Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
GojiMet86

Plans move forward for LaGuardia AirTrain

Recommended Posts

https://libn.com/2018/06/25/plans-move-forward-for-laguardia-airtrain/

 

Quote

 

Plans move forward for LaGuardia AirTrain

 

By: Adina Genn June 25, 2018 0

Construction for a new AirTrain connection to LaGuardia Airport is slated to begin in 2020 and completed by 2022, officials said Monday.

The project would provide access to LaGuardia from the Long Island Rail Road as well as the 7-train at Mets-Willets Point and midtown Manhattan. For passengers traveling from Penn Station or Grand Central Terminal, the commute is expected to be less than 30 minutes.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation to advance the link Monday.

The project is part of the airport’s $8 billion redevelopment, officials said.

“The new LaGuardia Airport will provide an improved customer experience with better access to airlines and public transportation for all passengers – essential to the airport’s transformation,” Cuomo said in a statement.

The project would “set an example of comprehensive transit infrastructure for the rest of the nation, and will pay dividends for decades by connecting riders to transit hubs across the Metropolitan area, boosting passenger growth across all airlines, and providing a more efficient means of travel for generations to come,” he added.

Port Authority Executive Director Rick Cotton said in a statement that the airport has had the “dubious distinction of being the only major East Coast airport without a rail link,” a discrepancy he deemed “unacceptable.”

Officials expect to begin an environmental review process for the project later this year.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

The project would “set an example of comprehensive transit infrastructure for the rest of the nation

It would set an example of what not to do.

23 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

will pay dividends for decades by connecting riders to transit hubs across the Metropolitan area, boosting passenger growth across all airlines, and providing a more efficient means of travel for generations to come,” he added.

And will cost the passengers for all eternity by making each trip longer and more circuitous than necessary, adding nothing to passenger growth and preventing a more efficient means of travel for generations to come.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debt service is not fake news. Cuomo can have all his pretty and useless air trains, but he's literally leaving the next governor all the problems he couldn't solve while taking all the credit for the goodies. 

Regardless, this entire venture is a useless waste of money. Once again, no one wants to travel to Manhattan via Willets Point and the subway line whose platforms define the word "overcrowded." 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the NIMBYs have some petition to stop the Airtrain or do they plan to sue it? I can think of a few cases for them (someone can relay this to someone who knowns someone fighting against the Airtrain, might help slow this awful project).

(here are some cases they could make)

They could sue saying that the closure of Casey Stengel during the renovation of Jamaica will negatively affect their air quality and bus service.

They could say the Airtrain would bring them greater noise problems without benefiting anybody as this Airtrain is going the wrong way.

They could also probably find some loophole or something else that could stop the Airtrain.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that's gonna see this project go south from here? I'm all for rail service to LaGuardia, but they should have connected it to (N) and (W) at Astoria as that's a bit more a logical idea than starting at Willets Point. (7) train is bad as it is, don't make it worse! >_< 

Curious note: I wonder if the (MTA) has plans on building a new bus depot if Casey Stengel is shut down, as I'm imagining that depot closing is going to have a big effect on the bus fleet in Queens, especially the artics they have. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know damn well that tis is a stupid plan. Add a bus terminal here instead of yard space for the airtrain.

 

I believe the train could run between Hunt point and Willets Pt via LGA and HP would be the ideal location for a yard to be located. Only issue is it would probably cost a lot more than the construction now. Not to mention going over Rikers Island

Edited by MysteriousBtrain
Rikers Island
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could have had an elevated light rail line down Junction Blvd to Forest Hills LIRR, down GCP to Astoria or Ditmars Blvd, or down the BQE to Woodside or Roosevelt Ave / 74 St.

Turn that 30 minute ride into 20 minutes and watch the patronage go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

You know damn well that tis is a stupid plan. Add a bus terminal here instead of yard space for the airtrain.

 

I proposed a bus transit hub in the Willets Point Area in the Bus forums. The hub wouldve connected 15 bus routes to the (7) and LIRR at Willets Pointm That would be much better than this rubbish some AirTrain. 

5 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Do the NIMBYs have some petition to stop the Airtrain or do they plan to sue it? I can think of a few cases for them (someone can relay this to someone who knowns someone fighting against the Airtrain, might help slow this awful project).

(here are some cases they could make)

They could sue saying that the closure of Casey Stengel during the renovation of Jamaica will negatively affect their air quality and bus service.

They could say the Airtrain would bring them greater noise problems without benefiting anybody as this Airtrain is going the wrong way.

They could also probably find some loophole or something else that could stop the Airtrain.

