LGA Link N Train

31 minutes ago, Eric B said:

From the (J), it does look like it might be over part of the ROW, likely due to the angle of view, but it's hard to tell.

It is

4 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Another issue, how is the connection to QBL suppose to happen? You can tunnel under the LIRR tracks, but then you have all these houses in-between there and Queens Blvd.

I think the tunnel might be deep-bored, if eminent domain NEEDS to be accquired in the are between Queens Blvd and the LIRR Main Line (I don't remember if this was mentioned in the study) then at most 4-11 buildings would need to be looked at or taken in the 66th-Wetherole/Austin Street area.

26 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Where are you seeing that? If you go to the north end of Forest Park its literally right in front of the ROW.

Yea. The Parking Lot for the Apartment Buildings and the Parking Lot for Trucks to load/unload at the Building where Stop and Shop is on Union Turnpike are the only things that are truly enraoched onto the ROW itself. The Baseball Field is DEBATABLE at best from my prespective because it seems like its been only enroached onto 1 trackway. I happen to live right next to the Right of Way in between these 2 sections so that's how I know. IDK where you got the idea that the Home Depot Parking Lot is enrhaced onto the ROW because its not. 

19 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

And your third point, if you add service to one QBL local line, the other has to be reduced to allow it or you'll have trains all over the dam place. Queens Blvd is scheduled the way it is just so trains don't end up blocking one another. And another point, each Queens Blvd line is fed into a mainline in Manhattan which shares tracks with another line running with it. You can't add 10 TPH to the  and expect the  and  to continue functioning the way they do, it would throw the entire southern Broadway Line & 6th AV line off schedule.  This also directly affects the  since the  now has reduced headways which screw up the departures on 8th Av. Unless you de-interline Queens Blvd Local completely, it will always be a problem.

Alright. This is still wrong because of the following. 

- Forest Hills-71st Avenue can only turn up to 20 TPH due to a poor fumigation process. The runs about 10 TPH while the runs about 8 TPH. If you divert 8 TPH from Forest Hills to run via the RBB without altering any service, then that means that 8 Slots open up at Forest Hills under the current system while only the serves 67th Avenue which is not a huge loss. 

- and both respectively run 15 TPH. 15 's + 8 's = 23 TPH on 6th Local between Rockefeller and Broadway-Lafayette. You can add 2 TPH on the having them both run to 2nd Avenue or full route without affecting the and . Preferrably, the and could Swap Tunnels between 36th Street and Rockefeller to get rid of those 2 nasty merges at Queens Plaza (the merge going S/B and the merge going N/B). The would HAVE to become a 24/7 route for its entire length if it were to be the primary line to serve RBB. 

18 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Some of the main problems with ANY de-interlining plain I see is that

1. The current subway system (even with rebuilding of Rogers Av Junction) has inefficient terminal operations that cap the number of trains that can run on the entire line.

2. If we try to circumvent issue 1, then interlining begins, either through merges, or short-turn trains. With short-turns, you are forcing a station that typically doesn't operate as a terminal to operate as one. If there are going to be merges, then it defeats the purpose of de-interlining, which would just add confusion

3. You would be forcing the subway to YES operate at near max capacity, yet MORE riders will not be taken to their destination on a single line. This would force transfers, or additional walking time to get to/from their destination, which could re-shape the rush hour (making it start earlier and ending it later). The problem with transfers is that within the system there are some stations (even in popular complexes) that have narrow pathways that wouldn't be able to handle the foot traffic.

4. De-interlining the system would drive up the cost of providing daily service because many more train crews would be needed to operate each line - which would therefore translate into needing government grants to make up the deficit because you can be sure that doubling the subway fare will be a non-starter.

Well #4 answers a question that I've been asking for a long time on these forums (I've been asking how deinterlining would affect operating costs since 2018 IIRC). However, with all of this taken into account. I'm assuming the best way to make ANY Deinterlining proposal work is to tackle issue #1 before any rerouting begins which is terminal operations and Capacity wether that'd be through changing up fumigating practices or adding switches/layups where ever possible? I can get behind that. 

After Terminal Operations practices are changed and capacity is increased, the next course of action after that should be to increase station capacity at major transfer points (issue #3) through any means necessary? Stations such as 149th Street-Grand Concourse , Delancey-Essex , Canal Street  (never been a fan of the Bridge Platforms, hate being there cause I feel unsafe walking/waiting there and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one that feels that way), Atlantic-Barclays , 7th Avenue , and whatever other stations that I missed? (Mind you, I'm not counting locations where new transers could be added or where station conversions could takeplace).

