount of money is a
pittance, and money well spent, money which benefits everybody.
Get over it.
Ken M. K.
> My full statement was:
> A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business
> aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military.
>
> Nothing like creative snipping, eh?
Long quotes are tedious to the reader and many people think of them as
undesirable. Your point was that airports serve diverse interests,
and I did not alter that meaning.
> Mr. M.K., please use some logic here, a Union station is not at all
> comparable to a jet airport.
> It's very simple. A Union station uses a _tiny_ amount of land, in
> comparison. There are many different urban locations that would have
> been feasible there, unlike an airport that requires a massive tract of
> land, 500 to 1,000 acres or more. Bringing trains from several
> different railroads together on one square city block of land, is
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> totally different from bringing jet airliners into a major airport with
> multiple runways 10,000 feet long.
I disagree. First of it's a lot more than "one city block." The
building alone takes up several city blocks. Then you have the
approach tracks, storage yards, and maintenance shops; altogether
quite a bit of land is consumed. Books have been written on the
development of NY's Pennsylvania Station, Washington's Union
Station, and Los Angeles' Union Station; and all describe the
challenges involved. It wasn't that simple.
But more significantly there is a time frame difference. The last
Union Station AFAIK was Los Angeles, 60 years ago. Since that time,
the scale of business projects has increased dramatically. What was
deemed a major buisness and engineering effort in the 1930s is
routine today. And large land acquisitions WERE done by the
private sector. For example, US Steel built huge a new complex
from scratch at Philadelphia and runs an even bigger plant
in Gary IL.
And further, airports were built using cheap open land in out of
the way places. It's a lot easier to buy up potato fields than
city buildings.
> The military shipped their cargo on the railroads. That is quite
> different driving a tank or an armored personnel carrier on the
> railbed. <humor>
Not quite true. Military movements, while operated by the
railroads, were closely supervised by the military. Due to
military security, the railroad had no idea what was being
shipped or where it was going, and the trains were under the
control of military officers. Switching orders were given at
the last minute.
> The point is, military aircraft use major airports
> now, and could use them extensively in wartime, and their performance
> characteristics are mostly very different from airliners.
Once again, times change. If private railroads could have accomodated
military transport in WW II, privately run airports would adapt to
accomodate military needs today.
> I've seen this "Union Station" argument before, and IMO it is a bogus
> argument, and it's completely illogical to compare a Union Station to a
> modern airport.
see above.
> A railroad is a one-type-vehicle, one-dimensional system. Aircraft
> range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft that cruises at a few
> thousand feet altitude, all the way to a 700,000-pound 550-mph B-747
> that cruises at 40,000 feet altitude, and lots of variance in between,
> like a National Guard 20,000-pound 1,500-mph F-16 fighter. The airways
> are 3-dimensional, multi-vehicule-type, with great speed variances. No
> comparison whatever.
As someone else noted, there is considerable diversity in trains.
Tracks
were and are shared by light single car commuter trains and
transcontinental
heavy freights. Railroads allow others to use their tracks through
trackage rights. Today, Amtrak operates on freight railroad tracks
and vice versa. And while some train stations were jointly built as
"Union" stations, others were built by a single railroad which allowed
other railroads and carriers to use it. The New Haven RR was a long-
time tenant in Grand Central. The Pennsylvania RR accomodated the CNJ
in Newark NJ. The Reading Company, CNJ, and B&O shared stations.
I fail to see what your point is about the diversity of aircraft. And
it's not even accurate--busy major airports strongly discourage light
planes.
Railroads were able to manage diveristy--you had private car movements,
government movements. REA Express, and Pullman are sharing facilities.
Communication lines were shared with Western Union and remote agents
doubled as telegraph and express agents. With today's electronic
computer communcations, there is no reason a private company could
handle the "diversity" you speak of in an airport. Indeed, it could
do it better.
> You completely missed my point. The airlines are only one of the users
> of ATC. Private aviation, business (corporate) aviation, the military
> (Air Force, Marines, National Guard), air cargo operators .... and the
> airlines.
>
> What makes you think that any of the other users would want the airlines
> to own and control ATC? I think you would see great resistance to that
> concept.
First, the military has its own air controllers, they were the ones who
kept the system going when the FAA crews went on strike. Second, the
other users would probably welcome a change to get the system up to
date.
PSchleifer
In article <3612E0...@richmond.infi.net>, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> writes:
>
>All these U.S. cities have built rail transit lines to their airports,
>but NYC hasn't. It is the fault of NYC area local decisions. The
>biggest metro area in the country could certainly build at least some of
>these rail facilities if they really wanted to.
Agreed. Funding could have been obtained by means other than
the $3 PFC, for example a $3 toll on the airport roads. This could
have been done 20 years ago and the airlines would have no standing
to complain.
One significant difference between US and many European airports
is the presence of *Intercity* rail at the airport and the integration of
the airport into regional transit networks. For example, from the
Zurich airport you can not only catch a train to downtown from
directly below the terminal, but you can also go in the other
direction. The equivalent service at JFK would run from DC to
Montauk via JFK with both local and limited stop services.
The only US attempt to run such a service was Amtrak
from Philadelpha Airport to Atlantic City. That was coordinated
with Midway Airlines and was discontinued when Midway
shut down (this is not the same Midway Airlines that is
currently operating).
--
Peter Schleifer
peter.s...@usa.net
pschl...@aol.com
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
Joe Versaggi
>
> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 19:27:33 -0400, "Ken M. K."
> <K...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >:Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >:> "Corporate welfare"? An oxymoron if I've ever heard one. Tell us,
> >:> exactly who should administer the major airports, and how?
> >:Business travelers make up a substantial number of plane users.
>
> what nobody realizes is that the reason the airlines are
> suing is that the monies being appropriated for this rail
> link come from the $3 tax on airline tickets, this money is
> collected for ON SITE airport improvements. This rail line
> into the airport is clearly beyond the intended scope of the
> law that allowed the collection of the taxes, the airlines
> have a very strong case.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean there is no need for such access,
however it is financed. If the ex-LIRR Rockaway line were recycled, the
MTA and PA could have done a joint project out of their general capital
budget for a fraction of the cost of Airtoytrain. That fact is, they are
as uncooperative as the BRT and IRT were in 1905.
Joe Versaggi
>
> My full statement was:
> A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business
> aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military.
>
> Nothing like creative snipping, eh?
>
> > > diverse interests use a major airport, IMO the airport should be
> > > administrated by a public agency who can fairly consider all the various
> > > interests.
> >
> > Mr. Kozel, please take a look at railroad history. In many cities,
> > competing railroads got together and built Union Stations to avoid
> > wasteful duplication. Such stations remain in Chicago, Washington DC,
> > and Los Angeles, among others.
> >
> > The railroads worked out a system for sharing costs and revenues of
> > operating the station among its owners and of course dispatching
> > schedules.
>
> comparable to a jet airport.
>
> It's very simple. A Union station uses a _tiny_ amount of land, in
> comparison. There are many different urban locations that would have
> been feasible there, unlike an airport that requires a massive tract of
> land, 500 to 1,000 acres or more. Bringing trains from several
> different railroads together on one square city block of land, is
> propeller-driven aircraft, the runways were 5,000 to 6,000 feet long.
>
> Considering the various diverse operators, it is not logical for major
> airports to be owned by airlines.
