Jump to content

Gov. Cuomo Pitches AirTrain LaGuardia, Other Transit Improvements


Lance

Recommended Posts

LIRR from NYP to Jamaica (JFK) /Air Train is about 20 minutes on an express/peak train vs 45+ minutes on the  (E) . I prefer the LIRR to/from JFK and the cost is negligble $14.50 Peak LIRR + AIrTrain vs $7.50 NYCT Subway + Airtrain (in my case $20.50 vs 11.00 including express bus to Staten Island) much less with City Ticket.

 

Depending on marketing, the Port Authority an MTA could push travelers to the LIRR instead of the  (7) . Maybe special LIRR+Air Train tickets could be issued. Also the PA should really look at the turnstiles at JFK and have them accept punched LIRR tickets as is done in similar fashion with    :njt: NJT Newark Airport AirTrain station (either magnetic tickets, QR or Mobile).

By the looks of the graphics, the line will be primarily for subway riders. That passenger bridge is as long as two subway platforms end-to-end, and the LIRR platforms are just shy of that distance away from the AirTrain platforms. Of course, if they were smarter, they'd extend the AirTrain platform a little further, making it parallel to the passenger bridge and equidistant to the subway and railroad platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Three-legged trips are just painful, in my opinion. I never had to put up with that crap in San Francisco. I landed in San Francisco International Airport, took the free airport shuttle train to the BART (which was just under the shuttle platform), and headed to the hotel in Union Square a few blocks away from the BART station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the looks of the graphics, the line will be primarily for subway riders. That passenger bridge is as long as two subway platforms end-to-end, and the LIRR platforms are just shy of that distance away from the AirTrain platforms. Of course, if they were smarter, they'd extend the AirTrain platform a little further, making it parallel to the passenger bridge and equidistant to the subway and railroad platforms.

 

I think they are equally represented, though the blue LIRR could have been brighter IMHO.

 

Regarding the distance between the LIRR station and the AirTrain the operators could install people-movers in the passageway. 

 

Just out of curiosity, I know that the  (7) is elevated at the Willets Point - Shea Stadium  :D  station, is the LIRR station elevated as well? 

 

Three-legged trips are just painful, in my opinion. I never had to put up with that crap in San Francisco. I landed in San Francisco International Airport, took the free airport shuttle train to the BART (which was just under the shuttle platform), and headed to the hotel in Union Square a few blocks away from the BART station.

Agreed. The longest part of my trip is just getting to/from the airport from Staten Island! The only US airport I liked where I've landed and used public transportation is Chicago O'Hare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LIRR from NYP to Jamaica (JFK) /Air Train is about 20 minutes on an express/peak train vs 45+ minutes on the  (E) . I prefer the LIRR to/from JFK and the cost is negligble $14.50 Peak LIRR + AIrTrain vs $7.50 NYCT Subway + Airtrain (in my case $20.50 vs 11.00 including express bus to Staten Island) much less with City Ticket.

 

Depending on marketing, the Port Authority an MTA could push travelers to the LIRR instead of the  (7) . Maybe special LIRR+Air Train tickets could be issued. Also the PA should really look at the turnstiles at JFK and have them accept punched LIRR tickets as is done in similar fashion with    :njt: NJT Newark Airport AirTrain station (either magnetic tickets, QR or Mobile).

This is exactly what they would do... Market the LIRR... Those people would not want to use the subway, and neither would I.  Anytime that I fly, I always get a taxi TO and FROM the airport and I always fly out of JFK since all of my flights are international.  I wouldn't even bother with the express bus, though I do see plenty of people using the BxM2 when going to or from Penn Station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willets Point is basically the cheaper and quicker option. 

 

the line would actually be shorter (If you figure there is a station for each of the main terminals, then the segment through the airport would need to be built anyway coming from Astoria) and would not need to go around major obstacles like Runway 4 or the Hell Gate Bridge ramps.

 

I had a similar idea about a year ago, though my plans were based around using Crystal Movers like at Dulles, not ART/Innovia Metro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willets Point is basically the cheaper and quicker option. 

