news Gov. Cuomo Pitches AirTrain LaGuardia, Other Transit Improvements

[Gotham Bus Co.]

 

image.jpg

Gov. Andrew Cuomo is unveiling an ambitious plan to modernize New York’s infrastructure and transportation system. Cuomo spoke Tuesday to the business group Association for a Better New York in Manhattan. He offered a preview of his annual State of the State address scheduled for Wednesday. The biggest proposal was a rail link to LaGuardia Airport, WCBS 880’s Paul Murnane reported. “You can’t get to LaGuardia by train today and that really is inexcusable,” the governor said. Cuomo proposed building an AirTrain link like the one that serves John F. Kennedy International Airport.

 

Read more: Source

 

Thing 1... Cuomo thinks it can be built in five years.  The design alone will take at least five years.

 

Thing 2... Why Willets Point? For true regional connectivity, it should go to either Woodside ( , LIRR) or Sunnyside Yards (subways plus potential new station for LIRR, Amtrak, NJT).

 

Thing 3... Better yet, don't bother.

[bobtehpanda]

You make it seem as if a two-seat ride is the end of the world.

 

Yeah, but Queens Blvd local riders had a two-seat ride if they wanted 6th Av or 53 St (which is a significant amount of people), and Myrtle had everyone with a two-seat ride.

 

Even not counting Myrtle riders, the / serves more people on Queens Blvd with direct trips than the . The has never had particularly high ridership riding through from Queens Blvd onto the Crosstown Line.

[Priincenene]

Yeah, but Queens Blvd local riders had a two-seat ride if they wanted 6th Av or 53 St (which is a significant amount of people), and Myrtle had everyone with a two-seat ride.

 

Even not counting Myrtle riders, the / serves more people on Queens Blvd with direct trips than the . The has never had particularly high ridership riding through from Queens Blvd onto the Crosstown Line.

If the still went via QBL, that would help me as I sometimes take the until Court Sq and if the Metrocard transfer still existed, the QBL would help many riders

[Priincenene]

It's a big deal for Myrtle because the majority gets the two seat ride. Let the non-majority get the two seat ride.

 

As for the and , I was saying that it made no sense at all that the served the southern portion and the served the northern portion, with both having nearly the same starting points. It would make more sense if the got extended to Astoria to phase out the , thus, saving money.

Dude, (MTA Dude ) what about South Bklyn? You don't think about them? Right now, as I can see for myself, South Brooklyn needs extra service. Service is slow the needs help and so does the

[Roadcruiser1]

I live right next to the Q72 , M60, and Q33 at Ditmars like 2 mins away waling distance from the airport. Hell to the no for extending the to LGA. That would disturb the hell outta me. 

 

People like you are why we need to bring Robert Moses back from the dead.

 

If I was given the power he had I would demolish entire neighborhoods just to build a subway line, or a highway. .

[Gotham Bus Co.]

Hats off to the gov.,man just lost his father and is pressing on with business and this is definitely long overdue business. But This Airtrain HAS to go to Woodside Instead of willets point!!!

 

The governor says it HAS to go to Willets Point — and he knows better than we mere mortals, right?  In that case, it might as well become a spur from the Flushing Line (maybe alternate locals can be labeled as #8 or  ) or the Port Washington Branch.

 

The governor also wants it built and running within five years, even though the design alone will take at least that long.

[Sparen of Iria]

The governor says it HAS to go to Willets Point — and he knows better than we mere mortals, right?  In that case, it might as well become a spur from the Flushing Line (maybe alternate locals can be labeled as #8 or  ) or the Port Washington Branch.

 

The governor also wants it built and running within five years, even though the design alone will take at least that long.

It's not practical to spur the Flushing Line towards LGA. Making a spur there would not serve many people (a large number of buses to LGA intersect with the regardless), and would shut down any hope of an extension past Main Street (which won't happen anyways since they dumped an elevator shaft right in front of one of the trackways)

 

And yes, the design phase will just drain funds and make the entire project take longer than it already will.