>
The amount of land an airport uses verses that of a Union Station is
totally irrelevant, other than the airlines wouldn't be able to pay the
property taxes with $69 fares. The concept is the same and the Union
station analogy holds. Is your definition of "logic" that the
accountants wouldn't know how to figure out cost allocation ? That is
still no excuse for government control.
> > As to providing for military services, during both World Wars the
> > railroads provided substantial transportation services for the
> > military. In the first war, the Government had heavy involvement
> > and that didn't work out very well. In the second war, the railroads
> > ran things themselves and carried an enormous amount of freight
> > and troops.
>
> The military shipped their cargo on the railroads. That is quite
> different driving a tank or an armored personnel carrier on the
> railbed. <humor> The point is, military aircraft use major airports
> now, and could use them extensively in wartime, and their performance
> characteristics are mostly very different from airliners.
>
> > If the railroads were able to work things out among themselves to
> > build and operate stations, as well as serve the nation's defense,
> > the airlines should be able to do the same thing.
>
> I've seen this "Union Station" argument before, and IMO it is a bogus
> argument, and it's completely illogical to compare a Union Station to a
> modern airport.
See above. It is a perfect analogy. Multiple users to a jointly
owned/operated terminal by a terminal subsidiary.
>
> > > The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
> > > systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
> > > reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
> > > administered.
> >
> > Again, we can look to the railroads for years of successful shared
> > dispatching. There are thousands of small junctions across the country
> > where one railroad has responsibility for the control tower and it all
> > works out.
>
> A railroad is a one-type-vehicle, one-dimensional system. Aircraft
> range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft that cruises at a few
> thousand feet altitude, all the way to a 700,000-pound 550-mph B-747
> that cruises at 40,000 feet altitude, and lots of variance in between,
> like a National Guard 20,000-pound 1,500-mph F-16 fighter. The airways
> are 3-dimensional, multi-vehicule-type, with great speed variances. No
> comparison whatever.
How heavy they are and how high they go is irrelevant at the airport.
An RDC is very different from TGV and both can operate out of the same
privately-owned Union Station.
>
> > It seems to me that we'd be better off with the airlines
> > running the air traffic control system themselves.
>
> You completely missed my point. The airlines are only one of the users
> of ATC. Private aviation, business (corporate) aviation, the military
> (Air Force, Marines, National Guard), air cargo operators .... and the
> airlines.
>
> What makes you think that any of the other users would want the airlines
> to own and control ATC? I think you would see great resistance to that
> concept.
Of course there would be. Generational Welfare dependence is very hard
to kill.
>
> > Let them build it and pay for it and keep the government
> > out of it altogether.
>
> It is not "theirs", it shouldn't be "theirs" to own, they are only one
> user.
>
Joe Versaggi
> > > >
> > > > Corporate welfare in captalist America - which is why ground airport
> > > > access to American airports suck. Every other nation in western and Asian
> > > > society has direct rail access to the airport.
> > >
> > > exactly who should administer the major airports, and how?
> >
> > reimburse them in full for it. ATC operations of $6 billion currently
> > come out entirely out of General revenue, not the trust fund. Then put
> > the airports on the tax rolls like a railroad.
> > Until then, Delta, United, et al, are on welfare.
>
> the parks are "on welfare" too.
Not nearly to the same extent. Users pay a far greater portion of subway
and sewer costs. But, Ports are another example of corporate welfare,
and for that matter, so is the Coast Guard.
David McLoughlin
> If the government must administer them, then the corporate users can
> reimburse them in full for it. ATC operations of $6 billion currently
> come out entirely out of General revenue, not the trust fund. Then put
> the airports on the tax rolls like a railroad.
> Until then, Delta, United, et al, are on welfare.
Not in New Zealand they are not. User pays. And privately owned airports
too. The only thing the government still funds is border control and they
are about to start charging for that too.
Ever the weather forecasts here are user pays, and we have competiting
weather services. A real lottery.
However there are no trains to our airports :-(
David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand
Vidi, vici, veni . – Bill Clinton.
Joe Versaggi
>
> Joe Versaggi wrote:
>
> > If the government must administer them, then the corporate users can
> > reimburse them in full for it. ATC operations of $6 billion currently
> > come out entirely out of General revenue, not the trust fund. Then put
> > the airports on the tax rolls like a railroad.
> > Until then, Delta, United, et al, are on welfare.
>
> Not in New Zealand they are not. User pays. And privately owned airports
> too. The only thing the government still funds is border control and they
> are about to start charging for that too.
Good
>
> Ever the weather forecasts here are user pays, and we have competiting
> weather services. A real lottery.
>
Good
> However there are no trains to our airports :-(
>
Bad
want...@usa.net
K...@nospam.com wrote:
> One problem with rail airport access is that there's no provision
> for people carrying luggage.
>
FREE luggage carts handy on the platforms.
These carts, which can carry four plus suitcases, have brakes which
automatically apply when you takr your hand of the handle. You roll the cart
onto the escalator right to the check in counter.
We are a third rate nation as far as transportation is concerned.
Al
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Colin R. Leech
"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>>
>> Airports in the USA are under Federal law which forbids
>> funds collected at airports from being spent on general
>> municipal projects such as off-site transit systems or
>> revenues are spent at remote locations for other projects.
>
> Good points, George.
In general policy terms this makes perfect sense. Problem is, the
overly-rigid bureaucratic application of poorly thought-out rules leads
to a "miss the forest for the trees" situation. The funds collected from
airline passengers should be spent on projects that benefit airline
passengers the most. No problem with that. But what if the most
effective and most cost-effective solution for airline passengers involves
facilities that are off the airport property? That's the problem that many
airports may be facing.
>> RDU did fund a $40 million interchange with I-40
>> at airport expense, and the air carriers did not object.
In that care, there's a precedent for off-airport transit facilities being
similarly funded. (I'm assuming that the interchange is off the airport
lands.) In fact, the irony is that the funding can be used for facilities
off the airport property (as will be the case for the JFK peoplemover, the
Newark monorail extension to an NEC interchange station, etc.), but the
hangup is with using the funds to fund an extension of an existing system
rather than a standalone system. It's like funding a freeway interchange,
when the interchange doesn't connect to an existing freeway.
> A major airport doesn't just serve the airlines, the picture in fact is
> much more complex.
>
> A major airport in nearly all cases serves commercial airlines, business
> aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military.
Right. In the similar debates over transit access to SFO, it's been
pointed out that the United Airlines maintenance base will likely generate
more riders than the air terminal itself. All major destinations
associated with the airport must be considered, not just the passenger
terminals.
> The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
> systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
> reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
> administered.
Canada has just privatized the ATC. Transport Canada is promising grand
improvements by doing this, using privatization of the airports
(terminals) themselves as the model. Time will tell.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Colin R. Leech
Marc (mkort...@monmouth.com) wrote:
>
> what nobody realizes is that the reason the airlines are
> suing is that the monies being appropriated for this rail
> link come from the $3 tax on airline tickets, this money is
> collected for ON SITE airport improvements. This rail line
> into the airport is clearly beyond the intended scope of the
> law that allowed the collection of the taxes, the airlines
> have a very strong case.
In fact this has already been mentioned several times in the thread, most
recently by George Conklin, and followed up by Scott Kozel in an article
to which I just finished responding.
Colin R. Leech
>>
>> Corporate welfare in captalist America - which is why ground airport
>> access to American airports suck. Every other nation in western and Asian
>> society has direct rail access to the airport.