Then once all of this is taken into account/solved, THEN would Deinterlining be more feasible?

18 hours ago, Lex said:

Well, everything north of Liberty Avenue and part of the ROW from there down to Howard Beach. As you might imagine, it would be part of a package of changes involving the railroads.

Because it wouldn't be part of the subway? As far as I'm concerned, any chance it had at being integrated into QBL operations sailed years ago, meaning it would need a new alignment.

I don't mind the idea of re-zoning the fares for the LIRR. A city Zone fare of $2.75 would do wonders for LIRR Ridership IMO. However, I'm going to disagree with you on your latter statement as the QBL-RBB Alignment is still possible when the Bellmouths are present. Not to mention, with that, Roosevelt being congested as is and the Queens Bus Redesign being a thing, it'd be a good justification to convert Woodhaven Blvd into an Express Station. 

21 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The price was inflated because they were trying to build a new elevated structure over the existing ROW instead of just using the ROW. and the city can use "eminent domain" I think it's called to take back any part of the ROW that was illegally obtained by homeowners and businesses.

The only issue is whats going to serve the new line. You can't use the or because one will have to reduce TPH in order to allow the other to increase, which also affects the and . 

Personally, I'd have the serve RBB and have its service to be increased to 24/7 service throughout its whole route. (If you want to be extra, you could throw the / tunnel swap along with a few other system route changes into the mix) The complicated part though would be the G.O.'s, but given the system's flexibility, I think that can be worked around. Although our G.O. procedures need to be rethought so that work can be done more effectively, that's a different discussion for a different day.

http://thequeenslink.org/the-report/

How long is the average IRT Subway Platform?

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Kinda surprised you also don't throw in Bowery/Grand St as one complex.

I plan to add a Bowery/Grand Complex in my proposal. However, I haven't finalized a vision for how that would look yet, hence why I didn't add it to the list of proposals.

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

So I just had some crazy ass idea that I don't think I've ever seen before; a Worth St connection.

•  trains are connected through to WTC Cortlandt and one of the two stations in the WTC complex closes. trains on weekdays run to 9 Av Lower on the  , with some peak hour trains starting at Bay Pkwy. 
  • As far as I know, 9 Av Lower isn't in too terrible shape, since it has to be in good structural condition for the upper level to not collapse onto the lower level
• trains jog over to the Nassau St Line on Worth St, with platform extensions to Chambers, Fulton & Broad. Trains use the Nassau St Montague connection instead. Jamaica Line trains terminate at Chambers St.
• trains terminate at City Hall. (City Hall station is closed on weekends.) A transfer is built between Park Place and City Hall. (They're literally around the corner from each other.)

Several benefits:

• service to Brooklyn
• Ideally, the Worth St curves are less tight than the City Hall curves
• service terminating no longer gets in the way of service 

This definitely a crazy idea and one with nice benefits, but looking at it from a Sattelite View (and on OpenRailwayMap) I can't see how swinging the Broadway Line down to Nassau via Worth Street would work.

Something that I have left in the other Threads but will also leave here:

My proposals to Upgrade the Jamaica Line in addition to Expanding East New York Yard: 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1len8Pe9UFEkHuFGIbxvp6YA9qGILXHx_&ll=40.6852845575412%2C-73.87820389992514&z=17

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1x1IKEVRzPmekdO40Xo65fGO22r3L5T-E&ll=40.67771623832114%2C-73.90033038125411&z=17

Basic Rundown of the proposal:

• Canal Street and Bowery Platforms get combined so that there isn't any redundant Space and to make Installing ADA-Accessibility Easier in both Stations
• Essex Street Station Gets an Expansion so that Installing ADA is easier
• Marcy and the Williamsburg Bus Terminal are consolidated into 1 Facility
• Hewes-Loimer Combined into Union Avenue for a transfer with the
• Myrtle gets its platforms extended and the Upper Level is rebuilt/resotred for Queens bound Service.
• Atlantic Station gets Expanded along with ENY Yard (the latter represented in a different map in addition to including alternatives from the Broadway Junction Transportation Study)
• Alabama Curve gets widened; Alabama and Van Siclen are Consolidated
• Crescent Street Curves widened; Crescent and Norwood get consolidated into Chestnut Street and 75th and Cypress Hills get consolidated into Eldert Lane
• 3rd Track East of Broadway Junction and Woodhaven gets an upper Level similar to the old 125th Street Station from the former 3rd Avenue EL.

