Jump to content

You have 35 minutes to voice your opposition to the LGA AirTrain


Union Tpke

Recommended Posts

Almost all of us on here are opposed to the LGA AirTrain. The deadline for commenting on the DEIS for the project is at 5 p.m. tonight. You don't have to write a long or thorough comment, but I would urge you guys to speak up. https://www.lgaaccesseis.com/formal-comment

@LaGuardia Link N Tra This would be a great place to start making a real impact on improving transit in NYC, and stopping bad projects from coming through. I would recommend the same to all the aspiring transportation planners and advocates on the forums.

Edited by Union Tpke
Link to comment
Share on other sites


27 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

you know... it's days like this I miss being in the idealistic world... enjoy it while you've got it... because odds are you're probably not going to be stopping Cuomo's pet project any time soon. 

Finally a voice of reason; thank you.  In another thread I tried to explain to some of them MTA doesn't give jack shit about their deinterlining ideas or other concepts for improving the system- went right over their heads, of course...

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s the thing...

1: all the needed land to support the project is already owned by the city.

2: it’s cheaper and faster to build, partly because it’s:

3: less complex from an engineering standpoint.

These are the things that matter the most to people like our beloved God-Emperor Cuomo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

Here’s the thing...

1: all the needed land to support the project is already owned by the city.

2: it’s cheaper and faster to build, partly because it’s:

3: less complex from an engineering standpoint.

These are the things that matter the most to people like our beloved God-Emperor Cuomo.

Couldn't the same be implemented for the (N) and (W) extension from Ditmars to LaGuardia? I mean the AirTrain is going to be concrete which would make it more quiet, I don't see why the same couldn't be done for Astoria? This really isn't going to really help that much in the long run either, regardless whenever ridership increases again, it'll just make things more complicated than it needs to be. Especially for the (7) which is already crowded as is on a normal day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

Couldn't the same be implemented for the (N) and (W) extension from Ditmars to LaGuardia? I mean the AirTrain is going to be concrete which would make it more quiet, I don't see why the same couldn't be done for Astoria? This really isn't going to really help that much in the long run either, regardless whenever ridership increases again, it'll just make things more complicated than it needs to be. Especially for the (7) which is already crowded as is on a normal day.

You're missing the big picture... the 7000' picture. Anything coming from the west has to find a way to pass the approach to Runway 4. Extending the N/W would require ether

A: going the long way around, which would require relocation of a lot of the airport's support infrastructure along with reconfiguring the roads... again... because the trains would have to be ground level so planes don't slam into them.

or

B: Build a tunnel under the airport... which would an absolute nightmare. La Guardia was built by dumping fill and trash into metal frames. those frames are still there and are still causing problems' for pilots' compasses. Plus, Runway 4 would probably need to be closed while they were digging. 

That's why the FAA is onboard with Airtrain, they have the final say as the regulator of the aviation industry. they don't want ether of the subway extension possibilities because they both end up disrupting the airport's operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

you know... it's days like this I miss being in the idealistic world... enjoy it while you've got it... because odds are you're probably not going to be stopping Cuomo's pet project any time soon. 

I am not optimistic in the least about this or other transit issues, but I feel the need to do as much as I can to demonstrate that the public is not overwhelmingly opposed to the project. While it would take a miracle to stop the project, certain things have to be in place to allow said miracle to take place. Just because it is hard to push for good transit and stop for bad transit, doesn't mean you should stop trying.

14 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Finally a voice of reason; thank you.  In another thread I tried to explain to some of them MTA doesn't give jack shit about their deinterlining ideas or other concepts for improving the system- went right over their heads, of course...

I strongly disagree with the attitude of this post. Yes, the MTA, without Byford there, does not care about deinterlining. We all get it. But, if you discourage people from proposing ideas to make the system better, there will be no chance that anything ever gets better. It is unlikely that the system gets materially better in the coming decade, but there are passionate people on the forums who want to get into transit as a profession and make change. Just discouraging people from proposing solutions is a large reason we are in the awful state we are in right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Finally a voice of reason; thank you.  In another thread I tried to explain to some of them MTA doesn't give jack shit about their deinterlining ideas or other concepts for improving the system- went right over their heads, of course...