Yup. The airport authorities make so much money from parking and charging
fees to taxis/limos/hotel shuttles for access to their facilities that
it's not in their interest to let public rapid transit bring people to the
airport for a couple of dollars each instead of $10-15 each. Meanwhile,
overall public policy suffers from poor intermodal integration, unlike
Europe and elsewhere where buses, subways, TGVs, etc. are all integrated
into the airports as well as one another.
> A list of US airports with rail transit, with open date and type:
The m.t.u-t FAQ lists these.
> Cleveland, 1967, rapid rail
> Boston, 1952, rapid rail (near airport)
Nope. Shuttle bus required.
> Washington National, 1977, rapid rail
> Philadelphia, 1985, commuter rail
> Chicago O'Hare, 1984, rapid rail
> Chicago Midway, 1996, rapid rail
> Atlanta, 1988, rapid rail
> Baltimore-Washington Intl., 1997, light rail
> St. Louis, 1995, light rail
And Ottawa Canada - Transitway (1995).
> All these U.S. cities have built rail transit lines to their airports,
> but NYC hasn't. It is the fault of NYC area local decisions. The
> biggest metro area in the country could certainly build at least some of
> these rail facilities if they really wanted to.
What's disappointing about that list is that it's so ridicuously short.
The list of major North American airports without such rapid transit links
is much longer, including all three major NYC-area airports, SFO, DFW, LAX,
Pearson/Toronto, etc. etc.
Colin R. Leech
>
> My full statement was:
> aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military.
>
How is that creative snipping? I'm beginning to think you're either paranoid
about that, or else it's a convenient way for you to divert attention from
the real issues.
>> Mr. Kozel, please take a look at railroad history. In many cities,
>> competing railroads got together and built Union Stations to avoid
>> wasteful duplication. Such stations remain in Chicago, Washington DC,
>> and Los Angeles, among others.
>>
>> The railroads worked out a system for sharing costs and revenues of
>> operating the station among its owners and of course dispatching
>> schedules.
>
> Mr. M.K., please use some logic here, a Union station is not at all
> comparable to a jet airport.
>
> It's very simple. A Union station uses a _tiny_ amount of land, in
> comparison.
Mr. Kozel, please use some logic yourself.
FIrst, the point is not about the amount of land. It's about a group of
private companies pooling their resources in the interests of efficiency,
and being able to cooperate to make it work without the need of government
or other intervention. In some cases, the various companies set us a
joint-venture company, such as the "Toronto Terminals Railway Co." The TTR
owned and operated Toronto's Union Station and associated trackage, and
was itself owned by CP and the GTR (later CN). It's also about the synergy
of working together so that passengers who cannot complete a trip using one
company can easily use whatever companies are necessary to complete the
trip. In that sense, it's also about intermodalism.
I know that this is not always true of Greyhound and Trailways in the
USA, but the same concept has often applied to intercity bus service in
Canada.
Second, the fact that a railroad terminal takes up so little land as
compared to an airport means that there is even more incentive for
airlines to cooperate in this manner than for the railroads.
> Considering the various diverse operators, it is not logical for major
> airports to be owned by airlines.
See above.
> The point is, military aircraft use major airports
> now, and could use them extensively in wartime, and their performance
> characteristics are mostly very different from airliners.
Although, the USAF has a lot of its own dedicated facilities, and many
major airports have very little military use.
>> If the railroads were able to work things out among themselves to
>> build and operate stations, as well as serve the nation's defense,
>> the airlines should be able to do the same thing.
>
> I've seen this "Union Station" argument before, and IMO it is a bogus
> argument, and it's completely illogical to compare a Union Station to a
> modern airport.
Huh? On the one hand you point out that airports form natural monopolies
due to the huge amounts of land they consume, and that it therefore makes
no sense for each airline to operate their own airport. Then you decry the
concept of a "union station", which is exactly saying that all the
airlines use the same facilities. I don't see the logical connection -
you're arguing both sides of the fence.
Nobody is suggesting that we wouldn't have all the airlines sharing the
same airport. The only debate is whether the government owns and operates
it, or the airlines for a consortium to do it themselves. (A debate that
is more suited to misc.transport.air-industry, BTW.)
>> Again, we can look to the railroads for years of successful shared
>> dispatching. There are thousands of small junctions across the country
>> where one railroad has responsibility for the control tower and it all
>> works out.
>
> A railroad is a one-type-vehicle, one-dimensional system. Aircraft
> range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft [...]
Irrelevant. Both systems need sophisticated traffic control systems, and
the ownership and operation of these systems does not depend on the types
of vehicles used.
>> Let them build [ATC] and pay for it and keep the government
>> out of it altogether.
In fact, Canada has set up an independent corporation for this purpose.
User fees are supposed to finance the operation of the system, except
that this will only occur after the taxpayers sink a few billion into
upgrading it, and then turning over the upgrade to NavCan.
Colin R. Leech
> reasons why things are done the way they are in transportation.
Now there's a leap of blind faith.
Colin R. Leech
"Ken M. K." (K...@nospam.com) wrote:
>
> One problem with rail airport access is that there's no provision
> airport by train have to carry their baggage themselves a
> considerable distance to the ticket counters. In contrast, auto
> drop offs are met at the curb by Skycaps and curbside check-ins.
>
> For people going on a long trip with heavy luggage, or elderly
> people who can't carry too much, this is too much of a burden
> and they avoid the train altogether as a result.
For people with lots of kids, baggage, etc. they're going to use a taxi
anyway. No matter how convenient the airport end of the trip is, chances
are that they'll have to woalk a few blocks, transfer, etc. further down
the line on their transit trip.
The more realistic markets are for people with less baggage, such as the
overnight businessman, as well as the airport employees themselves.
Bob Scheurle
>comparable to a jet airport.
>
>It's very simple. A Union station uses a _tiny_ amount of land, in
>been feasible there, unlike an airport that requires a massive tract of
>land, 500 to 1,000 acres or more. Bringing trains from several
>different railroads together on one square city block of land, is
>totally different from bringing jet airliners into a major airport with
>multiple runways 10,000 feet long. Even in the days of the
>propeller-driven aircraft, the runways were 5,000 to 6,000 feet long.
>
>airports to be owned by airlines.
If I understand you, airlines are inherently inefficient in term of
land use, so they deserve corporate welfare. Railroads are efficient
in terms of land use, so they do not deserve corporate welfare. What
a great system - reward the companies that destroy as much land (in
populated areas) as possible!
--
Bob Scheurle | "Titanic's water-tight bulkheads
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net | forward held up well and prevented
sche...@z-avionics-z.itt.com | the boat from sinking."
http://www.eclipse.net/~scheurle | -- Wall Street Journal, April 16, 1912
Bob Scheurle
>One problem with rail airport access is that there's no provision
>for people carrying luggage. Travellers arriving at Philadelphia
>airport by train have to carry their baggage themselves a
>considerable distance to the ticket counters. In contrast, auto
>drop offs are met at the curb by Skycaps and curbside check-ins.
>
>For people going on a long trip with heavy luggage, or elderly
>people who can't carry too much, this is too much of a burden
>and they avoid the train altogether as a result.
The Newark Airport monorail / Northeast Corridor station will include
baggage checking and ticketing facilities.
--
Bob Scheurle
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net
sche...@z-avionics-z.itt.com
NJ Transit schedules at http://www.nj.com/njtransit/
Stephen Bauman
Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> The more realistic markets are for people with less baggage, such as the
> overnight businessman, as well as the airport employees themselves.