14 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

These expansions will help serve longer  trains, right?

Correct. Same goes for the . The  doesn’t need 9 or 10 car trains as much as the  and  do but upgrading the infrastructure to allow for such would help a lot for both passengers and service both within and beyond the BMT Eastern Division. Albeit because there are still many 4 car sets, many trains will either have to run as 9 cars so basically a 4 and 5 car set coupled together while left over 4 car sets (8 car trains) can run on the .  But that in of itself requires some capital investment 

8 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Most of Jamaica's problems stem from it's horrible layout, sharp turns, trains crossing over  trains each other, skip stop being shortened more and more without any real replacement for the service, missing that transfer.. The best way to deinterline that is just rebuilding it piece by piece: Add in a flying junction at Myrtle Av (on the Westbound side) and consolidate Hewes and Flushing to make a  transfer at Union, make a Jamaica line or bypass. It really just needs to be its own project. And they need to lengthen all the stations. Jamaica needs serious remodeling, it limits the train and subsequently the Queens Blvd Line.

I'd be down to take the  off and run it to 96th St and just have trains run local and  trains run express (via 63)  can also be express, with trains on the CPW Local. DeKalb you just needs Brighton Express and Local, Sea Beach, West End, 95th-Astoria, Eliminate the . 
 

For the part in Bold, you do this and now you have a new merge at Lexingont-63rd which will mess up both 6th Avenue and Broadway service. And Speaking of Modernizing the Jamaica Line, I have 2 projects currently in the works, albeit its slightly beyond the scope of this thread:
 

Jamaica Line Upgrades - https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1len8Pe9UFEkHuFGIbxvp6YA9qGILXHx_&usp=sharing

East New York Yard Expansion Alternatives - https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1x1IKEVRzPmekdO40Xo65fGO22r3L5T-E&usp=sharing

Coming to think of it, I've noticed that many factors come into play when it comes to coming up with the most optimal De-Interlinging solutions, making the idea of simplifying the system MUCH harder than it sounds. Before I list the ares of concern, I'll list the benefits of De-Interlining:

• Less Bottlenecks. The main goal of Deinterlining is to reduce the number of bottlenecks with the premise of improving passenger service. 
• Increased Capacity. With reduced bottlenecks, deinterlining is set to increase capacity on certain lines/corridors as they're no longer mergine with one anohter. 
• Reduced Dwell Times. In addition to having increased capacity (more TPH) that means that Dwell times can be decreased. This also means that run times will improve on certain routes as they will not have to be waiting for a line up to share tracks with another route. Which leads me to my next point: 
• More Consistent Scheduling. With the first 3 points in mind, this means that train schedules are now more consistent, meaning that timed connections would now be easier to factor in and would increase Train Operator Confidence as they would not have to wait for a lineup in certain locations unless a G.O. or Delay were to happen.
• Greater Flexibility. Since Most Junctions where bottlenecking takes place, with deinterlined services, some of those junctions would end up being reserved for Emergency or G.O. purposes. Thus if a delay were to happen, trains could still easily be rerouted if necessary.

Now to address the general concerns when it comes to any deinterlining proposal that I've noticed:

Passenger Preferences - Probably the biggest thing that I've noticed here. While the routes are designed for the benefit of the passengers, I'm still under the notion that routing services based on passenger preferences become moot if they have a direct negative impact in the route's reliability. For Example, those living along Dyre/White Plains Road and Nostand Avenue to an extent prefer Lexington Avenue Service. The provides Said service, but because of it being a supplemental line and because the and have priority over it at Rogers and 149th Street Junction, its not as reliable as it could be, now thats not to say that supplemental Lines are bad. However, I think the infrastructure should either be up to date, or effective enough to supplemental routes to run without issues. Rogers Junction and 142/149th, are not up to date or designed to handle the level of service that is required for the Lexington and 7th Avenue Lines.