(MTA) doesn't give two SH's about many things, but it was the complaints and whatnot that made them save routes, fix signals, and fix or remove timers.

Even @Wallyhorse's "#BringBackTheBMT" campaign has some value - just like the Northern Blvd proposals and every other thinkpiece folks here come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

When I see the MTA take affirmative steps to fix these things that go beyond mere topical solutions, I'll believe it.  Until then...

The only way I see that happening is when people whom (like Byford) actually care about improving Transit are appointed. But I don’t see that happening under our current governance. 

Also (slightly off topic), what role does the mayor play (or is the mayor supposed to play a role) when it comes to The (MTA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The only way I see that happening is when people whom (like Byford) actually care about improving Transit are appointed. But I don’t see that happening under our current governance. 

Also (slightly off topic), what role does the mayor play (or is the mayor supposed to play a role) when it comes to The (MTA)

The mayor's role has varied depending on who's held the office, but they certainly do have a sizeable influence, at least as far as NYCT is concerned.

Mayor Wagner arranged for the City to pay for the first 300 cars in the R32 contract in 1963.  Under Lindsay, the City headed wage negotiations during the 1966 transit strike.  In 1975, Beame was the one who issued the order to stop work on the Second Avenue Subway.  In the 1980s, Koch was one of the main people behind the anti-graffiti push.  In the 1990s Giuliani pushed for the Transit Police to be phased out in favor of NYPD, and and at another point he was the one who threatened the TWU with huge fines when they threatened to strike .  In the 2000s, Bloomberg pushed for NYCT to build the 7 Extension and take over the PBLs.  Et cetera, et cetera..

So yeah, the mayors certainly flex their muscle when they want to, which is why deBlasio claiming 4-5 years ago the City "has no control" was such a joke to me.

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2020 at 3:46 AM, Kamen Rider said:

You're missing the big picture... the 7000' picture. Anything coming from the west has to find a way to pass the approach to Runway 4. Extending the N/W would require ether

A: going the long way around, which would require relocation of a lot of the airport's support infrastructure along with reconfiguring the roads... again... because the trains would have to be ground level so planes don't slam into them.

or

B: Build a tunnel under the airport... which would an absolute nightmare. La Guardia was built by dumping fill and trash into metal frames. those frames are still there and are still causing problems' for pilots' compasses. Plus, Runway 4 would probably need to be closed while they were digging. 

That's why the FAA is onboard with Airtrain, they have the final say as the regulator of the aviation industry. they don't want ether of the subway extension possibilities because they both end up disrupting the airport's operations.

First, let me say that I when I first saw this thread and clicked on the link, I was about 4 1/2 hours too late. And I realize I’m a couple days late to this thread, but I just didn’t have a chance to comment in this thread until tonight. 

Second, let me thank you for posting this. These certainly are valid reasons for why building a subway (or even an AirTrain) extension from the west would have its share of problems. This goes well beyond the NIMBYism in Astoria that was blamed for why the previous proposal in the mid-90s to extend the (N) to LGA got killed off. Supposedly, no one in power wanted to deal with that again this time around. I myself believed that Astoria has changed a lot in the past 25 years that maybe a subway extension was worth revisiting, even if it’s not necessarily the (N) and (W). But these certainly do seem to be valid engineering issues that could make a hypothetical subway extension from the west extremely challenging (and expensive). But maybe a hypothetical subway extension doesn’t necessarily have to come from west of the airport. If I may, I’d like to suggest a subway extension coming from south. I’m probably going to get blowback for suggesting this, but I’m going to suggest instead of having an AirTrain connecting to the (7)<7>, why take all the (7) trains that drop out/get put in at Willets Point or 111th and send those trains to LGA. The connection would travel over whichever path they choose for the AirTrain, but it would turn southwest toward 111th St instead of northeast toward Mets-Willets Point. What I’m suggesting is have most (maybe not all) (7) local trains operate to/from LGA as (11) trains (I like 11 because it rhymes with 7, but I’m open to using another number). Now before you yell at your computer, tablet or smartphone, keep in mind, Main St can’t turn the entire (7) and <7> rush hour operations. So why not have those trains operate from the airport and have a direct connection to the Queens Blvd Line at 74th St, all of the LIRR at Woodside, the (N)(W) at QBP, plus every north-south line in Midtown?