I couldn't have said it better myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@R68OnBroadway I agree with the points that you said. I heard not long ago that a car rental space was gonna be at Willets Point replacing the Bus Depot. When I saw this, I went "BOI, Manhattan is already congested enough, why are you trying to add more cars into the Streets!!!?!" (Besides I strongly dislike the smell of gas). As for your loophole idea, you can say that it's a boondoggle service that Burdens the (7) and LIRR.

Just to mention it, my profile name in the forums and on some of my other social media sites are a clear representation that the (N) and (W) should've been extended to LaGuardia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case for Cuomo's Airtrain:

(PS, I generally don't like Cuomo)

1. N link to LAG will never happen. It was shut down by NIMBYism 20 years ago, it will be shot down again (though I agree it's generally the best route).

2. Given that, what alternatives are feasible?

3. Routes other than Cuomo's will also have NIMBY issues, or technical engineering obstacles (like a route via Grand Central Parkway).

4. Cuomo's route avoids such problems. It's all on public land. It can largely be built over the parkway, like JFK Airtrain. No eminent domain or NIMBY issues.

5. The route connects with 2 major transit lines into Manhattan and elsewhere. 

6. The criticism that LIRR frequencies are poor can be addressed by adding more trains from Willets to NYC, including into GCT.

7. Similarly, more 7 express service can be added between 10 am and 3 pm.

8. The major criticism that the route "backtracks" into Queens is overblown. The backtrack is more of a diagonal to the southeast, to connect with a due- west transit line to NYC. Not a big deal.

9. There is political muscle behind the route. Cuomo's support cannot be overstated. He can push MTA and politicos to move the project fast. No other route has such support.

10. It's far better than doing nothing, which is the major alternative.

Discuss.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Italianstallion said:

The case for Cuomo's Airtrain:

(PS, I generally don't like Cuomo)

1. N link to LAG will never happen. It was shut down by NIMBYism 20 years ago, it will be shot down again (though I agree it's generally the best route).

2. Given that, what alternatives are feasible?

3. Routes other than Cuomo's will also have NIMBY issues, or technical engineering obstacles (like a route via Grand Central Parkway).

4. Cuomo's route avoids such problems. It's all on public land. It can largely be built over the parkway, like JFK Airtrain. No eminent domain or NIMBY issues.

5. The route connects with 2 major transit lines into Manhattan and elsewhere. 

6. The criticism that LIRR frequencies are poor can be addressed by adding more trains from Willets to NYC, including into GCT.

7. Similarly, more 7 express service can be added between 10 am and 3 pm.

8. The major criticism that the route "backtracks" into Queens is overblown. The backtrack is more of a diagonal to the southeast, to connect with a due- west transit line to NYC. Not a big deal.

9. There is political muscle behind the route. Cuomo's support cannot be overstated. He can push MTA and politicos to move the project fast. No other route has such support.

10. It's far better than doing nothing, which is the major alternative.

Discuss.

 

 

1. That may be true, but I say its worth another shot. Our city's airports should not be an embarrassment because two blocks of NIMBYs.

2. AirTrain to Astoria Blvd or conversion of the Q70 to light rail. 

3. Tell the NIMBYs to STFU. Boo-hoo you lost your "view" of the GCP. If you don't like it, move to the suburbs. The city does not revolve around East Elmhurst or Astoria. As for GCP issues, most of the traffic is coming from LGA so you could a lane in both directions to build a structure.

4. Surely it won't have problems, but it is going to only help some Queens and LI residents. It will also close a major bus depot while another is renovated.

5. The (7) is packed as soon as it leaves Main Street/ 5th Av or is packed after a few stops (same towards Queens). Adding some slow, confused tourists is not going to help commuters already suffering crowding and long travel times.

As for the LIRR, it may be less crowded but it is much more expensive, and tourists would rather go for the (7) .

6. ESA is not coming anytime soon. LGA would probably be closed before it would be completed.

7. See #5

8. It still goes further from Manhattan. What is incentivizing me to take it?

9. We should still try and fight him... he may have power but I am sick of these spendocrats.

10. We have the Q70. That is better than wasting 1.5 billion. Sometimes the same/nothing is better than throwing money down the drain for "something".

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

The case for Cuomo's Airtrain:

(PS, I generally don't like Cuomo)

1. N link to LAG will never happen. It was shut down by NIMBYism 20 years ago, it will be shot down again (though I agree it's generally the best route).

2. Given that, what alternatives are feasible?

3. Routes other than Cuomo's will also have NIMBY issues, or technical engineering obstacles (like a route via Grand Central Parkway).

4. Cuomo's route avoids such problems. It's all on public land. It can largely be built over the parkway, like JFK Airtrain. No eminent domain or NIMBY issues.