Transfers - Another concern that I've noticed with Deinterlining is the added transfers that would be put in place as a result. Now in areas where cross-platform transfers are possible, this wouldn't be too much of an issue unless its Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue. Some have made the argument that Deinterlining would do more harm than good if it requires passengers meanuvering through passageways and would negate the benefits of having reduced wait times. Seems to me that this issue is more of a matter about infrastructure, which in that case. The infrastructure should be 

Politics - An obstacle thats unavoidable when it comes to any transit plan is Politics. As seen with proposals such as swapping the  and between East 180th Street and 3rd Avenue and the "LaGuardia Link Train" (no pun intended on my name), proposals that have too much opposition to them (no matter how beneficial it might be) are shot down and the doesn't put too much or any efort at all in fighting back. While I firmly believe that Deinterlining will improve Service overall, it'll be one hell of a battle to fight for, and one that would require some careful rhetoric in order so successfully convince passengers that they will benefit from such changes. Of course, there are always people who will never be pleased with anything so not much can be done about them. 

There are more factors that come into play such as Terminal Capacity, potential Negative Impacts on Schdeuling Services (which I think the latter is more of an issue with the IRT as opposed to the IND or BMT) and what would happen to Certain Platforms Such as the 50th Street Upper Level on the (Late Nights  and) , however, this analysis is long enough as is.

Given the history lesson and reasoning behind why the Skip-Stop is still existing today, wouldn't that mean that said Service Pattern can not be eliminated unless some Serious capital  investments are made to the Jamaica Line? Ones that the  (sadly) have no interest investing in?

I get they're the is trying to switch to OMNY and all, but lets say hypoteically an OMNY Card makes its debut. Something happens to the card and it gets Damaged. It'll basically circle back to this. 

21 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Great, so if you're MetroCard is damaged for whatever reason (including those SBS machines), not only would you be out of a Metrocard, but you can't exchange it on the spot either. You would have to make time out of your day, or wait weeks to get the issue fixed. Which corporate douchebag(s) thought that this was an amazing idea. 

 

I understand that they're trying to cut costs and all, but this isn't the way to do it.

I would also agree with Eliminating the . Best way to do it without adjusting any infrastructure would be to have the  corver the frequency of both the and between Jamaica Center and Broadway Junction, which means that 2 trains out of 12 could Short Turn at Broadway Junction as to not mess with the frequences West of it. That way, you'f maintain a 6 minute headway between Broadway Junction and Myrtle, and between Essex and Broad Street. If you wanted MORE than 10-12 TPH From eliminating the , then that means that you would have to address the elephant in the room, that being Myrtle Junction. Could also mention the Willliamsburg Bridge and the tight curves located on both ends of the bridge, but that's beyond the spoce of what you're asking

So I did some digging around and decided to modify the Deinterlining Plan in RPA's Save Our Subways Report. I wrote everything in a document and have a Map to go along with it, but in case one can't access the Doc for whatever reason I'll copy and Paste it here:

Map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1il5aXsgUY8TPg77zFPZ1LNjlh-crzOLO&ll=40.76266186932933%2C-73.91666141558674&z=13

Document - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irsKsGbKlJFlZAAdks29lNkNgXAQWJoNN9ef4VsmfSs/edit

Quote

RPA’s Save Our Subway’s Plan; Modified

 

    The Regional Plan Association who has been the “non-profit” organization who has been making plans as to hat should happen in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut Tri-State Area. In June of 2018, they had released a report called “Save Our Subways” Which tackled the issues that plagues the NYC Subway System and their proposals at solving said issues. While many of the right issues were addressed, the solutions to executing said issues were handled in the wrong way. Some issues were ignored completely. However, this analysis is more focused on Priority #5 “Untangle and Simplify Services”. Among Railfans and those with expert knowledge on transit, this term is known as De-Interlining. While they were right about eliminating bottlenecks at Rogers Junction and adding service on lines such as the ,  and  Trains. Their execution was poor. Here’s how I would Modify it.

 

“Double Frequency of Express “A” Train and Service to Inwood.

 

While the Regional Plan Association is right about reconfiguring ,  and  Service and eliminating 4 bottlenecks along the CPW and 8th Avenue Lines. Their execution in having Service run exclusively in Brooklyn is poor as that’ll result in adding an unnecessary Transfer for those living along the Fulton Street Line. In order to maintain Balance, The and will run Express Together between Inwood-207th Street and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets and then resume their Normal Routes as the and Trains handle CPW and 8th Avenue Local Respectively. Unfortunately, this will require maintaining the Bottleneck located east of Hoyt-Schemerhorn but solving that bottleneck will not be feasible unless a new tunnel connecting Court Street with either the Broadway or 2nd Avenue Lines is built.  