On 10/21/2020 at 2:13 AM, Vulturious said:

Couldn't the same be implemented for the (N) and (W) extension from Ditmars to LaGuardia? I mean the AirTrain is going to be concrete which would make it more quiet, I don't see why the same couldn't be done for Astoria? This really isn't going to really help that much in the long run either, regardless whenever ridership increases again, it'll just make things more complicated than it needs to be. Especially for the (7) which is already crowded as is on a normal day.

Indeed, the <7> is crowded as is into and out of Main St. But as someone who rode the (7) line all the time prior to Covid, I noticed a couple  rather interesting things about service into and out of Flushing. There were times I’d take a (7) local if it was the next train to leave. And it wouldn’t be crowded. In fact, it would have plenty of seats available until 103rd St. Same in the evening if I found myself transferring to the (7) at Roosevelt. This was never the case with the <7>, of course (well, maybe now it is). And much of the local service is either put in or dropped out at Willets Point or 111th. I found these trains to have plenty of room, even seats,  available. During rush hours.  

On 10/20/2020 at 10:43 PM, R10 2952 said:

Finally a voice of reason; thank you.  In another thread I tried to explain to some of them MTA doesn't give jack shit about their deinterlining ideas or other concepts for improving the system- went right over their heads, of course...

Yes, it’s true. They don’t give jack shit about our ideas. And that’s the problem. We all know what a recalcitrant, cynical organization the MTA can be. The problem with that is it’s going to hurt the region in the long run. 

Don’t forget in 2009, their original doomsday service plan called for truncating the (brownM) at Chambers and keeping the (V) as is. They wanted to eliminate the (Z) and run the (J) as an all-stop train at only 8 tph. For years, posters on this forum, Subchat, the Rider Diaries and elsewhere suggested operating a 6th (or even an 8th Ave) service through the Williamsburg Bridge connection, only to be met with the same answer that the MTA didn’t give jack shit if it would have any potential improvements over the then-current (brownM) and (V), because the last time they ran a service through there (the (K), which was eliminated in 1976), no one rode it. Well, it also didn’t help that they ran mostly decrepit pre-war cars on the (K) and that its service hours were limited. But when they saw it was cheaper and more efficient to combine the (brownM) and (V) than keep them separate, they did it and gave us the (M).

Now I don’t know if deinterlining DeKalb and/or Rogers costs less than the current setups at both junctions. I would imagine it’s less wear and tear on the switches and signals in those areas. Maybe fewer trains needed to provide the service. I really don’t know. But it should be worth a look. Just flat-out saying, “No, absolutely not, because the way we do it now is the way we’ve always done it!” is not the answer.

On 10/21/2020 at 9:39 PM, R10 2952 said:

The mayor's role has varied depending on who's held the office, but they certainly do have a sizeable influence, at least as far as NYCT is concerned.

Mayor Wagner arranged for the City to pay for the first 300 cars in the R32 contract in 1963.  Under Lindsay, the City headed wage negotiations during the 1966 transit strike.  In 1975, Beame was the one who issued the order to stop work on the Second Avenue Subway.  In the 1980s, Koch was one of the main people behind the anti-graffiti push.  In the 1990s Giuliani pushed for the Transit Police to be phased out in favor of NYPD, and and at another point he was the one who threatened the TWU with huge fines when they threatened to strike .  In the 2000s, Bloomberg pushed for NYCT to build the 7 Extension and take over the PBLs.  Et cetera, et cetera..

So yeah, the mayors certainly flex their muscle when they want to, which is why deBlasio claiming 4-5 years ago the City "has no control" was such a joke to me.

This I agree with you. De Blasio’s attitude towards the subway is beyond disappointing. Compared to past mayors, he really doesn’t seem to care very much about subway or bus service in the City and I’m really not sure why he doesn’t care and hasn’t in all the time he’s been mayor. If Bloomberg was able to push $2.2 Billion for the (7) Hudson Yards extension, then why the hell couldn’t de Blasio put money toward even small improvements to the existing system. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Indeed, the <7> is crowded as is into and out of Main St. But as someone who rode the (7) line all the time prior to Covid, I noticed a couple  rather interesting things about service into and out of Flushing. There were times I’d take a (7) local if it was the next train to leave. And it wouldn’t be crowded. In fact, it would have plenty of seats available until 103rd St. Same in the evening if I found myself transferring to the (7) at Roosevelt. This was never the case with the <7>, of course (well, maybe now it is). And much of the local service is either put in or dropped out at Willets Point or 111th. I found these trains to have plenty of room, even seats,  available. During rush hours.  