 

the line would actually be shorter (If you figure there is a station for each of the main terminals, then the segment through the airport would need to be built anyway coming from Astoria) and would not need to go around major obstacles like Runway 4 or the Hell Gate Bridge ramps.

 

I had a similar idea about a year ago, though my plans were based around using Crystal Movers like at Dulles, not ART/Innovia Metro.

And aside from that Willets Point it's a hellhole just like the part of Queens where a "certain someone" lives, so I say build it...  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be called the Q48.

Then people would just get off at the airport. I meant another line, specifically one that already ends in Flushing but doesn't already head down that way. Some combo of the Q17, Q27, and/or Q50 would be nice, they have LTD routes that don't need to stop between the Main Street area and the Airtrain station.

 

This Willets Point Airtrain route is only going to be as good as the transit modes that feed into it, and the (7) ain't doing it on its own. And doesn't that walkway from the LIRR already exist? Or are they going to make a new walkway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you brought that up... I have a funny feeling that the Q48 will be severed from LGA or the Q48 would be discontinued. Discontinuing the Q48 seems unlikely, so I think the Airtrain will cause another Q33 act.

I think Q48 will continue b/c Airtrain LGA Fare is most likely $5 since it's price of AirTrain JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be "easy" to extend a line down the GCP and/or VYE to Jamaica

 

That's what I was thinking. I hope they build the Willets Point terminal with provision for extension to Jamaica. Not only would this connect to more lines, It would connect two airports. Yes, the value of this is limited, but don't tell that to anyone who's tried to drive from JFK to LGA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe nothing will change, but only time would tell.

I'm thinking the buses would only service the Central terminal and the Marine Air terminal and not run to the Delta or the US Airways terminal, like how buses at JFK only serve one terminal and not all of them.

 

Another thought: Aren't they going to build a train yard of some kind for the Airtrain? Where would they put that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  1. Narrow IRT trains
  2. Busy Queens route
  3. …and people will be travelling with their luggage to the second-to-last stop on the line

Wouldn't it make sense to get the folks off the train sooner (closer to Manhattan) rather than later?

 

The only good I see from this is that:

  1. It doesn't preclude a connection to Astoria, as the line can connect to both places; trains can simply continue onward to/from Astoria after making a stop at the airport. If the Willets Point connection is as stupid as it turns out to be, it'll be a reason to make a connection to Astoria.
  2. It possibly brings us one step closer to connecting LaGuardia and JFK. The distance from Willets Point to the Jamaica end of the current AirTrain is the same as the distance from Jamaica to JFK. Or they can screw up the possibility by using incompatible technology and/or structures.

 

 

If this is built using Passenger Facility Charges on airplane tickets, it can't serve any intermediate stops between airport and train.

 

Connecting LGA to JFK is overrated, since the only airline that could reasonably start doing connections like that would be Delta, and I'm not about to stump up taxpayer money to make Delta operations slightly easier.

 

The trains are generally not crowded at Mets-Willets or the Manhattan stations; the super crappy severe crowding only occurs east of QBP. Airport passengers are also more likely to be taking reverse commute trains, since flights generally don't leave at times coinciding with peak travel hours.

Since you brought that up... I have a funny feeling that the Q48 will be severed from LGA or the Q48 would be discontinued. Discontinuing the Q48 seems unlikely, so I think the Airtrain will cause another Q33 act.

 

They would probably cut it. It's not that heavily used and few people would really miss it.

 

I'm thinking the buses would only service the Central terminal and the Marine Air terminal and not run to the Delta or the US Airways terminal, like how buses at JFK only serve one terminal and not all of them.

 

Another thought: Aren't they going to build a train yard of some kind for the Airtrain? Where would they put that?

 

You could build one on airport property, you could deck the Corona Yard, you could take one of the various parking lots. The possibilities are endless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decking Corona Yard would do wonders, since the Airtrain will be taking away part of the yard to begin with and the yard can't expand because of the river.