>
I was on an expense account, whenever I travelled on business. The company
paid for a limo to meet me at the airport. Even though I live 2 miles from
LaGuardia and there is public bus service from the airport to my house.
Corporate policy required me to use this service. It seems that there was
greater danger to the corporate bottom line from workman's compensation suits
than for this luxary travel.
Steve
Stephen Bauman
Ken M. K. wrote:
>
> As to providing for military services, during both World Wars the
> railroads provided substantial transportation services for the
> military. In the first war, the Government had heavy involvement
> and that didn't work out very well. In the second war, the railroads
> ran things themselves and carried an enormous amount of freight
> and troops.
>
> If the railroads were able to work things out among themselves to
> build and operate stations, as well as serve the nation's defense,
> the airlines should be able to do the same thing.
>
The railroads were nationalized during WWI because they couldn't or wouldn't
cooperate. The entire economy was controlled during WWII, so the railroads had no
choice during WWII.
The biggest intervention came during the Civil War with the Union Railway Act. It
forced the railroads to use a standard rail gauge so that goods could be moved
between railroads.
I think you could find better examples for you argument.
Steve
Jeremy M. Posner
My mother goes down to Bethesda, MD several times a year for some meetings
at NIH. (So the Feds pay for her shuttle ticket and transport to and from
the airports. IIRC, they pay a significantly reduced shuttle rate, as they
buy a substantial number of tickets between NYC and DC.)
A couple of years ago on one of these trips, she arrived at National just
in time for the evening rush, and decided that she didn't want to sit in a
cab in traffic on her way to Bethesda. So, she took the Metro. When she
submitted her used Metro ticket as her receipt for the trips between
Bethesda and National, the person in charge of reimbursements said that it
was the first time that anyone had ever used anything other than a taxi to
get from the airport to NIH, even though it cost the government
significantly less. My mother wasn't particularly surprised...
-JMP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jeremy M. Posner | "Ooooh! They have the internet on computers now!" |
| jpo...@panix.com | -Homer Simpson |
| (212) 426-7967 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exile on Market Street
(Colin R. Leech) wrote:
> For people with lots of kids, baggage, etc. they're going to use a taxi
> anyway. No matter how convenient the airport end of the trip is, chances
> are that they'll have to woalk a few blocks, transfer, etc. further down
> the line on their transit trip.
>
> The more realistic markets are for people with less baggage, such as the
> overnight businessman, as well as the airport employees themselves.
Add college students to that list, and you've got a pretty accurate
description of who rides SEPTA's R1 Airport line. Since the R1 is
through-routed to Glenside now, it is possible for students at the area's
three largest universities to have a one-seat ride between the airport and
campus. Temple students can catch the train at Temple University station,
Drexel students at 30th Street, and Penn students at University City.
--
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Associate Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ 215.898.1423/fax 215.898.1203
I speak for myself here, not for Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"Think! It ain't illegal yet!"
--------------------------------------------------------------Funkadelic--
John Kolassa
Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
>> Boston, 1952, rapid rail (near airport)
>
>Nope. Shuttle bus required.
>
>
>And Ottawa Canada - Transitway (1995).
>
even though he acknowledged that the Blue line in Boston only goes near
the airport, while you attempt to add the Ottawa Transitway, which
1. isn't rail at all, but in fact a busway, and
2. doesn't go as close to the airport as the Blue line in Boston goes to
Logan. Instead Ottawa Transitway busses travel what appears from the
OC Transpo map to be a significant distance fighting traffic between the
airport and the transitway.
Ron Newman
> A list of US airports with rail transit, with open date and type:
>
> Cleveland, 1967, rapid rail
> Boston, 1952, rapid rail (near airport)
[remainder snipped]
> All these U.S. cities have built rail transit lines to their airports,
> but NYC hasn't.
The Boston Airport station isn't much closer to the airport than
NYC's Howard Beach/JFK station. In either case, you have to ride a
shuttle bus to get from the subway to the airport terminals.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Joe Versaggi
>
> Joe Versaggi <JOEM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > >
> > > Mr. M.K., please use some logic here, a Union station is not at all
> > > comparable to a jet airport.
> > >
> > > It's very simple. A Union station uses a _tiny_ amount of land, in
> > > comparison. There are many different urban locations that would have
> > > been feasible there, unlike an airport that requires a massive tract of
> > > land, 500 to 1,000 acres or more. Bringing trains from several
> > > different railroads together on one square city block of land, is
> > > totally different from bringing jet airliners into a major airport with
> > > multiple runways 10,000 feet long. Even in the days of the
> > > propeller-driven aircraft, the runways were 5,000 to 6,000 feet long.
> > >
> > > Considering the various diverse operators, it is not logical for major
> > > airports to be owned by airlines.
> >
> > The amount of land an airport uses verses that of a Union Station is
> > totally irrelevant,
>
> It is totally relevant.
>
It certainly is. You are the one that brought up the size comparison of
airports and rail stations.
> > other than the airlines wouldn't be able to pay the
> > property taxes with $69 fares.
>
> Many fares go over $1,000. Plus you have all the other airport users.
> See below.
The fact remains the airports do not pay property taxes which is a huge
implicit subsidy.
>
> > The concept is the same and the Union
> > station analogy holds. Is your definition of "logic" that the
> > accountants wouldn't know how to figure out cost allocation ? That is
> > still no excuse for government control.
>
> Says you? The burden of proof is on you. There are normally very good
> reasons why things are done the way they are in transportation.
>
Yeh, soft money campaign conributions, conflicts of interest, and
pork-barrel boon doogles, courtesy of the oil lobby, truck lobby, air
lobby, and auto lobby.
> By your logic, the rapid rail transit lines, the ports, the sewer
> systems and
> the parks are guilty too.
Not as guilty. Users pay a substantial share of their operating costs.
Can't say that for ports however.
>
> > > I've seen this "Union Station" argument before, and IMO it is a bogus
> > > argument, and it's completely illogical to compare a Union Station to a
> > > modern airport.
> >
> > See above. It is a perfect analogy. Multiple users to a jointly
> > owned/operated terminal by a terminal subsidiary.
>
> It is a completely bogus analogy. See above.
>
Your opinion.
> > > > Scott Kozel said:
> > > > > The very same case can be made for the nation's air traffic control
> > > > > systems; they again serve all these diverse operators, and for the same
> > > > > reasons, the air traffic control systems should be publicly
> > > > > administered.
> > > >
> > > > Again, we can look to the railroads for years of successful shared
> > > > dispatching. There are thousands of small junctions across the country
> > > > where one railroad has responsibility for the control tower and it all
> > > > works out.
> > >
> > > A railroad is a one-type-vehicle, one-dimensional system. Aircraft
> > > range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft that cruises at a few
> > > thousand feet altitude, all the way to a 700,000-pound 550-mph B-747
> > > that cruises at 40,000 feet altitude, and lots of variance in between,
> > > like a National Guard 20,000-pound 1,500-mph F-16 fighter. The airways
> > > are 3-dimensional, multi-vehicule-type, with great speed variances. No
> > > comparison whatever.
> >
> > How heavy they are and how high they go is irrelevant at the airport.
> > An RDC is very different from TGV and both can operate out of the same
> > privately-owned Union Station.
>
> Read the statement you responded to. My statement responded to the ATC
> issue, not the airport issue.
>
A railroad dispatching office handles whatever train is there. So could
a private ATC.
