4 ms·

I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever nee

by jahnu 10y ago

I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.

rythie 10y ago
I agree, the transit visa situation is really odd. I wonder how much money the U.S. loses by requiring visa from those travelling from Central+South America to Europe and the rest of the world. I know people personally that can't pick the quickest/cheapest route because it transits through the U.S.
fennecfoxen 10y ago
- At many smaller US airports, this is more convenient overall. There is no overhead from running a special "international" section, detached from the rest of the terminal facilities like restaurants and lounges and toilets, and US-border-style security for people going back and forth between the two: you just have everyone go through immigration straight after getting off the plane and you're done with it. Unlike Europe, there are relatively few surrounding nations, so more international travellers end up arriving in the US instead of connecting. Canada-to-Mexico and Europe-to-South-America traffic is small in comparison to non-Schengen-zone traffic heading through, say, CDG. - This would still make sense to have at many hub airports (NYC and Atlanta come to mind) - but as the Wall Street Journal points out in this lovely article, "American airports are typically run by politicians in conjunction with the dominant airlines, which help finance the terminals in return for long-term leases on gates and facilities. The airlines use their control to keep out competitors; the politicians use their share of the revenue to reward unionized airport workers. No one puts the passenger first." -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-insults-the-third-world-1484955696 https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-i... - In the case of New York especially, you'll note that the Port Authority runs ALL the airports: JFK, LGA, Newark. Yep, these are the same people who run the world's most favorite bus terminal ever. And (as the same article above notes), "Federal law generally requires that airport revenues be spent on aviation, but that statute, passed in 1982, contains a grandfather provision excluding the Port Authority." So your landing fees are subsidizing the fancy over-budget new World Trade Center PATH terminal, among other nonsense, instead of keeping your airports from falling apart, let alone making improvements for international passengers.
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  The WTC PATH Terminal is brilliant infact unlike the boring Penn Station/ Port Authority Bus Terminal, its a piece of architecture fitting to the reputation of the city for next century. You can't complain about Port Authority and then deride the new PATH station in same argument.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. Even the director of the Port Authority (the one in 2015, not the one when it was approved) declined to hold an opening ceremony because he was troubled at the cost overruns, decrying the station as a "symbol of excess".
    - xoa 10y ago
      Not that I disagree with you at all about cost overruns and schedule delays being an issue, or poor incentive structures all around being an even bigger issue, but going by your numbers: >The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. That... doesn't actually sound bad? According to what you wrote there it's serving around 16-17 million passengers a year, which would mean the entire $3.75 billion only works out to ~$220 a passenger for a single year, so it could be entirely recovered by a surcharge or temporary rate bump or whatever of around 50-60 cents a day in just a single year. If built properly so the capex can be amortized across five years or a decade or more, all that drops proportionally. That doesn't seem like a huge ask in NYC. I mean yeah, it certainly apparently is far from the most efficient design. But even so it's worth considering that even a public infrastructure project here with huge scheduling delays and cost overruns that produces a big upfront bill isn't necessarily that inefficient compared to other forms of competing transport (like cars). It's easy to get too silo'd and forget the fundamental efficiencies and reliability vs the wider world, and in many cases it might be worth "reinvesting" some of those gains in the form of making something more aesthetically pleasing (and thus attractive to the public users) or politically greased, because even if it's worse relative to an internal ideal it might still be better for society. And humans are humans, sometimes some "inefficiency" is necessary from a practical standpoint. The real question I'd have isn't the one time capex, it's ongoing maintenance. If all that money went into building something that'll be extremely reliable and have either equal or lower maintenance structures vs the rest of the stations, amortization can take care of the rest all right. If however delays and other issues result in higher running costs, that's a much much bigger deal and would be more interesting to know about then the $3.75 billion upfront.
amelius 10y ago
Also ridiculous in many countries is the requirement that your passport is valid for X months in the future, where X is usually at least 6.
- TenOhms 10y ago
  That does strike me as odd too, so do they at least let you renew them 6 months prior to the passport's expiration?