 

It'd be nice if they added station renovations + ADA for some of the busier stops along the Flushing Line to the package. The first impressions of tourists are not particularly great when they enter our subway system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

t's time to extend the N train to LaGuardia

Twenty years ago, Astoria leaders blocked a plan to extend the elevated train line that serves their neighborhood. The proposal would have run the trains a few blocks north past their current terminus at Ditmars Boulevard, then east to LaGuardia Airport. In addition to the value of getting airport travelers out of cars and taxis, the line would have served new stops in areas of northern Astoria and Woodside that currently have no subway service. It would also have made better use of the Astoria Line, where trains were often fairly empty just a few stops outside of Midtown.



In a move that baffled me at the time, "the community," meaning the people with political power in the neighborhood, came out strongly against the plan. Ben Kabak has a good summary with links, but the gist seems to be that they didn't like the idea of an el, and they didn't like the disruption caused by constructing a subway.

This came up in Ben's blog and podcast again recently because the MTA is set to inaugurate the M60 Select Bus Service, and a business group called the Global Gateway Alliance released an open letter calling for "true Bus Rapid Transit" between the airport and the Ditmars Boulevard terminus of the Astoria Line. Ben was baffled by several assertions in the letter (a regular feature of this story is the bafflement of transit advocates at the bizarre reactions of city elites to what seems like a very straightforward case for a subway extension), most of all the blithe dismissal of rail by noting it was "shelved due to community opposition." 

The train was indeed shelved due to community opposition, as everyone reminds us, but what they fail to note is that the "community leaders" are all gone. Read through the list of politicians who came out against the plan. Denis Butler and Walter McCaffrey are dead. Peter Vallone, Senior is retired, and so is George Onorato, and Vallone Junior has been term-limited out. John Sabini was hustled off to the Racing Authority after a DUI conviction in 2007.

Not only are these windshield-perspective politicians gone, but their replacements are much less wedded to the idea that cars are the future. Senator Michael Gianaris and his protégée Assemblymember Aravella Simotas are disappointing in some ways, but they've kept their car activism pretty low-key, as has Senator José Peralta. City Council members Jimmy Van Bramer and Costa Constantinides are both progressive on transit issues. Van Bramer, who represents me, has supported congestion pricing and the Midtown Tunnel Bus. Constantinides lost a bit of cred by coming out way too early in support of another term for Jimmy Vacca as head of the Transportation Committee, but has been a strong supporter of livable streets issues overall.

I believe that Van Bramer is a member of Transportation Alternatives, and I know Constantinides has been not just a member but an active supporter, marching with them at public events. They may keep their One Less Car T-shirts in the bottom of their drawers, but they definitely do not see cars as the only way to prosperity for their constituents. Community Board 1 may still be led by trolls who think parking is Astoria's number one issue, but they'll be gone soon as well. More importantly, the voters and donors in that area care more about trains than parking today.

Another baffling element of the 1990s opposition to the extension was that it seemed like the objections could all have been overcome with some thought, but the "community leaders" weren't interested. The line could have been run entirely over the Grand Central "Parkway," or put underground as far south as Astoria Boulevard. A solid proposal that addresses those objections, especially if it has the backing of business leaders like the Global Gateway Alliance, should be able to win over Gianaris, Simotas and Constantinides, and eventually the rest of Astoria. It's not 1999, people, and we shouldn't be acting like it is.
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2014/05/its-time-to-extend-n-train-to-laguardia.html

 

For LaGuardia, an AirTrain that will save almost no one any time

Yonah Freemark
January 21st, 2015 | 21 Comments


» New York City’s LaGuardia Airport is its rail-inaccessible stepchild. A proposal to spend half a billion dollars on a new transit link there, however, may do little for most of the region.

LaGuardia Airport is the New York City airport closest to the nation’s largest business district in Midtown Manhattan. Getting there, however, is inconvenient and slow for people who rely on transit and expensive — and often also slow — for those who receive rides in cabs or shuttles. In other words, the experience of reaching the airport leaves something to be desired.