> > > You completely missed my point. The airlines are only one of the users
> > > of ATC. Private aviation, business (corporate) aviation, the military
> > > (Air Force, Marines, National Guard), air cargo operators .... and the
> > > airlines.
> > >
> > > What makes you think that any of the other users would want the airlines
> > > to own and control ATC? I think you would see great resistance to that
> > > concept.
> >
> > Of course there would be. Generational Welfare dependence is very hard
> > to kill.
>
> Let's see, in another post of yours, you said that ATC costs $6 billion
> per year in the U.S. If that figure is correct, then that averages out
> to $125 million annually per state. Virginia is an average-population
> state, and the state government annual budget is $30 billion.
> Considering that the ATC system serves private aviation, business
> (corporate) aviation, the military (Air Force, Marines, National Guard),
> air cargo operators, and the airlines, that amount of money is a
> pittance, and money well spent, money which benefits everybody.
>
> Get over it.
You can do all the long division you want. $6 billion is $6 billion. You
want to socialize every industry that benefits "everybody" ?
Scott M. Kozel
> > aviation, air cargo operators, private aviation, and the military.
> >
> > comparison. There are many different urban locations that would have
> > been feasible there, unlike an airport that requires a massive tract of
> > land, 500 to 1,000 acres or more. Bringing trains from several
> > different railroads together on one square city block of land, is
> > multiple runways 10,000 feet long.
>
> I disagree. First of it's a lot more than "one city block." The
> building alone takes up several city blocks.
I'm familiar with Union Station in D.C., and the building takes up one
block.
> Then you have the
> approach tracks, storage yards, and maintenance shops; altogether
> quite a bit of land is consumed. Books have been written on the
> development of NY's Pennsylvania Station, Washington's Union
> Station, and Los Angeles' Union Station; and all describe the
> challenges involved. It wasn't that simple.
I wasn't trying to "simplify" it. There certainly are long approaches
to Union Station in D.C., although south of the station, there is a
tunnel for trains.
> But more significantly there is a time frame difference. The last
> Union Station AFAIK was Los Angeles, 60 years ago.
True, and those CBDs were far less developed back when the stations were
built.
> And large land acquisitions WERE done by the private sector.
> For example, US Steel built huge a new complex from scratch at
> Philadelphia and runs an even bigger plant in Gary IL.
A recent railroad poster said that the District of Columbia acquired the
necessary land via the power of eminent domain, on behalf of the
railroads, and I've heard this before. He said that that happened in at
least a few other cities too. If that's the case, then major
governmental assistance was provided to build the stations.
Also, the railroads were beneficiaries of large governmental land grants
in the 1800s, they obtained a lot of land that way.
All modes of transportation in the U.S. have seen various types of
governmental intervention at times -- this applies to waterways,
railroads, seaports, highways, aviation, and mass transit.
The railroads ought to stop whining about being "cheated", because it is
just not so. And that's really what is at the root of this complaint,
"Airlines should have built their own airports".
> And further, airports were built using cheap open land in out of
> the way places. It's a lot easier to buy up potato fields than
> city buildings.
True, most major airports did locate far from the city. LaGuardia and
Washington National are some of the exceptions, but much of those two
were built on earthen fill in the river.
> Once again, times change. If private railroads could have accomodated
> military transport in WW II, privately run airports would adapt to
> accomodate military needs today.
Addressed well in today's post by Stephen Bauman
<SBa...@worldnet.att.net>
> > [WRT to ATC] Aircraft
> > range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft that cruises at a few
> > thousand feet altitude, all the way to a 700,000-pound 550-mph B-747
> > that cruises at 40,000 feet altitude, and lots of variance in between,
> > like a National Guard 20,000-pound 1,500-mph F-16 fighter. The airways
> > are 3-dimensional, multi-vehicul-type, with great speed variances.
>
> I fail to see what your point is about the diversity of aircraft. And
> it's not even accurate--busy major airports strongly discourage light
> planes.
True, private aviation is discouraged, but it is still present. Also,
business (corporate) aviation has the Lear jet and small propjet
passenger aircraft type planes for company travel. National Guard wings
here have F-16 fighters and C-130 transports.
> With today's electronic computer communcations, there is no
> reason a private company could handle the "diversity" you
> speak of in an airport. Indeed, it could do it better.
Maybe so, maybe not. If you are right, then why haven't they jumped on
it?
> > The airlines are only one of the users
> > of ATC. Private aviation, business (corporate) aviation, the military
> > (Air Force, Marines, National Guard), air cargo operators .... and the
> > airlines.
>
> First, the military has its own air controllers, they were the ones who
> kept the system going when the FAA crews went on strike. Second, the
> other users would probably welcome a change to get the system up to
> date.
Civilian ATC still has to track military aircraft, they can't just
ignore them. And vice versa.
Then you have the other side of the equation. I've talked a lot about
the diverse major aviation users of the airport. The airport also
serves the metropolitan area in which it resides -- the private
citizenry, and the local commercial, industrial and governmental
concerns. They collectively have a diverse range of needs for the
airport too. They certainly would have a say in how the airport was
created, and how it is run now.
It appears to me that the aviation user diversity, plus the local user
diversity, has caused the system whereby U.S. airports are administered
by a local airport authority, and not by a private concern.
The U.S. has 200+ major airports. Why do you (and a few others) insist
on your viewpoint, when the whole country has done the opposite, and
been very successful at it; our aviation system has certainly provided
major contributions to our economy (largest in the world, $7 Trillion
annual GDP).
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> >comparison. There are many different urban locations that would have
> >been feasible there, unlike an airport that requires a massive tract of
> >land, 500 to 1,000 acres or more. Bringing trains from several
> >different railroads together on one square city block of land, is
> >totally different from bringing jet airliners into a major airport with
> >propeller-driven aircraft, the runways were 5,000 to 6,000 feet long.
> >
> >Considering the various diverse operators, it is not logical for major
> >airports to be owned by airlines.
>
> land use, so they deserve corporate welfare. Railroads are efficient
> in terms of land use, so they do not deserve corporate welfare. What
> a great system - reward the companies that destroy as much land (in
> populated areas) as possible!
Why is land "destroyed" when a transportation system is built upon it?
After all, transportation felicities are essential to our country.
Airlines are not "inefficient" users of land, it simply takes a large
tract of land to operate jet airliners. The advantage is that 100 to
400 people can fly from NYC to Chicago (~800 miles) in less than 2
hours, and from NYC to San Francisco (~3,000 miles) in 6 hours. I could
list many other examples.
And do metropolitan airport(s) really occupy more land than all the
combined local railroad lines and associated yards? (thoughtful
question)
The rehabilitation of the NYC subway/elevated system, from the
early-1980s to the early-1990s, cost about $10 Billion dollars. Public
dollars were used from city, state and federal sources (about 1/2 was
federal). Other than the Interstate transfer funds from the abandoned
I-478 Westway project, all the rest of the money came from general
funds. By the logic above, this is major "welfare" paid to the patrons
of the subways and Els. I know you really didn't mean that Bob, you and
I both see the benefit of the subway/El rehab project. :-)
Richard A. Schumacher
>> reimburse them in full for it. ATC operations of $6 billion currently
>> come out entirely out of General revenue, not the trust fund. Then put
>> the airports on the tax rolls like a railroad.
>> Until then, Delta, United, et al, are on welfare.
>OK then, by your logic, the subways, the ports, the sewer systems and
>the parks are "on welfare" too.