Yes, it’s true. They don’t give jack shit about our ideas. And that’s the problem. We all know what a recalcitrant, cynical organization the MTA can be. The problem with that is it’s going to hurt the region in the long run. 

Don’t forget in 2009, their original doomsday service plan called for truncating the (brownM) at Chambers and keeping the (V) as is. They wanted to eliminate the (Z) and run the (J) as an all-stop train at only 8 tph. For years, posters on this forum, Subchat, the Rider Diaries and elsewhere suggested operating a 6th (or even an 8th Ave) service through the Williamsburg Bridge connection, only to be met with the same answer that the MTA didn’t give jack shit if it would have any potential improvements over the then-current (brownM) and (V), because the last time they ran a service through there (the (K), which was eliminated in 1976), no one rode it. Well, it also didn’t help that they ran mostly decrepit pre-war cars on the (K) and that its service hours were limited. But when they saw it was cheaper and more efficient to combine the (brownM) and (V) than keep them separate, they did it and gave us the (M).

Now I don’t know if deinterlining DeKalb and/or Rogers costs less than the current setups at both junctions. I would imagine it’s less wear and tear on the switches and signals in those areas. Maybe fewer trains needed to provide the service. I really don’t know. But it should be worth a look. Just flat-out saying, “No, absolutely not, because the way we do it now is the way we’ve always done it!” is not the answer.

This I agree with you. De Blasio’s attitude towards the subway is beyond disappointing. Compared to past mayors, he really doesn’t seem to care very much about subway or bus service in the City and I’m really not sure why he doesn’t care and hasn’t in all the time he’s been mayor. If Bloomberg was able to push $2.2 Billion for the (7) Hudson Yards extension, then why the hell couldn’t de Blasio put money toward even small improvements to the existing system. 

The way I see it personally, it would be worse for people regardless on both the (7)/<7>. Mainly between Queensboro and 34th St-Hudson Yard because its just 2 tracks. If people actually do end up using the LGA Airtrain, people in Manhattan would crowd up stations on the (7) even more than it already is, along with stations up to Queensboro if people plan to take the (N) or (W) into Queens to transfer. Highly doubtful that would happen, but again if people actually plan on using it both ridership as well as crowding would increase.

Agreed on the idea of taking a look at someone's suggestion is much better than the "No, screw you, deal with it!" At least if the MTA took a look at something, they can at least say "we've taken a look at the idea and conclude yada yada yada is not possible because of yada yada yada."

When it comes to DeBlasio, we all know how incompetent he is. The man has done barely anything to make the city better or barely contribute anything at all. I mean the man literally tried running for president, so many people laughed immediately thinking it was joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Vulturious said:

The way I see it personally, it would be worse for people regardless on both the (7)/<7>. Mainly between Queensboro and 34th St-Hudson Yard because its just 2 tracks. If people actually do end up using the LGA Airtrain, people in Manhattan would crowd up stations on the (7) even more than it already is, along with stations up to Queensboro if people plan to take the (N) or (W) into Queens to transfer. Highly doubtful that would happen, but again if people actually plan on using it both ridership as well as crowding would increase.

Agreed on the idea of taking a look at someone's suggestion is much better than the "No, screw you, deal with it!" At least if the MTA took a look at something, they can at least say "we've taken a look at the idea and conclude yada yada yada is not possible because of yada yada yada."

When it comes to DeBlasio, we all know how incompetent he is. The man has done barely anything to make the city better or barely contribute anything at all. I mean the man literally tried running for president, so many people laughed immediately thinking it was joke. 