[bobtehpanda]

Serving LGA is kind of overrated anyways. Let's shovel the money into actually finishing SAS.

 

 

The governor says it HAS to go to Willets Point — and he knows better than we mere mortals, right?  In that case, it might as well become a spur from the Flushing Line (maybe alternate locals can be labeled as #8 or  ) or the Port Washington Branch.

 

The governor also wants it built and running within five years, even though the design alone will take at least that long.

 

It's going to be studied by both the MTA and Port, which both seemed just as surprised as everyone else at the time of the announcement. The MTA has shot down big-shot fantasy plans before (see: Lower Manhattan-JFK, 7 Line to Secaucus), and this one involves using part of its land to boot.

[cl94]

It's going to be studied by both the MTA and Port, which both seemed just as surprised as everyone else at the time of the announcement. The MTA has shot down big-shot fantasy plans before (see: Lower Manhattan-JFK, 7 Line to Secaucus), and this one involves using part of its land to boot.

 

That's what might stop this crap from happening. Both have more important projects to deal with.

[Priincenene]

People like you are why we need to bring Robert Moses back from the dead.

 

If I was given the power he had I would demolish entire neighborhoods just to build a subway line, or a highway. .

Wow. I haven't see you online in a WHILE. But, it wouldn't matter for me all I'm saying is that if a train would pass by every 10 minutes that would tick me off. But no big deal for me, just sayinz

[Union Tpke]

Serving LGA is kind of overrated anyways. Let's shovel the money into actually finishing SAS.

 

 

 

It's going to be studied by both the MTA and Port, which both seemed just as surprised as everyone else at the time of the announcement. The MTA has shot down big-shot fantasy plans before (see: Lower Manhattan-JFK, 7 Line to Secaucus), and this one involves using part of its land to boot. u

Exactly! I personally would use it for the Rockaway Beach Branch with politicians like Joe Addobo saying they would support it if there was funding for it.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Serving LGA is kind of overrated anyways. Let's shovel the money into actually finishing SAS. It's going to be studied by both the MTA and Port, which both seemed just as surprised as everyone else at the time of the announcement. The MTA has shot down big-shot fantasy plans before (see: Lower Manhattan-JFK, 7 Line to Secaucus), and this one involves using part of its land to boot.

I could not agree more. It would be so much better to just take the money potentially allocated for this project and put it towards SAS Phase 2. Or put it towards making the Rockaway Beach branch suitable for subway service...

It's not practical to spur the Flushing Line towards LGA. Making a spur there would not serve many people (a large number of buses to LGA intersect with the regardless), and would shut down any hope of an extension past Main Street (which won't happen anyways since they dumped an elevator shaft right in front of one of the trackways)

 

And yes, the design phase will just drain funds and make the entire project take longer than it already will.

But if they can't use the money for anything other than rail to LGA, then they might as well go the extra step and make it a branch off the between Willets Point and 111th St (where the passes over the GCP and the Corona Yard leads are). Even with the new CBTC signaling system being put in, what work is being done at Main Street to allow it to turn more trains?

[MTA Dude]

Even with the new CBTC signaling system being put in, what work is being done at Main Street to allow it to turn more trains?

 

I feel like trains at Main St are more delayed than Times Square. It's the goddamn complicated switching. If Main St had more room, surely, there would be a better solution (like dipping down and up instead of the "level junction").

[darrylbaniaga38]

I live right next to the Q72 , M60, and Q33 at Ditmars like 2 mins away waling distance from the airport. Hell to the no for extending the to LGA. That would disturb the hell outta me. 

 

On the contrary, I live in the same area and I could use the quick access. Beats the Q33.

[Roadcruiser1]

But if they can't use the money for anything other than rail to LGA, then they might as well go the extra step and make it a branch off the between Willets Point and 111th St (where the passes over the GCP and the Corona Yard leads are). Even with the new CBTC signaling system being put in, what work is being done at Main Street to allow it to turn more trains?