Can't really call that "welfare" since most of those are owned and
operated by governments. Airlines are private companies which directly
benefit from the tax revenue used to operate the ATC system. Now, one
can argue that this is a Good Thing, since it supports very useful
infrastructure; but at the same time that they enjoy public funding,
airlines are still allowed to resist measures that would further
enhance the common weal (in the JFK rail line case, providing more
convenient and less-polluting access to the airport). That's bad
public policy.
Someday airlines and airport authorities will realize that they
can make money by converting some short-haul air routes to rail
lines. Airports already provide all the needed infrastructure
except for the rails themselves. We will then see the spectacle
of travellers being forced to take a car to an airport to catch
a train, since the semi-autonomous airport authorities will
still resist rail transit connections which would cost them
parking revenue...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> > A Union station uses a _tiny_ amount of land, in comparison.
>
> FIrst, the point is not about the amount of land. It's about a group of
> private companies pooling their resources in the interests of efficiency,
> and being able to cooperate to make it work without the need of government
> or other intervention.
It IS about the amount of land, and obviously the 200+ major airports in
the U.S. needed a local airport authority in order to assemble the
necessary amount of land. Again, the airlines are only one of the
users, and some of the users are not private companies.
> Although, the USAF has a lot of its own dedicated facilities, and many
> major airports have very little military use.
But they are still one of the diverse users. The airport here has a
National Guard wing with C-130s and F-16s.
> > I've seen this "Union Station" argument before, and IMO it is a bogus
> > argument, and it's completely illogical to compare a Union Station to a
> > modern airport.
>
> Huh? On the one hand you point out that airports form natural monopolies
> due to the huge amounts of land they consume, and that it therefore makes
> no sense for each airline to operate their own airport. Then you decry the
> concept of a "union station", which is exactly saying that all the
> airlines use the same facilities. I don't see the logical connection -
> you're arguing both sides of the fence.
Huh? Never have I "decried the concept of a Union Station", and I don't
see how you could have thought that. The Union Station concept is a
very good concept. I just don't think that it can be compared to a
major airport.
> Nobody is suggesting that we wouldn't have all the airlines sharing the
> same airport. The only debate is whether the government owns and operates
> it, or the airlines for a consortium to do it themselves.
Or whether portions of the airport are privatized, resulting in a
public-private partnership, something that is becoming more common in
the U.S.
> > [wrt ATC]
> > A railroad is a one-type-vehicle, one-dimensional system. Aircraft
> > range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft that cruises at a few
> > thousand feet altitude, all the way to a 700,000-pound 550-mph B-747
> > that cruises at 40,000 feet altitude, and lots of variance in between,
> > like a National Guard 20,000-pound 1,500-mph F-16 fighter. The airways
> > are 3-dimensional, multi-vehicule-type, with great speed variances. No
> > comparison whatever.
>
> Irrelevant. Both systems need sophisticated traffic control systems, and
> the ownership and operation of these systems does not depend on the types
> of vehicles used.
Irrelevant. ROTFL. Comparing train traffic control to aircraft traffic
control, shows railroad-like one-dimensional thinking.
> In fact, Canada has set up an independent corporation for this purpose.
> User fees are supposed to finance the operation of the system, except
> that this will only occur after the taxpayers sink a few billion into
> upgrading it [ATC], and then turning over the upgrade to NavCan.
Most instances of privatization are actually a 'public-private
partnership'. What are the exact details of this case?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Someday airlines and airport authorities will realize that they
> can make money by converting some short-haul air routes to rail
> lines. Airports already provide all the needed infrastructure
> except for the rails themselves. We will then see the spectacle
> of travellers being forced to take a car to an airport to catch
> a train, since the semi-autonomous airport authorities will
> still resist rail transit connections which would cost them
> parking revenue...
Joseph Vranich in his book _Derailed_ has an extensive discussion about
how public-private partnerships could be developed to administer
high-speed rail systems, and how that one of the partners would be --
the airlines. He points out that HSR technology in many ways is more
similar to aerospace technology than to traditional railroad
technology. The aviation community would benefit, and as certain parts
of the air system reach capacity (e.g. BosNYWash, SD-LA-SF), high-speed
rail could handle part of the future growth.
Concerning the idea that airports resist rail transit because of lost
parking revenues -- I disagree. Many large airports are already nearly
maxed out on parking, and in my opinion, a rail transit line would mean
-- more potential airline patrons can use the airport. Case in point -
Washington National.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> >
> > reasons why things are done the way they are in transportation.
>
So you're right and everybody else is wrong?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > I hope you're not suggesting that a 747 could land on one city block.
> > It is totally relevant.
>
> It certainly is. You are the one that brought up the size comparison of
> airports and rail stations.
Have you figured a way to land a B-747 on one city block?
> > Many fares go over $1,000. Plus you have all the other airport users.
>
> The fact remains the airports do not pay property taxes which is a huge
> implicit subsidy.
A publicly administered airport is a public utility, not a profit-making
enterprise. That is why in our country that it does not pay property
taxes.
Does city hall pay property taxes? The city police department? The
fire department? The parks? The aboveground rapid rail transit lines
and yards? I didn't think so. They all take up tons of land.
> > The burden of proof is on you. There are normally very good
> > reasons why things are done the way they are in transportation.
>
> Yeh, soft money campaign conributions, conflicts of interest, and
> pork-barrel boon doogles, courtesy of the oil lobby, truck lobby, air
> lobby, and auto lobby.
Yeah, yeah... And the railroad lobby, the mass transit lobby...
> > By your logic, the rapid rail transit lines, the ports, the sewer
> > systems and the parks are guilty too.
>
> Not as guilty. Users pay a substantial share of their operating costs.
> Can't say that for ports however.
But they are still being highly "subsidized", by your logic. You can't
have it both ways.
Bob Scheurle
>oversight is retained, while portions of the airport system are
>privatized. Such as the RDU example, where AA owns a terminal on an
>airport that is managed by a public agency.
Scott or George, who owns the land under the terminal? Does AA pay
property taxes or rent for the land?
Bob Scheurle
>After all, transportation felicities are essential to our country.
Here in New Jersey, there was a proposal in the 1960's which would
have filled-in thousands of acres of the Great Swamp to make a new
airport. This would have been a disaster. Among other things, it
would have affected the availability of drinking water for a very
large number of people. Then there's the noise, pollution, traffic,
etc, etc. We have too many planes flying over our heads as it is. A
bigger airport would have made it even worse. This area is now a
National Wildlife Refuge. An airport would have "destroyed" this
land.
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the USA. I'm hoping
that at least some of it will remain unpaved during my lifetime. I
don't want to have to explain to my children (if any) why NJ was
called the "Garden State". ("Daddy, have you ever seen a real live
tree?")
It's not right to bulldoze everything is sight in the name of
"progress" or "transportation" or whatever.
>Airlines are not "inefficient" users of land, it simply takes a large
>tract of land to operate jet airliners. The advantage is that 100 to
>400 people can fly from NYC to Chicago (~800 miles) in less than 2
>hours, and from NYC to San Francisco (~3,000 miles) in 6 hours. I could
>list many other examples.
Sounds like inefficient land use to me.