The (N)(W) from the Queensboro Plaza to 57th-7th is also only two tracks. And currently has to share with the (R). At least an (11) train to/from LGA would only be sharing with the (7). What it would require, is to run more trains per hour than the (7)  currently runs. But I think that is possible because I’ve seen many posts on various forms stating that the (7) local/express combined ran 36 tph. With CBTC, I don’t see why it would be impossible.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2020 at 12:46 AM, Kamen Rider said:

You're missing the big picture... the 7000' picture. Anything coming from the west has to find a way to pass the approach to Runway 4. Extending the N/W would require ether

A: going the long way around, which would require relocation of a lot of the airport's support infrastructure along with reconfiguring the roads... again... because the trains would have to be ground level so planes don't slam into them.

or

B: Build a tunnel under the airport... which would an absolute nightmare. La Guardia was built by dumping fill and trash into metal frames. those frames are still there and are still causing problems' for pilots' compasses. Plus, Runway 4 would probably need to be closed while they were digging. 

That's why the FAA is onboard with Airtrain, they have the final say as the regulator of the aviation industry. they don't want ether of the subway extension possibilities because they both end up disrupting the airport's operations.

To be fair this is strictly a problem with the NW as a specific extension option. And even then this was solvable given that this was a real proposal in 2001 mostly killed to pay for 9/11 rebuilding.

There are numerous ways one could solve a problem with a western approach, like:

  • LRT with its own ROW and some level crossings (only needs to be level around the runway)
  • a dedicated two-way busway in the airport speeding up buses and allowing reasonable through connections onward to Flushing etc.
On 10/21/2020 at 4:01 PM, R10 2952 said:

When I see the MTA take affirmative steps to fix these things that go beyond mere topical solutions, I'll believe it.  Until then...

But why comment your negativity and discourage others? Not everyone's on this forum for car assignments. Should we call the R211 and R262 threads "pointless" because there is no foreseeable money for those orders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as the old saying goes, money talks...

Not that I think the R211 or R262 contracts are dead, but they most probably will end up going back to the drawing board- I just don't see the federal government coming through with financial aid anytime soon, if at all.  The era of exercising all options and placing large base orders may well be over at this point.

Meanwhile, there's people around here now calling for the replacement of the R68/As.  Somebody show me where the cash for this will come from when the agency is facing one of the largest deficits they've ever seen? 🤔

 

Quote

50520838618_bbfd49eb4b_c.jpg

Source: NBC New York.  According to  service cuts and layoffs to begin in December. 

Courtesy of @Future ENY OP

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Meanwhile, there's people around here now calling for the replacement of the R68/As.  Somebody show me where the cash for this will come from when the agency is facing one of the largest deficits they've ever seen? 🤔

Which doesn’t make sense because the 68/68A’s won’t retire anytime soon. At the very least, we’ll probably see them within the mid-2030’s which (hopefully) things will be better by then. 

 

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If I may, I’d like to suggest a subway extension coming from south. I’m probably going to get blowback for suggesting this, but I’m going to suggest instead of having an AirTrain connecting to the (7)<7>, why take all the (7) trains that drop out/get put in at Willets Point or 111th and send those trains to LGA. The connection would travel over whichever path they choose for the AirTrain, but it would turn southwest toward 111th St instead of northeast toward Mets-Willets Point. What I’m suggesting is have most (maybe not all) (7) local trains operate to/from LGA as (11) trains (I like 11 because it rhymes with 7, but I’m open to using another number). Now before you yell at your computer, tablet or smartphone, keep in mind, Main St can’t turn the entire (7) and <7> rush hour operations. So why not have those trains operate from the airport and have a direct connection to the Queens Blvd Line at 74th St, all of the LIRR at Woodside, the (N)(W) at QBP, plus every north-south line in Midtown?
 

I thought of something similar to this, just running all Short Turn (both 111th and Willets Point bound) (7) runs to LGA, at least it does provide a better alternative to the AirTrain but the Length and Width of A Divison Train cars is where my concern is at regarding this proposal.
 

22 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Well as the old saying goes, money talks...

Guess you can’t argue with that, but it shouldn’t stop one from brainstorming ideas and scenarios with the intent to improve Transit within NYC (not just the subway system, but also the buses and railroads too)!

 

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra
Tried to write the posts in a certain order but typing on Mobile is difficult
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

Well as the old saying goes, money talks...

Not that I think the R211 or R262 contracts are dead, but they most probably will end up going back to the drawing board- I just don't see the federal government coming through with financial aid anytime soon, if at all.  The era of exercising all options and placing large base orders may well be over at this point.