 

“Double the Frequency of Express “Q” to UES/SAS”

 

Broadway is a Trunk Line that needs to be De-interlined. While the “Canal Flip” (a completely separate proposal) is not the best method of execution for it, I’ve decided to keep it as to not alter their proposal too much. However, as Currently Proposed, a Train from 96th Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street has no Yard Access. So to solve this issue, a new switch should be built under 41st Street and 4th Avenue as there is space available for one in that area and one that many deinterlining advocates have advocated building. From here on out, the  and  will retain their normal routes, but the and  will switch roles between being the 4th Avenue Local and Express between DeKalb Avenue and 36th Street-4th Avenue. With Doubled Q Service, the route can be split between Express and Local Variants along the BMT Brighton Line. If for whatever reason it is not Feasible to route more than 24 TPH between City Hall and DeKalb Avenue then the Following Alternatives would take Place. 

 

1. Keep the . If the Train is Kept under this proposal, then that means that the DeKalb Avenue Bottleneck will remain, but will only affect Brighton Trains (going Southbound) and 6th Avenue Trains (going Northbound)
2. Send all and Trains to Brighton. and Service will handle 4th Avenue Express between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and 36th Street. Service would be rerouted via West End while remaining Local on 4th Avenue with and Trains going via Sea Beach and Bay Ridge respectively. 
3. Reroute Trains. With the proposal to reroute Service back to Broad Street, said service could be extended to Brighton Beach to cover Express Service for the if select Trains have to Terminate at City Hall. However, this alternative would be a net negative and a capacity Loss for Brighton Riders because the Line is Limited to 8 Cars per train.
    

“Bring Express Service to the “F” in Brooklyn”

 

Simply Doubling Train Service from Jamaica-179th Street to Coney Island exclusively on the Culver Express (while eliminates 2 Bottlenecks) hurts Culver Commuters more than it helps. The line (along with the Fact that Service is sent Back to Broad Street) will be split into 2 Services called the and .  Trains will run From Jamaica-179th Street to Church Avenue and will be a completely Local Route. Likewise,  Train Service will continue to be Express, but due to terminal Capacity Limitations at Coney Island, some trains will continue to terminate at Kings Highway. In addition, Service will be doubled, but split after Briarwood-Van Wyck due to terminal capacity limitations at Jamaica Center-Parsons Archer. However, due to Terminal Capacity limitations at World Trade Center, some alternative routings for Queens Blvd can be brought to the table. 

1. Local between World Trade Center and Jamaica-179th Street via Local, Service from Jamaica-179th Street to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue via Queens Blvd and Culver Express and Train Service from Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer and Church Avenue via Queens Blvd Express and Culver Local. This alternative would provide a much more balanced service along Queens Blvd but due to the high ridership heading towards the 53rd Street Tubes, the  was chosen as the Express as opposed to the .
2. and Trains run Express via the 53rd Street Tubes, Trains run Local Via the 63rd Street Tubes and Trains remain on Queens Blvd. This alternative keeps a little bit of reverse branching at 36th Street-Northern Blvd and 5th Avenue-53rd Street. and Service would be split evenly due to the demand of 8th Avenue where as and Train would run a 15-10 frequency due to the need for service in Astoria.

2 hours ago, randomnewyorker23 said:

You're right on that one, the subway is made for efficiency, not aesthetics.

Basically what Theli11 said, That's how it should be, but with equipment constantly failing and ridiculous amounts of reverse branching taking place, it sure as hell doesn't act like it!

13 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Either that or accused of being tone-deaf to the political realities.  Convincing the MTA and local leaders to allow wholesale deinterlining is a pipe dream and politically DOA.  They won't sign off on it; even the proposals that do make sense would result in the community boards, councilmember offices, and borough halls getting bombarded with letters by outer-borough riders pissed off at losing their one-seat rides.  Persuading these folks on whatever benefits they could incur would be a tough sell.  Without the support of management and the local pols, many of these proposals will simply be unable to move forward. The whole Bronx (2)/(5) fiasco from the mid '90s is case in point.

Sounds like a political battle worth taking, and just like RR503 said, one that would require for more advocates to structure their rhetoric in a way that’ll convince passengers and the pols that deinterlining would be a net benefit. Can’t complain that the subway sucks and then oppose the very ideas that’ll help improve it, even if those improvements are minor changes.