>The rehabilitation of the NYC subway/elevated system, from the
>early-1980s to the early-1990s, cost about $10 Billion dollars. Public
>dollars were used from city, state and federal sources (about 1/2 was
>federal). Other than the Interstate transfer funds from the abandoned
>I-478 Westway project, all the rest of the money came from general
>funds. By the logic above, this is major "welfare" paid to the patrons
>of the subways and Els. I know you really didn't mean that Bob, you and
>I both see the benefit of the subway/El rehab project. :-)
But there's a fundamental difference between the NYC subway and the
airlines. The subway is run by the government. Your analogy would
apply if the airlines were run by the government. The airlines are
private companies on the public dole.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> Here in New Jersey, there was a proposal in the 1960's which would
> have filled-in thousands of acres of the Great Swamp to make a new
> airport. This would have been a disaster. Among other things, it
> would have affected the availability of drinking water for a very
> large number of people. Then there's the noise, pollution, traffic,
> etc, etc. We have too many planes flying over our heads as it is. A
> bigger airport would have made it even worse. This area is now a
> National Wildlife Refuge. An airport would have "destroyed" this
> land.
This seems to refer to the Hackensack Meadowlands. I agree
wholeheartedly, that it is best that most of the Hackensack development
plans never came to fruition, and likely never will.
The airport wasn't built, so it's a moot point now.
> It's not right to bulldoze everything is sight in the name of
> "progress" or "transportation" or whatever.
I totally agree.
> >Airlines are not "inefficient" users of land, it simply takes a large
> >tract of land to operate jet airliners. The advantage is that 100 to
> >400 people can fly from NYC to Chicago (~800 miles) in less than 2
> >hours, and from NYC to San Francisco (~3,000 miles) in 6 hours. I could
> >list many other examples.
>
> Sounds like inefficient land use to me.
You skipped my question - :-)
And do metropolitan airport(s) really occupy more land than all the
combined local railroad lines and associated yards? (thoughtful
question)
> >The rehabilitation of the NYC subway/elevated system, from the
> >early-1980s to the early-1990s, cost about $10 Billion dollars. Public
> >dollars were used from city, state and federal sources ....
>
> But there's a fundamental difference between the NYC subway and the
> airlines. The subway is run by the government. Your analogy would
> apply if the airlines were run by the government.
No Bob, the _airport_ is run by the government(s), not the airlines.
The airport is a public entity, not a profit-making enterprise. It does
not have stockholders, it cannot turn a profit.
> The airlines are private companies on the public dole.
If that is logically true, then logically all the businesses that have
subway/elevated direct service are on the public dole too.
Besides, I've pointed out several times that the airport has at least 5
different diverse users, not all of which are private companies.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >oversight is retained, while portions of the airport system are
> >privatized. Such as the RDU example, where AA owns a terminal on an
> >airport that is managed by a public agency.
>
> Scott or George, who owns the land under the terminal? Does AA pay
> property taxes or rent for the land?
George will have to provide the specific answer, I don't live in the
Raleigh area.
Regardless of the answer, AA pays large amounts of corporate income
taxes, plus sales taxes on the products that they buy for their
day-to-day operations. I'm not an aviation expert, but I believe that
they pay fuel taxes, and pay sales taxes on the aircraft they buy.
Ouch....
David McLoughlin
>
> David McLoughlin wrote:
> > Ever the weather forecasts here [in New Zealand] are user pays, and we have competiting
> > weather services. A real lottery.
>
> Good
Not if you plan your family picnic on the forecast of the company which
says it will be fine and sunny rather than on the forecast of the company
which claimed it would rain and got it right.
The other Saturday, I was listening to a radio station which buys its
weather forecasts from a company which claimed we were having fine and
sunny weather and it was hosing down. The radio announcer looked out the
window and the rain and told listeners to ignore the forecast.
David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand
Monica: "Hey Handsome, are you pleased to see me, or is that a cigar in
your pocket?"
David McLoughlin
>
> Marc (mkort...@monmouth.com) wrote:
> >
> > what nobody realizes is that the reason the airlines are
> > suing is that the monies being appropriated for this rail
> > link come from the $3 tax on airline tickets, this money is
> > collected for ON SITE airport improvements. This rail line
> > into the airport is clearly beyond the intended scope of the
> > law that allowed the collection of the taxes, the airlines
> > have a very strong case.
>
> In fact this has already been mentioned several times in the thread, most
> recently by George Conklin, and followed up by Scott Kozel in an article
> to which I just finished responding.
>
Indeed it has, but George and Marc have been making a pretty fundamental
point which is getting lost in the noise.
Taxes may only be used according to the law under which they are raised.
This is a fundamental constitutional requirement in almost every country
with a legal tradition derived from the UK or Continental Europe. It is
the law in the US, in Canada, in New Zealand even.
If the law governing the $3 tax at JFK says the revenue must be spent on
on-site airport improvements, then the airlines have more than an
arguable case that it is illegal to spend the money on a train line in
Queens.
Indeed from this distance their case looks open and shut.
The fact a new train line in Queens might be desirable is not the point.
If you want a new train line in Queens then let the state of New York or
the City of New York pass an ordinance levying a sales tax or something
like that to pay for it.
Joe Versaggi
>
> Joe Versaggi <JOEM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > >
> > > I hope you're not suggesting that a 747 could land on one city block.
> > > It is totally relevant.
> >
> > It certainly is. You are the one that brought up the size comparison of
> > airports and rail stations.
>
What does that have to do with anything ? You rationalize government
control of airports and deny the analogy to Union Stations because
airports are "big". That is rediculous.
>
> > > Many fares go over $1,000. Plus you have all the other airport users.
> >
> > The fact remains the airports do not pay property taxes which is a huge
> > implicit subsidy.
>
> A publicly administered airport is a public utility, not a profit-making
> enterprise. That is why in our country that it does not pay property
> taxes.
>
> Does city hall pay property taxes? The city police department? The
> fire department? The parks? The aboveground rapid rail transit lines
> and yards? I didn't think so. They all take up tons of land.
>
> > > The burden of proof is on you. There are normally very good
> > > reasons why things are done the way they are in transportation.
> >
> > Yeh, soft money campaign conributions, conflicts of interest, and
> > pork-barrel boon doogles, courtesy of the oil lobby, truck lobby, air
> > lobby, and auto lobby.
>
> Yeah, yeah... And the railroad lobby, the mass transit lobby...
Extremely week in comparison. Just look how every state and US DOT pie
is carved up.
>
> > > By your logic, the rapid rail transit lines, the ports, the sewer
> > > systems and the parks are guilty too.
> >
> > Not as guilty. Users pay a substantial share of their operating costs.
> > Can't say that for ports however.
>
> But they are still being highly "subsidized", by your logic. You can't
> have it both ways.
No they're not.
Joe Versaggi
As I said somewhere yesterday, it should be a joint MTA/PA project out
of their general capital budget which would not cost either agency a
whole lot of money. But that is a political impossibility.
Ken Eikert
>
> But more significantly there is a time frame difference. The last
> Union Station AFAIK was Los Angeles, 60 years ago.
New Orleans' Union Passenger Terminal is less than 50 years
old. It also houses Greyhound.
Ken Eikert
>
> And do metropolitan airport(s) really occupy more land than all the
> combined local railroad lines and associated yards? (thoughtful
> question)
Eyeballing my maps of Atlanta, it appears that Hartsfield
Airport occupies a bit more land than do the rail yards.
However, two new major rail yards have been proposed for
suburban Atlanta.
If you toss in DeKalb-Peachtree and Charlie Brown airports,
Dobbins ARB, and NAS Atlanta, it appears that aviation
occupies far more land than do the railroads in metro
Atlanta.