The New York region’s two other major airports — Newark and J.F.K. — each have dedicated AirTrain services that connect to adjacent commuter rail (and Subway services, in the case of J.F.K.). These lines were built by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the 1990s and 2000s to improve transit access to these airports, leaving only LaGuardia without a rail link of its own.

This week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stepped in, claiming to have solved the problem. His “Opportunity Agenda” for 2015, which includes a number of worthwhile projects such as Penn Station Access for Metro-North commuter trains, includes an AirTrain line to LaGuardia. As proposed, the project would do next to nothing to improve access to the airport. In fact, compared to existing transit services, most riders using the AirTrain would spend more time traveling to LaGuardia than they do now.

There is no hope that this AirTrain will “solve” the access to LaGuardia problem.

Governor Cuomo’s AirTrain, at least according to his press releases, would be built by the Port Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and cost $450 million. Though funding for the project has not yet been identified, it could come from “existing sources,” though it is unclear what exactly that means.

As the map at the top of this article shows, Governor Cuomo’s proposed AirTrain would extend from LaGuardia Airport south along the Grand Central Parkway and then turn off to the east (the line in red). A terminus would be constructed south of the 7 Subway station at Mets-Willets Point and about 600 feet north of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) station there. Though materials announcing the project suggested the route would be 1.5 miles long, my estimate suggests it would be about 2.3 miles.

The project’s “AirTrain” name suggests it would provide services using relatively short trains operating on an independent guideway. The bizarre rendering included in the governor’s presentation, pictured below, suggests that the project would feature an elevated guideway and train cars that appear to have been lifted from the LIRR. One can only assume that this image was photoshopped by someone who is not familiar with transportation technology.



The governor’s proposed route has not been studied in-depth; indeed, if the project’s sponsors expect to receive federal matching funds, it will have to undergo an alternative analysis that considers different routes and technologies. But the project’s relatively low cost (compared to the $10 billion LIRR East Side Access project, it’s peanuts) suggests that it could be funded purely with local or state dollars, which would not require that sort of review.

Yet the route clearly has been informed by past attempts to create rail links between the existing rail transit system and LaGuardia. Between 1998 and 2003, the City of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority studied and attempted to fund an extension of the N Subway line from Astoria in western Queens to the airport. That roughly 2.9-mile expansion (shown in blue in the map above) was opposed vigorously by community groups that did not want to see an elevated train in their backyards. Most Queens politicians took up the opposition, and the tight budgetary environment post-9/11 provided an excuse to kill the project.

Governor Cuomo’s project would not have any of the negative community effects the proposal from fifteen years ago had. Its elevated tracks would be hidden behind a much more noisy and already-existing highway. Moreover, its terminus station at Mets-Willets Point would be surrounded by parking lots and sports facilities.

These attempts to shape a project that does nothing to disturb existing communities, however, has produced a proposal that would be worthless in terms of time savings for people traveling from the airport in almost all directions.

As the following chart demonstrates, transit travel times from LaGuardia to destinations throughout New York City — from Grand Central in Midtown Manhattan to Borough Hall in downtown Brooklyn to Jamaica in central Queens to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx — would be longer for passengers using the AirTrain than for passengers using existing transit services already offered by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.* This finding suggests that for most people in the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, and Long Island, AirTrain services will not be beneficial from a time perspective.

Given the fact that the AirTrain services would likely be automated, therefore reducing labor costs, it may be reasonable to assume that existing transit services to the airport would be eliminated to save costs. In other words, people may be forced to switch into the new, slower rail option.

For people coming from Flushing or Port Washington, directly to the east of the Mets-Willets Point station, travel times would be lower with the AirTrain service. Similarly, people coming from Penn Station and using the LIRR to get to Mets-Willets Point would have a slightly shorter commute to the airport with the AirTrain. However, it is worth emphasizing that LIRR service to this station only occurs on game days; LIRR has not indicated it would provide additional service for the AirTrain, and even if it did, trains would likely only come every half-hour during off-peak periods, suggesting that for most travelers from Penn Station, existing transit services to LaGuardia are faster than the AirTrain would be.