@Alex Burchard Welcome to the forums! As a reminder since you're new here, its looked down upon to necropost in the forums. (Replaying to quotes that have occured years ago)

Hmmm. Trains seem to be getting more and more crowded by the day, at least that some sense of normality returned to the City. I wonder whether or not this’ll keep up.

5 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I agree. Things need to be kept simple.

The MTA sure likes to complicate things for riders. I saw a sign saying that C is going to replace the D in the Bronx and Manhattan for 2 weekends due to work in Manhattan Bridge. WTF??

Is the C going to run along 6th Avenue?? Why are they disrupting service on 6th Avenue when 8th Avenue is being disrupted due to CBTC??

Why don't they just simply run the D from the Bronx to 34th Street like they always due whenever work is done on the Manhattan Bridge?? SMH!!

NGL, the  was vauge with the wording of that G.O., unless they're planning to also do work between 59th and DeKalb, then it wouldn't make sense to send the to 205th regardless, although I'll admit that'll be pretty cool to see.

I'm still under the notion that Alternative 8B is the best way to go but it seems as though the Port Authroirty preferrs to build the current AirTrain

https://nypost.com/2021/03/07/these-new-yorkers-wont-forgive-cuomo-for-forcing-out-andy-byford/

Quote

These New Yorkers will never forgive Gov. Cuomo for forcing out Andy Byford

By David Meyer

March 7, 2021 | 7:25pm | Updated

Gov. Andrew Cuomo received a torrent of hate mail from New Yorkers in the days after his hand-picked subway boss Andy Byford quit the MTA.; Seth Wenig/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo, William Farrington

These New Yorkers were on the anti-Cuomo train early!

Gov. Andrew Cuomo received a torrent of hate mail from New Yorkers in the days after his hand-picked subway boss Andy Byford quit the MTA – with many of the missives blaming the governor’s notoriously ego-driven leadership for the popular Brit’s exit, the Post has learned.

The governor received around 225 angry emails and letters in the eight days after Byford’s Jan. 23, 2020 resignation, which the transit chief blamed on Cuomo becoming “intolerable,” according to correspondence obtained through a Freedom of Information request.

“I blame his leaving on your shortsightedness, your ego, your need to control and take credit for the progress made with our subway system,” Philipos Wander emailed Cuomo the day after Byford quit.

Under Byford’s leadership, the subways hit their highest on-time performance in six years. He also set in motion the MTA modernization plan currently being pursued by his successors.

Neither accomplishment was lost on New Yorkers.

“The man has accomplished a lot in his relatively short tenure with the NYC subway. Shame on you for interfering!” Mary Jane Wilkie told the governor in letter dated the day after Byford’s shock resignation last year.

“It appears that the political environment has become nothing more than a bunch of guys trotting around unable to control their testosterone.”

“It’s a shame you cannot share the spotlight,” wrote Malvina Nathanson. “You owe us all an apology.”

Byford blamed Cuomo for his departure from the MTA, which came less than two years after the governor brought him on to steer the subways out of the depths of the 2017 “Summer of Hell.”

Cuomo was never going to let Andy Byford fix New York City’s subway

Cuomo made the job “intolerable,” Byford said in an interview with WCBS-TV shortly before returning to the United Kingdom last March.

He accused the governor’s team of going behind his back and reducing his role after Byford called for an “independent review” of Cuomo’s plan to avert the L train shutdown.

“I found myself excluded from meetings that were absolutely about the day-to-day running of New York City Transit,” Byford said at the time. “The governor is the boss, the governor runs the MTA. But at the end of the day, I needed to be left to run the system.”

Letters sent to the governor alternatively castigated the third-term Democrat for letting his talented transit chief leave, begged him to get Byford to stay — or both.

“You are flailing as the bully in the MTA. You shoved out Byeford [sic] who is ideal for the job and has the workforce that can do it behind him… He who hires talent gets to shine with them. Undo that. Grovel [if] necessary,” wrote Barbara Charton.

“I am a Democratic always-voter, but I will always be against you in any future elected position you try for unless you meet with Byford and convince him to remain with the MTA,” emailed Joyce Stickney.

“As in the NY tradition of people like Trump and Giuliani, you are letting your obsession with getting credit and showing that ‘you’re in charge’ endanger the successes brought about by your appointee,” warned Rick O’Connell.

Cuomo’s leadership style has come under the spotlight again in recent weeks, after he was accused of threatening to “destroy” a state assemblyman for speaking out over the state’s decision to withhold data on thousands of nursing home deaths amid the pandemic.