by jahnu 10y ago

rythie 10y ago

I agree, the transit visa situation is really odd. I wonder how much money the U.S. loses by requiring visa from those travelling from Central+South America to Europe and the rest of the world. I know people personally that can't pick the quickest/cheapest route because it transits through the U.S.

fennecfoxen 10y ago

- At many smaller US airports, this is more convenient overall. There is no overhead from running a special "international" section, detached from the rest of the terminal facilities like restaurants and lounges and toilets, and US-border-style security for people going back and forth between the two: you just have everyone go through immigration straight after getting off the plane and you're done with it. Unlike Europe, there are relatively few surrounding nations, so more international travellers end up arriving in the US instead of connecting. Canada-to-Mexico and Europe-to-South-America traffic is small in comparison to non-Schengen-zone traffic heading through, say, CDG. - This would still make sense to have at many hub airports (NYC and Atlanta come to mind) - but as the Wall Street Journal points out in this lovely article, "American airports are typically run by politicians in conjunction with the dominant airlines, which help finance the terminals in return for long-term leases on gates and facilities. The airlines use their control to keep out competitors; the politicians use their share of the revenue to reward unionized airport workers. No one puts the passenger first." -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-insults-the-third-world-1484955696 https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-i... - In the case of New York especially, you'll note that the Port Authority runs ALL the airports: JFK, LGA, Newark. Yep, these are the same people who run the world's most favorite bus terminal ever. And (as the same article above notes), "Federal law generally requires that airport revenues be spent on aviation, but that statute, passed in 1982, contains a grandfather provision excluding the Port Authority." So your landing fees are subsidizing the fancy over-budget new World Trade Center PATH terminal, among other nonsense, instead of keeping your airports from falling apart, let alone making improvements for international passengers.

aub3bhat 10y ago
The WTC PATH Terminal is brilliant infact unlike the boring Penn Station/ Port Authority Bus Terminal, its a piece of architecture fitting to the reputation of the city for next century. You can't complain about Port Authority and then deride the new PATH station in same argument.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. Even the director of the Port Authority (the one in 2015, not the one when it was approved) declined to hold an opening ceremony because he was troubled at the cost overruns, decrying the station as a "symbol of excess".
  - xoa 10y ago
    Not that I disagree with you at all about cost overruns and schedule delays being an issue, or poor incentive structures all around being an even bigger issue, but going by your numbers: >The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. That... doesn't actually sound bad? According to what you wrote there it's serving around 16-17 million passengers a year, which would mean the entire $3.75 billion only works out to ~$220 a passenger for a single year, so it could be entirely recovered by a surcharge or temporary rate bump or whatever of around 50-60 cents a day in just a single year. If built properly so the capex can be amortized across five years or a decade or more, all that drops proportionally. That doesn't seem like a huge ask in NYC. I mean yeah, it certainly apparently is far from the most efficient design. But even so it's worth considering that even a public infrastructure project here with huge scheduling delays and cost overruns that produces a big upfront bill isn't necessarily that inefficient compared to other forms of competing transport (like cars). It's easy to get too silo'd and forget the fundamental efficiencies and reliability vs the wider world, and in many cases it might be worth "reinvesting" some of those gains in the form of making something more aesthetically pleasing (and thus attractive to the public users) or politically greased, because even if it's worse relative to an internal ideal it might still be better for society. And humans are humans, sometimes some "inefficiency" is necessary from a practical standpoint. The real question I'd have isn't the one time capex, it's ongoing maintenance. If all that money went into building something that'll be extremely reliable and have either equal or lower maintenance structures vs the rest of the stations, amortization can take care of the rest all right. If however delays and other issues result in higher running costs, that's a much much bigger deal and would be more interesting to know about then the $3.75 billion upfront.

amelius 10y ago

Also ridiculous in many countries is the requirement that your passport is valid for X months in the future, where X is usually at least 6.

TenOhms 10y ago
That does strike me as odd too, so do they at least let you renew them 6 months prior to the passport's expiration?