Perimiter Rules: What's the Point?
 

What is the point of perimeter rules? At LGA for example, there is a 1,500 mile perimeter. But why does it matter? A 757 taking off for ATL vs SFO is still the same number of passengers, same size plane, same amount of people. What's the point?

This came to my mind when the new DL deal at LGA was announced with US, and I was wondering what DL was going to do with the slots. It seems silly that DL can't build a real hub there for no reason?

Which leads me to my real question. What are the odds that DL and US try to get the perimeters lifted/exempted at LGA/DCA? I would guess it would be more likely at LGA since DL would want to lessen the burden on JFK, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it at DCA, or at least some exemptions.

The point was at the three airports where they have the rules, they built giant new airports way out of the way from the city. JFK, Dulles, etc.

The rules were put in place to get people and airlines to fly from those new airports. As the years went on the people in office at the time kept adding distance to them, and exemptions so they just kept tossing the political football around.

McCain is (or was) trying to eliminate them in DC, there really has been no great push that I know of to get rid of them at LGA.

Today they are pretty stupid, if they were eliminated I don't think either Dulles or JFK would close down.

If I had my way, I'd close down LGA and DCA and build dedicated trains between the airport and the city centers, similar to HKG, BKK, and NRT. I find it absurd that airlines schedule identical flights between co-terminals and another city with two smaller planes when one larger one can do the job.

And I'd build high-speed (220 mph) trains connecting Boston, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, and DC, eliminating flights between those airports, similar to what happened to Germany.

With both solutions, the skies in the NE would be less congested, and delays wouldn't be as bad as they are today in the NYC area.

Bear in mind that I live just 4 miles from DCA. Yes, I'm spoiled for my personal trips; however, I'd still like it closed for the long-haul.

- Pat

It's basically all protectionism for other airports and/or modes of transportation.

Except that it would mean a net addition of a couple hundred flights to JFK.

So yeah, the skies over NYC would be less congested, and you'd be 99th in line for departure out of JFK. :p

Please remember those of us who live in the District, love DCA, push a lot of business through DCA, and have no voting representation in Congress. We can't pressure our congressional reps to vote in favor of getting rid of the perimeter rules, but you can pressure yours. And I hope that you will. DCA is a fantastic airport and has the infrastructure to support more flights beyond the perimeter; I can't name a single person who actually likes going down I-66 to IAD during rush hour, and I know many who take a one-stop from DCA rather than a nonstop from IAD. It's a shame that some of the most affected people in this issue have no way to contribute to the decision.

JFK and IAD are both (IME) more difficult to get to and take more time to get through security and to your gate. DCA is great like that- I leave my house 1 hr before a flight, get there with 45 left, and am through security and to my gate before boarding starts. For IAD, I have to drive (in lovely nova traffic) and park, or take the metro and a bus.

I agree that the perimeter rule is silly and outdated. AS flies two cross country flights a day. However, UA fights to keep it in place so they can keep their operations centered at IAD (and for JFK/LGA, DL/AA seem to do the same)

I think it works for me.I am so happy to join this forum.
http://pages.eggge.com/images/52.gif

Good suggestions. But who is going to pay for it? republicans are opposed to public expenditure for high speed rail. Even if they did not. where will the money come from?

What about connections from Intl trips? They are more likely to fly Europe-IAD/PHL/EWR/JFK-BDL/BOS/DCA/LGA then get off and catch the train.

Republicans are just opposed to anything that involves a government. Ignore them, or find yourself in a world where nothing gets done. Some projects require serious heaps of cash on a very long-term investment for the public good. Exactly the sort of thing governments are for.

Building rail infrastructure, much like building roads, is a costly thing to do. But once built, it lasts a long time with minimal maintenance costs (compared to building the system). So you don't have to recoup all that money in five years or so, you can easily take fifty or even more. If you do it right, trains can take literally thousands of people on at the same time without breaking a sweat. So you have a lot of passengers paying a fare to get to where they need to be. Make using the train more convenient (keep the TSA away) and preferably cheaper than using alternatives (plane, car, bus) and you have a winner. Electric trains are cleaner too, so for many governments it's a good idea to invest in rail infrastructure for that alone.

In my country of ~17 million people, every day on average 1.1 million people hop on a train. Because for the 6.5% of the population that takes the train every working day (the highest in the world, I'm told) it's a better option than whatever alternative they may have.

Ahh yes the all healing, all powerful high speed train that will solve every transportation problem in America. I hear it will cure cancer too.

You are 100% correct. Amtrak is a great example of govt efficiency. It has lost money every single year it has been in operation. Kudos govt.

USPS loses billions ever year. Kudos again govt.

Social Security and Medicare. They're not losing billions, nah that's chump change. They're in the losing trillions business.

But hey, let's spend a few more hundred billion or a couple of trillion building trains that nobody wants. After all govt is so good at managing large scale projects, they're sure to get it right. The Big Dig was only 300% over budget, but that's not likely to happen again right? Govt has become so lean and mean over the past few years there's no way it could possibly piss money away anymore.

Just ask China how good high speed trains are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...WRE_story.html

Or other countries that train groupies drool over...

"Such “shortfalls” are all too common. Japan’s bullet trains needed a bailout in 1987. Taiwan’s line opened in 2007 and needed a government rescue in 2009. In France, only the Paris-Lyon high-speed line is in the black. "

deleted.

See the high speed rail section in my post. :) That would assume that the high speed rail stations are actually connected to the airports like in Europe.