Meanwhile, there's people around here now calling for the replacement of the R68/As.  Somebody show me where the cash for this will come from when the agency is facing one of the largest deficits they've ever seen? 🤔

 

Courtesy of @Future ENY OP

And if we don't talk about that and we don't talk about fantasy what's left to talk about? The 2000th picture of an R160?

No one's making you participate in threads, which is why I don't really get what the point of these weird flexes is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2020 at 8:58 PM, R10 2952 said:

Well as the old saying goes, money talks...

Not that I think the R211 or R262 contracts are dead, but they most probably will end up going back to the drawing board- I just don't see the federal government coming through with financial aid anytime soon, if at all.  The era of exercising all options and placing large base orders may well be over at this point.

Meanwhile, there's people around here now calling for the replacement of the R68/As.  Somebody show me where the cash for this will come from when the agency is facing one of the largest deficits they've ever seen? 🤔

 

Courtesy of @Future ENY OP

At the very least, they should prioritize replacing the R46s, which from what I’ve been reading are becoming maintenance headaches. Possibly the R44 SI cars too. It becomes more expensive over time to maintain older equipment, unless it continues to run well. The R62 and R68 series cars do have better maintenance records and and they can probably hold off on replacing them until later in the decade (or even next decade for the R68s) when the MTA’s finances might be in a better place. Even so, it’s still a lot of R211 cars that would be needed to replace the SI R44s and R46s, especially given that they’d be replacing 75-foot cars with shorter 60-footers. I would think they’ll do some kind of assessment on the R46s cars to determine which cars are doing the worst in service. The base R211 order is for 535 cars. That’s not nearly enough to replace all of the R46 and R44 SI cars. So the base order can be made to replace the worst performing cars. Then take it from there. 

On 10/23/2020 at 9:21 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Which doesn’t make sense because the 68/68A’s won’t retire anytime soon. At the very least, we’ll probably see them within the mid-2030’s which (hopefully) things will be better by then. 

 

I thought of something similar to this, just running all Short Turn (both 111th and Willets Point bound) (7) runs to LGA, at least it does provide a better alternative to the AirTrain but the Length and Width of A Divison Train cars is where my concern is at regarding this proposal.
 

Guess you can’t argue with that, but it shouldn’t stop one from brainstorming ideas and scenarios with the intent to improve Transit within NYC (not just the subway system, but also the buses and railroads too)!

 

Agreed that the replacement of the R68 series cars can be held pretty far off into the future if it takes a really long time for things to get better.  

Personally, I’m not worried about the width of the A-Division cars. CTA runs similarly sized cars on the Blue Line to O’Hare Airport and on the Orange Line to Midway. Transport for London runs even smaller 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow Airport. CTA and TfL have done so for decades and seem to manage relatively well. I can’t see how it would be any different here with an (11) train branching off the (7). And LGA is a much less busy airport than O’Hare or Heathrow (I believe it’s on par with Midway). I certainly fail to see how a people mover much further away that only connects to the (7) and just one LIRR branch is better. I definitely don’t see how it would be better than what Chicago and London have.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all can agree that a direct connection subway is better than any people mover type idea.  First, it eliminates a transfer.  Second, it does provide a one-seat ride from Manhattan.  The proposed 11 train, would give a one seat ride to Grand Central, Bryant Park, Times Square, and Hudson Yards and of course a one transfer ride from all of the main trunk lines.  Third, is fare policy.  More often than not, when a separate people mover is used, a separate fare is expected.  For JFK, it is so exorbitant, because even if you have already paid $2.75 (or a LIRR fare to Jamaica), you then have to fork over an additional $7.75.  [It is true that some airports with people movers will allow a ride from the terminals to the nearby regular subway station for free, but given JFK - we would have to assume at least $5 additonal for the LGA air train without a free subway transfer.]  However, if the airport is just another station on the subway line, it is likely to be at normal subway fares (or even if at a premium, not a super premium).  Chicago's L, which like NYC MTA, is designed with paying as you enter and not tapping as you exit, charges a $2.50 fare.  No extra fare to exit at O'Hare.  $5 instead of $2.50 is charged to enter from O'Hare.  No premium at all is charged for riding to Midway, largely because it is also a major bus transfer point as well as a stop to service the airport.  If the LGA were on the subway, it would be difficult to charge an extra fare upon exiting and even if an extra fare upon entering, it is less likely to be exorbitant, and it will also cover your subway fare and give you a bus transfer as well.