Also, the City of Atlanta has bought out large areas
surrounding Hartsfield due to noise over the past few
decades. These areas are largely uninhabited now; there's
been limited success in recycling those neighborhoods
for industrial use. A MARTA rail yard occupies one
old neighborhood near Hartsfield, and one railroad has
a large yard full of new cars and trucks awaiting
transfer from rail to car carrier in another.
Of course, both the railroads and aviation have been very
good to Atlanta economically.
Peter Rosa
Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<6v1ujp$f...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
> Yup. The airport authorities make so much money from parking and charging
> fees to taxis/limos/hotel shuttles for access to their facilities that
> it's not in their interest to let public rapid transit bring people to
the
> airport for a couple of dollars each instead of $10-15 each. Meanwhile,
> overall public policy suffers from poor intermodal integration, unlike
> Europe and elsewhere where buses, subways, TGVs, etc. are all integrated
> into the airports as well as one another.
Intermodal integration is less likely to succeed at U.S. airports because
overall transit service is so much worse. For example, building a rail
transit connection to Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport is somewhat pointless -
travelers who aren't staying with friends or relatives in the area (if they
were, they'd be likely to be met at the airport) probably will have to rent
cars given the relatively undeveloped transit in the area. The only ones
who might benefit would be business travelers staying at downtown hotels -
except they're on expense accounts that reimburse for taxi or limousine
use.
Rapid transit connections make sense mostly in just a small number of U.S.
cities that do have well-developed transit networks. Chicago and
Washington are two examples. But then you have New York and San Francisco
- excellent transit systems, but no rapid transit at the airports.
JOHN D MARA
David McLoughlin wrote in article
> Taxes may only be used according to the law under which they are raised.
> This is a fundamental constitutional requirement in almost every country
> with a legal tradition derived from the UK or Continental Europe. It is
> the law in the US, in Canada, in New Zealand even.
>
> If the law governing the $3 tax at JFK says the revenue must be spent on
> on-site airport improvements, then the airlines have more than an
> arguable case that it is illegal to spend the money on a train line in
> Queens.
>
> Indeed from this distance their case looks open and shut.
But why would the airlines have standing to sue? They don't pay the tax.
They merely collect it. Merchants collect sales tax and employers collect
income tax but they don't have any special say in how the money is spent.
Colin R. Leech
John Kolassa (kol...@stat1.bst.rochester.edu) wrote:
>
> I don't see the point in claiming that Scott is wrong in including Boston,
> even though he acknowledged that the Blue line in Boston only goes near
> the airport,
It still requires a transfer to a shuttle bus, which is the same as JFK
(bus from Howard Beach subway station). This does not place Boston in
the "rapid transit to the front door of the airport" category with
airports like DCA and O'Hare which have the subway station right at the
airport terminal where no transfer is required.
> while you attempt to add the Ottawa Transitway, which
> 1. isn't rail at all, but in fact a busway, and
It's rapid transit.
> 2. doesn't go as close to the airport as the Blue line in Boston goes to
> Logan.
Sure it does. It drops people right at the front door of the airport.
There's a walk of about 50 feet to enter the terminal.
> Instead Ottawa Transitway busses travel what appears from the
> OC Transpo map to be a significant distance fighting traffic between the
> airport and the transitway.
There is in fact no traffic congestion on the Airport Parkway, which is
why the the Transitway buses use it instead of spending tens of millions
of dollars to build a dedicated facility. Until last week, the Parkway
could not be used by most commuter traffic, as the ramps were all oriented
toward airport traffic only. Any congestion resulting from the recently
opened ramps probably won't affect the part used by the transit route to
the airport, but time will tell.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Colin R. Leech
> early-1980s to the early-1990s, cost about $10 Billion dollars.
Trying to change the subject again, when you're losing an argument.
Too bad. We've been over that ground already in other threads.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> >
> >"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> >> Boston, 1952, rapid rail (near airport)
> >
> >
> ...
> >
> >And Ottawa Canada - Transitway (1995).
> >
> even though he acknowledged that the Blue line in Boston only goes near
> the airport,
Colin likes to try to say I'm "wrong", if he can. Typical.
> while you attempt to add the Ottawa Transitway, which
> 1. isn't rail at all, but in fact a busway, and
> 2. doesn't go as close to the airport as the Blue line in Boston goes to
> Logan. Instead Ottawa Transitway busses travel what appears from the
> OC Transpo map to be a significant distance fighting traffic between the
> airport and the transitway.
Colin is embarrassed that Canada doesn't have any airport rail transit,
so he tried to include Ottawa. Sorry Colin, but the fish in this lake
are a lot smarter than you think they are.
Colin R. Leech
>> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
>> >
>> > reasons why things are done the way they are in transportation.
>>
>
> So you're right and everybody else is wrong?
Another broad leap of logic. The two statements are not related at all.
Colin R. Leech
"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
>>
>> > [to a major airport]
>>
>> FIrst, the point is not about the amount of land. It's about a group of
>> private companies pooling their resources in the interests of efficiency,
>> and being able to cooperate to make it work without the need of government
>> or other intervention.
>
> It IS about the amount of land, and obviously the 200+ major airports in
> the U.S. needed a local airport authority in order to assemble the
> necessary amount of land.
Another feeble attempt in Scott's anti-rail bias to justify why railroads
should provide all their own infrastructure privately and pay property
taxes on it, while providing public largess to highways and airports. Once
again, I will point out that your arguments are bullshit.
>> > [wrt ATC]
>> > A railroad is a one-type-vehicle, one-dimensional system. Aircraft
>> > range from a 2,000-pound 90-mph light aircraft that cruises at a few
>> > thousand feet altitude, all the way to a 700,000-pound 550-mph B-747
>> > that cruises at 40,000 feet altitude, and lots of variance in between,
>> > like a National Guard 20,000-pound 1,500-mph F-16 fighter. The airways
>> > are 3-dimensional, multi-vehicule-type, with great speed variances. No
>> > comparison whatever.
>>
>> Irrelevant. Both systems need sophisticated traffic control systems, and
>> the ownership and operation of these systems does not depend on the types
>> of vehicles used.
>
> Irrelevant. ROTFL. Comparing train traffic control to aircraft traffic
> control, shows railroad-like one-dimensional thinking.
Of course the nature of the traffic control systems are different, as the
vehicle characteristics are different. That still doesn't (in itself)
provide any justification for ATC to be publicly owned and funded while
railroad signalling is privately controlled and funded.
>> In fact, Canada has set up an independent corporation for this purpose.
>> User fees are supposed to finance the operation of the system, except
>> that this will only occur after the taxpayers sink a few billion into
>> upgrading it [ATC], and then turning over the upgrade to NavCan.
>
> Most instances of privatization are actually a 'public-private
> partnership'. What are the exact details of this case?
Ask somebody in misc.transport.air-industry for the details. I'm not
intimately familiar with it, and it's not relevant here in the transit
newsgroups anyway.
Colin R. Leech
Only when you are wrong or evasive, which seems to be quite a bit recently.
Bob Scheurle
>
>> Scott or George, who owns the land under the terminal? Does AA pay
>> property taxes or rent for the land?
>
>George will have to provide the specific answer, I don't live in the
>Raleigh area.
>
>Regardless of the answer, AA pays large amounts of corporate income
>taxes, plus sales taxes on the products that they buy for their
>day-to-day operations. I'm not an aviation expert, but I believe that
>they pay fuel taxes, and pay sales taxes on the aircraft they buy.
>Ouch....
Yeah, just like any other business. So why should they get their land
for free? (if George confirms that that is the situation)