5. The route connects with 2 major transit lines into Manhattan and elsewhere. 

6. The criticism that LIRR frequencies are poor can be addressed by adding more trains from Willets to NYC, including into GCT.

7. Similarly, more 7 express service can be added between 10 am and 3 pm.

8. The major criticism that the route "backtracks" into Queens is overblown. The backtrack is more of a diagonal to the southeast, to connect with a due- west transit line to NYC. Not a big deal.

9. There is political muscle behind the route. Cuomo's support cannot be overstated. He can push MTA and politicos to move the project fast. No other route has such support.

10. It's far better than doing nothing, which is the major alternative.

Discuss.

 

 

I agree with @R68OnBroadway with his list so I'll say what I think.

1) Even if the NIMBY's try to shoot it down a second time, it's still worth taking the risk. 

2) Reroute the AirTrain. Make it go into Manhattan at 125 or something like that. 

3) let them go fu*k themselves. I'm more for the greater good rather than a pile of fuss pots 

4) that's not an efficent way of planning transit. 

5) The bus hub that I proposed in the Queens Division proposals thread can provide more and better transfers than that. 

6) I don't know how capacity works on the LIRR but I'm pretty sure that youd need to increase or decrease something in order to make that feasible 

7) ok. But the (7) is full at nearly all hours of the day so what good would that do?

😎 still going away from Manhattan. 

9) Doesn't mean that groups of people shouldn't take the risk to sue Cuomo to stop the project 

10) "Transfer is available to the LaGuardia Link Q70 SBS go LaGuardia Airport." Still suggest extendextendng the (N)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

10. It's far better than doing nothing, which is the major alternative.

There's a reason that all environmental impact studies for projects like these must include, by law, a "no build" option. It's not always the case that doing something is better than nothing, and that's especially the case when we're talking about dropping 1.5 billion dollars on a project that isn't really going to make the journey to LGA much better for most people. The proposed AirTrain is only faster when the LIRR is used to get to Willets Point, but that runs less frequently and is more expensive than the (7) - which isn't particularly fast to get to Willets Point, even from Midtown.

See here for a good analysis of why nothing might be better than this something: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/01/21/for-laguardia-an-airtrain-that-will-save-almost-no-one-any-time/ 

The only major destination for which travel times are decreased using the new AirTrain is Flushing, of course. To go just about anywhere else, the AirTrain + (7) combination is actually the longest way to get there. Remind me, why is this happening?

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the plans are moving forward, but could they have created a line to Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue instead, going over the Grand Central Parkway and 278?

It could go over those highways, and then a third track could be created on the trackway already in the area so that the trains could terminate around 72nd Street and Roosevelt Avenue. (I am not sure if this is exactly how this would work, but it is an option they could explore.) It could also stay aboveground, but I don't know how feasible that would be.

From there riders would have much more options. The trains would still probably be crowded, more crowded than the (N)(W) for sure, but riders would have many more options, and could take the local. People could easily go to Queens as well as to more western locations, and it would be easier to get to JFK as well.

If they used the tracks for Triboro RX at the end (and also added a third track, possibly through a new tunnel) and built the trains for the Airtrain to FRA Requirements, it could provide a starter for Triboro RX.

(Actually never mind I just saw this in the link but this is my opinion on why it should be used)

Edited by W4ST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

See here for a good analysis of why nothing might be better than this something: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/01/21/for-laguardia-an-airtrain-that-will-save-almost-no-one-any-time/ 

I've seen this before and I must say that I agree with it. Here's a Work in Progress map about AirTrain Alternative proposals

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TZh5VrO4gtE7EGb-B9-2y-flRyh44b34&amp;usp=sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LGA Link N train said:

Alright, I made a change. try opening it again

Looks cool, a connection to Woodside LIRR would help as well.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mets Willets Point wouldn't bring any LIRR/Subway rider to to Airtrain LGA.

I think I agree with Youtuber Matt Kamper and Andy that LGA Airlink should have started at Woodside, 74th St-Broadway-Jackson Heights to LGA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on it:

1. This stupid plan would be no different than taking the Q70 SBS from Jackson Heights. Heck, taking the Q70 might even be faster!

2. Adding more passengers to the (7) will only increase congestion. The Flushing Line is simply too overcrowded, and distributing more passengers onto already-crowded (7) trains would be hell. (7)<7> service cannot be increased either because terminal capacity at Flushing-Main St is limited. 

3. The (N) to LaGuardia is obviously the best option. However, NIMBY's are the biggest source of annoyance for proposing this, as it gets shot down 90% of the time. But, that doesn't mean we should just give up. A @LGA Link N train is not impossible, given that another project which is also met with opposition (cough cough RBB) is being considered. 