However, it has to be acknowledged that splitting the (7) does mean that less service will be available, since we have to split (7) to serve both LGA and Flushing.  Given some of the earlier comments, this may not be a problem as more trains can turn back at Hudson Yards than at Flushing, so the extra trains (that would normally terminate early) are just diverted to LGA instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mrsman said:

I think we all can agree that a direct connection subway is better than any people mover type idea.  First, it eliminates a transfer.  Second, it does provide a one-seat ride from Manhattan.  The proposed 11 train, would give a one seat ride to Grand Central, Bryant Park, Times Square, and Hudson Yards and of course a one transfer ride from all of the main trunk lines.  Third, is fare policy.  More often than not, when a separate people mover is used, a separate fare is expected.  For JFK, it is so exorbitant, because even if you have already paid $2.75 (or a LIRR fare to Jamaica), you then have to fork over an additional $7.75.  [It is true that some airports with people movers will allow a ride from the terminals to the nearby regular subway station for free, but given JFK - we would have to assume at least $5 additonal for the LGA air train without a free subway transfer.]  However, if the airport is just another station on the subway line, it is likely to be at normal subway fares (or even if at a premium, not a super premium).  Chicago's L, which like NYC MTA, is designed with paying as you enter and not tapping as you exit, charges a $2.50 fare.  No extra fare to exit at O'Hare.  $5 instead of $2.50 is charged to enter from O'Hare.  No premium at all is charged for riding to Midway, largely because it is also a major bus transfer point as well as a stop to service the airport.  If the LGA were on the subway, it would be difficult to charge an extra fare upon exiting and even if an extra fare upon entering, it is less likely to be exorbitant, and it will also cover your subway fare and give you a bus transfer as well.

However, it has to be acknowledged that splitting the (7) does mean that less service will be available, since we have to split (7) to serve both LGA and Flushing.  Given some of the earlier comments, this may not be a problem as more trains can turn back at Hudson Yards than at Flushing, so the extra trains (that would normally terminate early) are just diverted to LGA instead.

The problems with the (7)

  • the trains terminating early are local trains, and riding local trains all the way into Manhattan wouldn't be very quick
  • the trains terminate early but they also have an important relief role on the (7) ; filling up with airport passengers would worsen overcrowding
  • the (7) 's extreme depth in Manhattan makes it quite unattractive for, say, people with luggage.

Granted the last two also a problem with the LGA AirTrain, but I'd rather have no-build than force any (7) connection

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problems with the (7)

  • the trains terminating early are local trains, and riding local trains all the way into Manhattan wouldn't be very quick
  • the trains terminate early but they also have an important relief role on the (7) ; filling up with airport passengers would worsen overcrowding
  • the (7) 's extreme depth in Manhattan makes it quite unattractive for, say, people with luggage.

Granted the last two also a problem with the LGA AirTrain, but I'd rather have no-build than force any (7) connection

Your second point is a fair one, but wouldn’t that be the case with pretty much any direct subway extension to the airport? 

Both Chicago’s Blue Line and London’s Piccadilly Line also have the first issue (Piccadilly does run express between Acton Town and Barons Court, although it skips only three stops). The Piccadilly Line is also located deep below ground. But I wouldn’t call either airport-subway link is unpopular or undesirable. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Your second point is a fair one, but wouldn’t that be the case with pretty much any direct subway extension to the airport? 

Both Chicago’s Blue Line and London’s Piccadilly Line also have the first issue (Piccadilly does run express between Acton Town and Barons Court, although it skips only three stops). The Piccadilly Line is also located deep below ground. But I wouldn’t call either airport-subway link is unpopular or undesirable. 

Quite frankly LGA is not a priority when it comes to Queens extensions, because all the trains are already full! (Except the (G) but I don't think anyone thinks that's useful)

I've always preferred a light rail/BRT/people mover roughly replacing the Q70 and then continuing on to Flushing.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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