MNRR West of Hudson (WoH) Study - Stewart Airport

Irish Chieftain wrote:Uh-oh, Southern Secondary to Winslow again… Ah, if only. And all the sense it makes, too.

C'mon, "The Blue Comet rides again!" -- a boy can dream, can't he?

ACY is a good example that you need more than one primary carrier (Spirit), and unless you're flying to one of their hubs (Detroit or Lauderdale?) you're going to need to change planes. The extra time it takes to drive there will be the same it takes for a layover. So I can drive to PHL in 10 minutes, or drive to ACY in 90, with a 90 minute or 2 hour layover, I can sit in a security line for 30 minutes and still come out ahead by just going to PHL. Turning secondary airports like ACY into mini-hubs is just the kind of expansion residents adjacent to the airports don't want.

Don't forget about Delta's two flights a day to ATL. Maybe if Continental offered flights through EWR to ACY it might make more sense on both direct flights and connections from EWR.

Getting back to RR Related topics...I thought there was a separate line planned to ACY. And not just a station off the ACL. But I could be wrong?

That's not what this thread's about; it's about rail service to SWF. Come on, guys…

OK, back to SWF rail service then. Hardly seems justified with the number of passengers or flights. SWF as ranked by the FAA in numbers of passengers served for 2006:
#191 with just 156K passenger enplanements. Approx. 70 miles from EWR or LGA (next closest major airports).

For comparison:
AVP (Scranton), ranked #164 with 213K passengers. 125 miles to EWR.
ABE (Lehigh Valley), ranked #131 with more than double the boardings of SWF at 397K passenegers. 75 miles to EWR.

The smallest airport I believe with rail service and scheduled passenger flights is South Bend, IN ranked at #133 (5 trains per day). The next smallest would be Burbank at #59 with almost 3 million passengers (19 trains). If SWF gets to even half that number of passengers then perhaps its time to start planning for rail service.

Service operation also seems problematic until passenger count goes way up. This would be a spur off the existing line rather than an additional stop. This means that additional trains will have to operate meaning additional cost.

drewh wrote: Service operation also seems problematic until passenger count goes way up. This would be a spur off the existing line rather than an additional stop. This means that additional trains will have to operate meaning additional cost.

It just might make sense to build a spur all the way to Newburgh with Stewart a stop on it. That would at least create a new suburban transport route.

As for Stewart, any spur construction to just support the airport would make sense only in conjunction with a plan to significantly increase service to it, perhaps forcing the issue to some extent by slot restricting EWR and JFK, or simply wait another ten years of natural traffic growth when another airport will become quite necessary anyway.

Jishnu wrote:As for Stewart, any spur construction to just support the airport would make sense only in conjunction with a plan to significantly increase service to it, perhaps forcing the issue to some extent by slot restricting EWR and JFK, or simply wait another ten years of natural traffic growth when another airport will become quite necessary anyway.

Apparently the FAA can no longer mandate slots. See this on NY area airports:

AOPA.org – "Airlines Create Their Own Problems"

…which is why Stewart is part of the solution.

Ken W2KB wrote:Apparently the FAA can no longer mandate slots. See this on NY area airports:

AOPA.org – "Airlines Create Their Own Problems"

…which is why Stewart is part of the solution.

But PANYNJ, the owner of the entire mess of airports in the New York area, including Stewart as things are evolving can certainly take landing cost action and other means, even if even they are not allowed to slot their own airports, to create incentives for airlines to choose one airport over another. This of course will be subject to vetos by either of the state Governors involved. So it should be interesting to see how they manage the politics of it.

Jishnu wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:Apparently the FAA can no longer mandate slots. See this on NY area airports:

AOPA.org – "Airlines Create Their Own Problems"

…which is why Stewart is part of the solution.

But PANYNJ, the owner of the entire mess of airports in the New York area, including Stewart as things are evolving can certainly take landing cost action and other means, even if even they are not allowed to slot their own airports, to create incentives for airlines to choose one airport over another. This of course will be subject to vetos by either of the state Governors involved. So it should be interesting to see how they manage the politics of it.

A couple years ago the Port Authority attempted just that at Teterboro Airport which it also owns, under NIMBY pressure. The FAA shortly thereafter formally notified the Port Authority that it could not impose restrictions without FAA approval and declined to approve the restrictions. I'm not sure there is very much the PA can do.

Ken W2KB wrote: A couple years ago the Port Authority attempted just that at Teterboro Airport which it also owns, under NIMBY pressure. The FAA shortly thereafter formally notified the Port Authority that it could not impose restrictions without FAA approval and declined to approve the restrictions. I'm not sure there is very much the PA can do.

So in that case how is Stewert going to solve any problem if the PANYNJ cannot coax airlines to go there using difference in landing charges or slot allocation or whatever? Why are they bothering wasting money getting hold of it then. I suspect that we do not have the whole story, and are speculating here regarding the slot regulations and who can do what to whom. Frankly I have no idea what the regulations are.

But then again this discussion is slowly drifting towards becoming fit for airliners.net, which this place aint.

Landing fees are allowed to vary by airport. Every airport in the country has different fees. Some even waive them as incentive for new routes.

Jishnu wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote: A couple years ago the Port Authority attempted just that at Teterboro Airport which it also owns, under NIMBY pressure. The FAA shortly thereafter formally notified the Port Authority that it could not impose restrictions without FAA approval and declined to approve the restrictions. I'm not sure there is very much the PA can do.

So in that case how is Stewert going to solve any problem if the PANYNJ cannot coax airlines to go there using difference in landing charges or slot allocation or whatever? Why are they bothering wasting money getting hold of it then. I suspect that we do not have the whole story, and are speculating here regarding the slot regulations and who can do what to whom. Frankly I have no idea what the regulations are.

But then again this discussion is slowly drifting towards becoming fit for airliners.net, which this place aint.

Because moving to Stewart is (1) more convenient for many to the north and west of the big 3 NY airports, (2) the rail extension will make it more convenient for many others, and (3) far better on-time performance will result in customer satisfaction.

So if they want to make this feasible, they're probably going to have to raise the average speeds for the line. Where should they make improvements? For the Jersey side, should they make improvements on the Main or the Bergen?

As a frequent commuter from Route 17, I would love to see the Ho-Ho-Kus/Waldwick S-Curve straightened out (it makes me think I'm in Elizabeth, only worse). I don't know if its feasible though.

Any ideas?

finsuburbia wrote: As a frequent commuter from Route 17, I would love to see the Ho-Ho-Kus/Waldwick S-Curve straightened out (it makes me think I'm in Elizabeth, only worse). I don't know if its feasible though.

Any ideas?

Anything is possible given the money . OTOH, I am happy to make a fearless prediction that in this case that will not happen.

My guess would be some rail/tie improvements and signal improvements would be the only feasible thing to do. Within the past year, speeds on the Port Jervis Line south of Moodna have been increased. Trains actually keep up with cars on the Thruway now...