 

It's not worth the effort. Not only would this , split, or (8) backtrack, but it would also not work well since the R188 cars are narrow, and Flushing Line is already at, or over capacity.

[bobtehpanda]

I could not agree more. It would be so much better to just take the money potentially allocated for this project and put it towards SAS Phase 2. Or put it towards making the Rockaway Beach branch suitable for subway service...

But if they can't use the money for anything other than rail to LGA, then they might as well go the extra step and make it a branch off the between Willets Point and 111th St (where the passes over the GCP and the Corona Yard leads are). Even with the new CBTC signaling system being put in, what work is being done at Main Street to allow it to turn more trains?

 

Serving LGA with eleven-car trains is very overkill, and on top of that we'd need a lot more yard space (as opposed to an AirTrain, which uses much shorter cars and has tighter turning radii

[Union Tpke]

9

A postmortem (for now) on Cuomo’s LaGuardia AirTrain planBy Benjamin Kabak · Comments (12) · 

A nice idea, but is Cuomo’s LaGuardia AirTrain the right one?

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to shut the subway system on Monday night wasn’t the most surprising transit development coming from the governor’s office this past week. Prior to this week’s snow brouhaha, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s other idea —  an AirTrain to LaGuardia Airport — dominated the transit press coverage. As you’ll recall, seemingly out of nowhere, Cuomo announced a plan to build an AirTrain for $450 million from Willets Point to LaGuardia via the Grand Central Parkway. In theory, improving rail access to LaGuardia is a great idea that needs a champion; in practice, Cuomo’s idea isn’t one we should rush to embrace by any means.

When I had a chance to delve into Cuomo’s proposal last week, I wasn’t too impressed. He picked the worst choice out of three or four possible routings, and the money seemed optimistically low. Since then, I’ve learned that, much like Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s idea to send the 7 to Secaucus, the Govornor’s AirTrain proposal doesn’t have much backing it. The cost estimates can’t be traced to any recent (or, for that matter, old) study, and it’s not clear from those at the MTA how or why the governor chose this plan or why the Port Authority is not involved as it was with the JFK AirTrain. 

I’m not alone in casting a skeptical eye toward Cuomo’s plan, and as part of today’s postmortem — likely not to be the final word on this idea — I’d like to look at three other takes. The first comes to us from Yonah Freemark who dusted off The Transport Politic to share his thoughts on the proposal. Freemark’s headline sums it up: The LaGuardia AirTrain “will save almost no one any time.” He writes:

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…

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.

 

That, alone, should be enough to doom the project, and based on Freemark’s study, both an AirTrain from Jackson Heights or a direct extension of the N train from Astoria would be the preferred build as both have essentially equal travel times from popular destinations. As Freemark states, “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.”

Over the weekend, Nate Silver offered his analysis of public transit options for airport travel. Picking up on my piece and Freemark’s analysis, Silver determines, unsurprisingly, that transit options to U.S. airports are by and large terrible. Even with the AirTrain, most travelers would be far better off taking a cab from LaGuardia to popular destinations factoring travel times and cab fares in a cost-benefit analysis. A viable proposal would seek to flip that result.

Finally, I urge you to read Alon Levy’s analysis of the political theory behind Cuomo’s decision. Levy brings up the idea that, by starting the debate with the Willets Point plan, he has framed it in such a way that he wins. Cuomo’s approach to transit planning is a top-down one that omits community feedback and benefits a very specific constituency — airport travelers. With no stops in populated neighborhoods that need transit access, Cuomo can allege to stifle NIMBYism without actually offering anything useful. 