4. The only way it'll be potentially be useful is if the (N) is extended as-is to LGA, and the existing AirTrain could be captured to allow the (N)(W) to continue further east to Flushing and Bayside. 

5. This would close Casey Stengel for no good reason. It's one of most major bus depots in Queens, and closing it will be detrimental. 

6. Do nothing would actually be better than building this flawed shuttle for an ad nauseam reason. Most riders heading to/from the airport are mainly headed towards Manhattan, and the only neighborhood benefited (Flushing) only has a small minority of people commuting there when compared to a large majority trying to get to Manhattan. 

7. Despite the fact that Cuomo may pull a Thanos and turn anything that goes against his will into dust (not literally), it's worth suing/opposing him for this moronic project. For example, we could even force Trump himself to end family separation. And the latter has a kiloton of power more when compared to the former!

8. The only reason why this is even on the table in the first place is because JFK already has one. Just because one airport has it doesn't mean the other has to do the same. That AirTrain actually has purpose, considering the airport is much bigger, and has more passengers using it daily. It also has the (A) train at Howard Beach nearby, so commutes wouldn't really be that long-winded/circuitous in that scenario. 

9. Many projects that will actually do something barely have a lot of funding. They just get shafted all the time for crap proposals like this one. Why don't we save all those poor low-income souls on Third instead of building a crap shuttle that will only cater to very little? 

10. If Cuomo really wanted to be anti-subway semantic, why not, at the very very least, have a major bus terminal/hub at Casey Stengel like @LGA Link N train mentioned earlier? That'll actually get you a lot of benefit in comparison despite the fact it's only buses. For one, it would improve the terminal layout at Flushing significantly, and would be well-utilized by ridership in comparison. 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2018 at 1:45 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

1. That may be true, but I say its worth another shot. Our city's airports should not be an embarrassment because two blocks of NIMBYs.

2. AirTrain to Astoria Blvd or conversion of the Q70 to light rail. 

3. Tell the NIMBYs to STFU. Boo-hoo you lost your "view" of the GCP. If you don't like it, move to the suburbs. The city does not revolve around East Elmhurst or Astoria. As for GCP issues, most of the traffic is coming from LGA so you could a lane in both directions to build a structure.

4. Surely it won't have problems, but it is going to only help some Queens and LI residents. It will also close a major bus depot while another is renovated.

5. The (7) is packed as soon as it leaves Main Street/ 5th Av or is packed after a few stops (same towards Queens). Adding some slow, confused tourists is not going to help commuters already suffering crowding and long travel times.

As for the LIRR, it may be less crowded but it is much more expensive, and tourists would rather go for the (7) .

6. ESA is not coming anytime soon. LGA would probably be closed before it would be completed.

7. See #5

8. It still goes further from Manhattan. What is incentivizing me to take it?

9. We should still try and fight him... he may have power but I am sick of these spendocrats.

10. We have the Q70. That is better than wasting 1.5 billion. Sometimes the same/nothing is better than throwing money down the drain for "something".

 

Some thoughts:

3. No, nothing over GCP can work engineering-wise. Cut a lane? Are you kidding? They recently cut 4 lanes to 3 on that stretch to accommodate large trucks, and it is constantly backlogged.

5. New signaling wlll allow some additional 7 trains. Others can be short-turned at Willets. LIRR can provide a special lower fare for connections from AirTrain.

6. Huh? ESA is going to open in a few years.

7. Not an answer. Midday, 7  is not as packed and more 7s can be added then. 

8. If it takes 6 minutes from the airport to Willets and you make a fast connection there, it'll be a pretty good ride.

10. I suspect the Q70 gets bogged down in traffic regularly.

All in all, this is  a flawed plan, but not the disaster everyone is making it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem with adding LIRR service is the fact there's a portion where the line is single tracked. You can only run so many trains on that section. 

Alternatively, you would have to set-up Willets Point to be a terminal, and be able to both turn trains and have through service.

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

This plan only works until Phase III exists, and then it's back to the drawing board for new services.

I also have serious doubts that the switches east of Lex-63 could handle such a service given that no Broadway trains have ever served the 63 St tunnel, and certainly not in conjunction with the (F) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This plan only works until Phase III exists, and then it's back to the drawing board for new services.

I also have serious doubts that the switches east of Lex-63 could handle such a service given that no Broadway trains have ever served the 63 St tunnel, and certainly not in conjunction with the (F) .

I also wonder the same thing, If I'm not mistaken I think that @vanshnookenraggen acknowledged that in his proposal

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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