Transit observers said that style was on full display with his treatment of Byford.

“Gov. Cuomo is incapable of recognizing the concept of reflected credit,” said David Bragdon of the Manhattan-based think tank TransitCenter. “If Andy C. had let Andy B. run the NYCT, Andy C. would have gotten far more credit than he gets for pretending to run it himself.”

“Andy inspired an unparalleled level of trust among riders and workers and New Yorkers, and that was by dint of his independent professionalism, expertise and commitment, and it’s not easily replaced, frankly,” said Riders Alliance rep Danny Pearlstein.

Governor Andrew Cuomo greets MTA Andy Byford after speaking to attendees; Robert Miller

“Because of his clashes with the governor, he was essentially demoted to running trains and buses daily, but not modernizing the subway as he had proposed.”

Speaking to WCBS-TV last March, Byford suggested that Cuomo, reputed for wanting to be the hero in every situation, may have been jealous.

“I didn’t seek the moniker ‘Train Daddy,’ I didn’t seek the publicity. But the fact is a good transit professional gets out and about,” he said. “We did over 100 public events. That garnered a certain amount of publicity. If others didn’t like that, well, that wasn’t my intention.”

Cuomo, for his part, claimed to have never told Byford what to do. When asked if Byford was “undermined,” the governor said: “If anything, he was over-mined because I dealt with his bosses.”

“I didn’t work with Andy Byford. I worked with [MTA boss] Pat Foye … I worked with his higher-ups,” the governor told reporters last March.

Neither the governor’s office nor Byford responded to requests for comment from The Post.

Everybody knows this by now (hopefully) but still a huge disappointment.

Good news:

http://blog.tstc.org/2021/02/24/subway-to-laguardia-made-possible-by-faa-rule-change/

Quote

Subway to LaGuardia Made Possible by FAA Rule Change

POSTED BY: LIAM BLANK FEBRUARY 24, 2021

An antiquated rule that led to the Port Authority choosing an airtrain over a subway extension to LaGuardia Airport is no more. Eliminating the rule is a game-changer for U.S. cities looking to build a direct rail connection to their airports, which is already the standard practice in Europe and many cities in Asia. Before rushing ahead with a $2 billion airtrain that already has a reputation as a boondoggle, the Port Authority must reevaluate how it plans to connect transit riders with LaGuardia.

Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) changed the rule that had been used as a primary argument against any proposal for extending the NYC Subway to LaGuardia Airport. The statute allowed airports, with the FAA’s permission, to charge a small Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) for airport improvements. Revenue generated by this statute–a maximum of $4.50 per airline ticket, which has not been increased in 20 years–could be used for specific types of internal airport improvements only, such as airtrains.

According to a 2018 analysis of LGA AirTrain alternatives by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), “Funding using a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) and/or airline contributions is necessary for this Project, and therefore, the selected alternative would have to comply with the FAA’s requirements for the use of such funding sources.”

In other words, while an extension of the subway to the airport was determined by PANYNJ to be technically feasible, choosing this alternative would disqualify the project from funding through PFCs—that is, until last month.

One of three subway extension alternatives evaluated by PANYNJ (Source: PANYNJ)

Getting funding for major transportation projects is a long and difficult process, so PFCs provide cities and airports a convenient way to fund airtrain projects that connect airport terminals to mass transit. The problem is that train-to-train-to-plane connections, while better than nothing, are incredibly inconvenient for commuters. Not only does it force an additional transfer and long walks with luggage, it requires paying an additional fare. If you’re a traveling family, those costs add up quickly, which then encourages more people to drive instead of using transit–the exact opposite of the project’s intended goal.

The preferred alignment of AirTrain LGA, which will connect to the NYC Transit 7 Line and LIRR Port Washington Line at Willets Point Station (Source: PANYNJ)

The new rule, however, makes an extension of NYC Transit’s N/W Line to LaGuardia eligible for funding by PFCs, with costs prorated typically by estimating the percentage of ridership that would use the new airport station. 

The Port Authority should now reconsider a more direct subway connection before spending billions on an airtrain that is out of the way and offers only minimal time-saving benefits. Furthermore, any urban transportation project of this scale is going to inevitably cause some degree of community disruption, but this must be appropriately weighed against the project’s overall improvements for the city and the regional transportation network. The easiest option, while tempting, is not always the most strategic one.