Levy, in fact, thinks we should ignore Cuomo’s plan altogether. He writes, “In such a climate, as soon as we talk about tweaks to Cuomo’s plan, Cuomo’s already won; whatever happens, he will reap the credit, and use it to buy political capital to keep building unnecessary megaprojects. Even trying to make the best of a bad situation by making the airport connector better is of little use, since Cuomo will support the plan that maximizes his political capital and not the one that maximizes transit usage even within such constraints as “must serve LaGuardia.'”

I believe Alon has a very good point, but I’m trying hard, and usually failing, to be less cynical about this plan. LaGuardia access seems to have a champion even if we don’t know what his true motives or underlying rationale are. The key though is opportunity. If New York sees through Cuomo’s plan, we’ve built something, but is that something good or even good enough? We have to remember that we have only one chance. Once the first dollar is allocated and the first pylon is sunk, New York will stuck with whatever Cuomo has decided. Based on the current proposal with its circular routing, slow travel times, and mysterious budget, that’s a scary thought for our future.

[Tokkemon]

Good writeup. 

But yes, this is about Willets Pt, not LGA. Clear as day that Cuomo is trying to serve the special interests. 

[traingoat]

It makes complete sense when the development of Grand Central for LIRR trains and all the digging and construction for the 2nd avenue. You have to remember that BMT and IND lines use railroad widths but don't have the lengths because of the swings and overhangs. Now Penn station and Grand Central are excellent locations to catch such a train because they are set up for bags and luggage being moved around. You can't come in from the west because of the flight path by Bulova building on Grand Central so that idea is knocked out unless you go underground. You have room at Flushing Meadow to build without razing anything or ticking people off because of construction as it can be done in the evenings and nights. Not involving the PA is fine as its a 100% pure MTA project.. Using PA standards for the cars allows running on railroad tracks but also gives the turning ability of IRT equipment so you have the width but ability for sharp turns. Many of you are not familiar with the setup of PATH trains at Newark, New Jersey but the PATH trains are on the upper level above the main tracks of the Penn railroad.

[161 New York]

It makes complete sense when the development of Grand Central for LIRR trains and all the digging and construction for the 2nd avenue. You have to remember that BMT and IND lines use railroad widths but don't have the lengths because of the swings and overhangs. Now Penn station and Grand Central are excellent locations to catch such a train because they are set up for bags and luggage being moved around. You can't come in from the west because of the flight path by Bulova building on Grand Central so that idea is knocked out unless you go underground. You have room at Flushing Meadow to build without razing anything or ticking people off because of construction as it can be done in the evenings and nights. Not involving the PA is fine as its a 100% pure MTA project.. Using PA standards for the cars allows running on railroad tracks but also gives the turning ability of IRT equipment so you have the width but ability for sharp turns. Many of you are not familiar with the setup of PATH trains at Newark, New Jersey but the PATH trains are on the upper level above the main tracks of the Penn railroad.

I don't think the plans envisioned call for the use of PATH type or PA-5 equipment. I would imagine, Air Train type equipment, probably similar to JFK or EWR would be used to connect at Willets Point to LGA. I do agree though with East Side Access, the LIRR connection from West and East Midtown would be attractive to those heading towards Manhattan with luggage.

 

Also as a practical matter when I leave for EWR, I always try to use NJT out of NYP even if I come/go off-peak (when the Staten Island to Midtown express buses are not running (x21, x22, x23, x24). The PATH -> NJT -> EWR AIr Train is too much hassle with luggage . 

[traingoat]

It would make sense running that equipment because as the yard at Willetts Point could repair without any problems as the equipment is there. I don't question anyway the setup of Newark going to the airport which was half thought out. This setup allows using what we have to the maximum without inconvenience. Since you have the Port Washington Branch of the LIRR and electrified they also could go to the airport from the East without as you say the hassle. The Path size cars can handle much steeper grades without problems than regular equipment so the elevation of the tracks can be shorter. For something to be successful it basically has to be hassle free or minimized transfers. You have to remember I remember the old PATH trains when the Newark Branch has foam seats with vinyl on them and were quite comfortable to ride and sir in which is perfect for travelers with luggage.