As a resident of the other, considerably warmer coast, I don’t have much of an opinion of LaGuardia. I do my best to avoid it at all costs as the food options have been abysmal there for years (decades, even?). The New York Times, on the other hand, seems to think LaGuardia should die immediately. That’s the message of an op-ed published today by transportation planner and civil engineer George Haikalis, who used to be a member of what is now the NY Metropolitan Transportation Council.
Haikalis argues that LaGuardia is basically hamstrung based on its location and the multi-billion dollar projects that New York is considering to improve the 75+-year-old airport would be better spent upgrading transit and improving Kennedy and Newark (JFK and EWR), two airports that can handle their weight and are already seeing upgrades. As Haikalis says:
By avoiding the costly replacement of outmoded terminals at La Guardia and by creating a new express rail link and upgrading terminals at Kennedy, the increased economic activity could more than make up for the lost jobs (not to mention the jobs that would be created by redeveloping the La Guardia site).
Sounds like a good plan, especially considering that LaGuardia looks like it’s still living in the Koch administration.
Read the full op-ed at the New York Times over here.
Photo:
Some rights reserved by tlillis4
There is no way JFK and Newark could handle an additional 30 million passengers per year, especially since LGA is mainly regional jets. I think NYC needs a 4th airport built a good distance away but with a high speed rail link. Something like Narita.
Nope, La Guardia just needs to be renovated. And, limit the number of flights from there (I think that’s already the case). Then it’ll be just fine. People will just pay a premium to fly to La Guardia.
Your headline is extremely misleading. The nytimes does not say anything about this matter. The piece is simply the voice of one contributing writer, published in the nytimes. It should be considered the same as a letter to the editor. The nytimes can only be considered to have said something if it were published as an editorial by the editorial board.
An op-ed piece should not be confused with the opinion of the NY Times itself. I hope you know the difference.
“NYT says…” An op-ed is not the opinion of the paper that publishes it.
I stand by my headline fully. The New York Times printed it. Do you think they’re required to publish every editorial that gets sent to them? Of course not. They curate their op-eds just like every other story in the paper. Does an NYT writer have a byline by it? No. Did they make the decision to print it? Absolutely. That’s why it says “NYT Says” instead of “NYT Believes…” or something similar. My story clearly states that it’s an op-ed. Please go out and enjoy your weekend.
@Jason: no, an Op-Ed is not the opinion of the paper. That is the definition of Op-Ed that 99% of the world use.
Sometimes, the NY Times publishes Editorials (from the editorial team) – in that case, it is the official stance of the paper. they frequently do this, even endorsing political candidates. In this case, they did not, it’s just the opinion of one guy, GEORGE HAIKALIS, and the NY Times printed it, as an opinion piece.
@Augias: I never said that the op-ed they chose to publish was the opinion of the paper. I just said they made the decision to publish it, which backs up my statement that the NYT says New York should close LaGuardia. In the New York Times, it clearly says that New York should close the airport. No, it wasn’t written by a NYT staffer. Neither is a lot of the content that gets written by freelancers. In the story I wrote, I say that it’s an op-ed four sentences in. There’s very little to dispute here. If I had said “Editors of the New York Times Say That…” it would be a different story.