It’s hard to imagine how the state can justify spending half a billion dollars on a transit project that will increase travel times for most people.

The truth is that the City and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have significantly improved bus service to LaGuardia over the past few years, introducing an improved limited-stop service from Woodside and Jackson Heights in 2013 and an improved M60 bus from Manhattan in 2014. These services are still slower than they ought to be, but, when combined with the subways they link to, they’re faster than the AirTrain would be, primarily because Mets-Willets point is not only too far east from the center of the region’s population but also because it is not a major interchange point.

How effective would other potential routes to LaGuardia be for reducing travel times for passengers?

The following chart compares travel times from LaGuardia to the same destinations throughout the city, but this time between not only existing transit services and the governor’s AirTrain proposal, but also the proposal to extend the N train from Astoria from fifteen years back (in blue) and an alternative–a rail route connecting Jackson Heights and the Airport via the Grand Central Parkway and the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (in orange, and on map above as well).

The alternative rail route to Jackson Heights could terminate near the Subway station at Broadway and Roosevelt in central Queens, where the 7, E, F, R, and M trains stop, or it could continue, likely at a very high expense, 2,000 feet to the Woodside stop on the LIRR. This route would be about 2.9 miles (or 3.3 miles with the LIRR connection).

This comparison suggests that, in almost every case, existing transit services offer travel times that are either significantly faster or similar to travel times that would be provided even by the N train extension or a new route from Jackson Heights. From Penn Station or Jamaica, an AirTrain connection to the LIRR at Woodside would provide considerable time savings, but in most other cases, existing services are just as effective.



In other words, the governor’s proposal and reasonable alternatives would do little to improve transit to LaGuardia. Very expensive alternatives, such as an express subway from Grand Central, would save significant time, but those are far more expensive than anyone in office appears willing to commit to at the moment. This suggests that perhaps a rail link to the airport — while a popular idea — may not be particularly effective in actually saving people time. If the AirTrain were built as the governor is proposing, it would likely do little to cut down on congestion at the airport. It is worth nothing that both Newark and J.F.K., despite their rail services, remain overwhelmed with vehicles waiting to pick up or drop off passengers.

But even if the AirTrain to LaGuardia were magically very effective at reducing travel times, it should not be the New York region’s transit priority. The second phase of the Second Avenue Subway, which would extend from 96th Street to 125th Street the line that is currently under construction, is expected to attract 100,000 riders a day. Yet it lacks committed funding sources. Extended Subway lines in the outer boroughs, such as a Nostrand Avenue Subway or the Triboro-RX, are completely off the political radar, despite the fact that they would serve hundreds of thousands of people daily, reduce travel times significantly, and do plenty to improve quality of life in poor and working class neighborhoods. Instead we’re talking about building a train to the airport.

The fact is that the governor of New York State, like most people in elected office, doesn’t take transit much and certainly isn’t reliant on it; to put matters bluntly, in a transit-oriented city like New York, he’s a member of the economic and social elite. This elite is unprepared to take advantage (or, in many cases, even know about) bus services that exist, and can only envision taking a train in one circumstance: When traveling to and from the airport. For him, a train to the airport is a must, even if it doesn’t actually improve transportation objectives and even if it isn’t the top priority compared to other options in a constrained spending environment.

* The charts in this article assume the following:

Average AirTrain or Subway speeds of 20 mph.
Transfer times between existing services and AirTrain of 5 minutes, with the exception of travelers from Jackson Heights Subway services (10 minutes) and travelers from the Mets-Willets Points Long Island Rail Road station (10 minutes), because of longer walking times.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/01/21/for-laguardia-an-airtrain-that-will-save-almost-no-one-any-time/

 

<iframe src="https://mapsengine.google.com/map/embed?mid=zLG4QNji02u8.k6DgTbBwWJBU" width="640" height="480"></iframe>

 

 

FOR MY OPINION:

I agree something needs to be done, but this is not the best option.

 

There can be a branch from the QB Express tracks via Northern and BQE to LGA

Astoria Branch, with something worked out and extended to LGA and Main St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOR MY OPINION:

I agree something needs to be done, but this is not the best option.

 

There can be a branch from the QB Express tracks via Northern and BQE to LGA

Astoria Branch, with something worked out and extended to LGA and Main St.

What'd you send? The G? The problem with QBL exp tracks is that they're already running 28-30 TPH and can't handle more - you'd add to add new tracks alongside them (Broadway cannot handle two more tracks and is too dense)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What'd you send? The G? The problem with QBL exp tracks is that they're already running 28-30 TPH and can't handle more - you'd add to add new tracks alongside them (Broadway cannot handle two more tracks and is too dense)

 

 

What'd you send? The G? The problem with QBL exp tracks is that they're already running 28-30 TPH and can't handle more - you'd add to add new tracks alongside them (Broadway cannot handle two more tracks and is too dense)

That's why I would have a Queens Bypass route to divert the F.

JAN
20
Out of nowhere, Cuomo announces an AirTrain to LaguardiaLGAAirTrain-600x333.jpg
By Benjamin Kabak · Comments (185) ·
 
Gov. Cuomo announced a Laguardia Airtrain via Willets Point and the Grand Central Parkway.
After months of saying very little of anything while campaigning for a second term and hardly anything about transit for four years while governing, Andrew Cuomo stunned New Yorkers by announcing plans to build an AirTrain from the 7 train and LIRR station at Willets Point to Laguardia Airport. Cuomo, who has made modernizing New York’s struggling airports, said that the rail connection will cost $450 million and could be up and running within five years of the start of construction.
For transit advocates and, in fact, for travelers who frequent New York City airports, the announcement came as something of a bombshell. The is the first time in over four years that Cuomo has discussed a direct rail connection to Laguardia, and he seemingly announced it as a fait accompli without any detail as to how his administrative picked this alignment or, more importantly, how this project will be funded. In fact, while introducing the infrastructure elements of the 2015 Opportunity Agenda, Cuomo also discussed high-speed ferry service throughout the city, the Penn Station Access plan
The Laguardia AirTrain, Cuomo said, will be constructed by the MTA and Port Authority, similar to the JFK Airtrain, and the proposed routing is designed to avoid any NIMBY complaints. The proposal calls for a terminal at Willets Point above the Corona Yards in between the 7 line stop and LIRR station with a routing above the Grand Central Parkway to Laguardia Airport, under two miles away. “You can’t get to Laguardia by train, and that really is inexcusable,” the governor said.
The announcement seemed to catch MTA and Port Authority officials off-guard, and as with Mayor Bloomberg’s back-of-the-napkin plan to send the 7 train to Secaucus, the agencies had to scramble for a statement. This time, though, their boss had issued the challenge instead of just the mayor of New York City. Later in the day, Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye and MTA CEO Tom Prendergast issued a joint statement:
“Governor Cuomo has offered a clear vision and strong call for the transportation infrastructure that is absolutely essential for the New York region to compete successfully in the global economy. The Port Authority and the MTA are working closely to establish the scope, schedule and management of the LaGuardia AirTrain, just as they worked closely to create the successful JFK AirTrain. We will build this project in a cost-effective way that minimizes disruptions to nearby communities as well as airport operations, and we can get it done within five years of obtaining all necessary approvals. Both our organizations recognize the importance of these infrastructure projects and congratulate the Governor on his foresight.”
So does it work? Let’s drill down.
The Good: A Rail Connection to Laguardia
In a vacuum, a rail connection to Laguardia with political support, political capital and a political champion behind it is a good idea. The governor, who is, despite his flaws, a strong executive in New York, is talking about improving the way we travel to the airport, and he has a vision that is, compared with other New York City transit projects, affordable and practical. It doesn’t involve construction through any neighborhoods replete with NIMBY opposition and solves an immediate problem by improving access to Laguardia in a way that isn’t as stigmatized as bus service is. In broad strokes, a Laguardia AirTrain is a badly-needed service that should have been built years ago.
The Bad: The Routing
That said, Cuomo’s proposal is something of a mess from a transit planning perspective. By avoiding any battle with NIMBYs — except perhaps with those who live above the Grand Central Parkway with views of the Long Island Sound — Cuomo has essentially picked the worst of the possible Laguardia rail connection routings, and we don’t know why. As I mentioned, Cuomo didn’t discuss how other alternatives were eliminated or how he settled upon his proposed alignment.
The real issue is travel time. The 7 train from Times Square to Willets Point is a 25-minute express ride and a 30-minute local ride. AirTrain passengers would then have to switch to an AirTrain and backtrack to reach the airport. To make this work, the MTA would have to consider permanent super-express service to Willets Point during off-peak hours, and I’m afraid consider the peak-hour effect on already-crowded 7 trains. At least the nearby LIRR station can alleviate some of the pressure, but a trip that takes a good 45 minutes from Midtown can’t compete with the Q70 from Jackson Heights, a shuttle bus or even a taxi.
Now, in the past, as we know, NIMBYs torpedoed a Giuliani plan to send the N to Laguardia. You can read the original engineering report and my recent analysis of the old plan. That’s probably the ideal alignment in terms of speed as it is the most direct connection to Manhattan and major destination points from Laguardia. The second best choice would have involved staging an AirTrain station near Jackson Heights and providing service from the 7/E/F/M/R station via the BQE and Grand Central to the airport. Instead, we have a Willets Point-based plan, and we don’t eve know why. This isn’t something we should accept simply because a politician has proposed spending money on an AirTrain.
The Ugly: The Money
The money, of course, is another major issue. The MTA is in dire need of someone to address a $15 billion capital funding gap in its current five-year plan. They need to spend $32 billion but can only generate around $17 billion. Meanwhile, this $32 billion doesn’t include the capital costs for a new airport rail connection. Now, the agency is scrambling to update its documents, but the money for the badly needed parts of the plan — signal upgrades, Phase 2 of the Second Ave. Subway — still isn’t there.
The other issue is the cost. It’s optimistic to think that the MTA and Port Authority can build a rail extension on time for around $300 million a mile, and although the JFK AirTrain was on time and on budget, nothing else of this magnitude has been. I can run through the litany of problems that have plagued the 7 line, the Fulton St. Transit Center, the PATH Hub, East Side Access, and the Second Ave. Subway, but we know this story well: Nothing comes in on time or on budget, and cost projections often do not align with reality. Without a better understanding of the sources of Cuomo’s $450 million price tag, we can’t adequate assess this project’s chances either. Still, as I mentioned, the MTA’s current capital proposal should take priority.
The Unknown: What Happens Next
Right now, I have no idea where this goes. When Bloomberg announced the Secaucus plan for the 7 train late in his third term without the support of the MTA, Albany or New Jersey, it was obvious this plan would go nowhere. But Cuomo is at the start of this second term and has banked a lot of political capital on dealing with New York’s airports. He has the weight, the pull and the financial resources at his disposal to get this project off the table. It might just happen, and it just arrived out of left field.
Still, I have serious reservations about the way this came about. It’s not a great alignment, and it leaves commuters on a slow and crowded train. It’s a connection, but it’s not a direct one. It doesn’t help improve access to Laguardia for airport workers, and it shifts economic resources from other projects and proposals that should be a priority. Still, it’s heartening to see Cuomo paying attention to rail. Is there time to improve this idea or are we doomed to another airport connection that’s only just good enough?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send it to Flushing, goddamit!

 

Or send it to Jackson Heights! Well, we already have the Q70 LTD and Q47.

 

Also, I think we should extend the JFK Airtrain to Jamaica.

 

.....but it's IN Jamaica! Extending it would make no sense since it's current terminal serves a whole hell of a lot of services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.