Original Expansion Plans Discussion

[Lawrence St]

Post edited by @Deucey after merging into here the thread "So instead of expanding the subway, we're building an AirTrain that no one wants?"

Original Post from this thread:

This thread is for OFFICAL PROPOSALS that were made by either the city, state, or  ONLY! No fantasy proposals!

So let me start off the discussion with the original extension to Bedford Park Blvd. Unlike the current today, 148th St and Lenox Yard would have not been built, instead the  would've turned onto 155th St into a weird 1 side platform and 1 island platform with 3 tracks 155th St station, then turned right via the old 9th Av ROW, skipping Jerome Av (which would've remained abandoned) to Anderson Av, then onto the Jerome Line to Bedford Park Blvd. What I find really intriguing about this proposal is the fact that they thought Bedford Park Blvd was a good terminal for the  (dont know how they would have turned the  around there without delaying the  ) and the fact that only Anderson Av was to be rebuilt. 155th St also looks like it would have been built as 4 tracks instead of 3

Original first post from thread "So instead of expanding the subway, we're building an AirTrain that no one wants?"

and riders know to well, the Astoria Line is always at capacity with no room to expand with existing services or for future services (such as the ). Extending the Astoria Line to LGA would not only be beneficial for millions of commuters, it would also greatly improve operations within the BMT divison with a new yard between Ditmars Blvd and LGA.

But why are politicians so set on this stupid AirTrain that no one is asking for??? Wasting all this money on new infrastructure that can be used to expand existing infrastructure shouldn't be happening, especially when the new AirTrain terminal is out of everyone's way.

Can someone please explain this backwards logic?

Edited January 19, 2021 by Deucey
Merged posts

[Lex]

17 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

and riders know to well, the Astoria Line is always at capacity with no room to expand with existing services or for future services (such as the ). Extending the Astoria Line to LGA would not only be beneficial for millions of commuters, it would also greatly improve operations within the BMT divison with a new yard between Ditmars Blvd and LGA.

But why are politicians so set on this stupid AirTrain that no one is asking for??? Wasting all this money on new infrastructure that can be used to expand existing infrastructure shouldn't be happening, especially when the new AirTrain terminal is out of everyone's way.

Can someone please explain this backwards logic?

Did this really warrant a separate thread, especially since you should already know the answer?

[NewFlyer 230]

7 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

and riders know to well, the Astoria Line is always at capacity with no room to expand with existing services or for future services (such as the ). Extending the Astoria Line to LGA would not only be beneficial for millions of commuters, it would also greatly improve operations within the BMT divison with a new yard between Ditmars Blvd and LGA.

But why are politicians so set on this stupid AirTrain that no one is asking for??? Wasting all this money on new infrastructure that can be used to expand existing infrastructure shouldn't be happening, especially when the new AirTrain terminal is out of everyone's way.

Can someone please explain this backwards logic?

I would argue that it’s the same reason why guys like Cuomo want to extend the Highline another block or two to the new side of Penn Station knowing damn well that the money would be better spent trying to come up with solutions on how the city can reduce its homelessness issue. A lot of politicians simply don’t care about what would make the most sense especially when it comes to helping out people but instead prioritize projects that they can put their name on. It’s sad because that new hall at Penn Station is beautiful but right outside of it you have a bunch of homeless walking around and I’m sure once things with covid die down you’ll probably see the homeless inside the place. 

I personally think there is nothing wrong with the Q70 SBS. It now has artic buses and runs nonstop to Jackson Heights where you can transfer to multiple bus and train routes. At Woodside the LIRR is available and the bus would do a far better job than this expensive Airtrain would do. It is not even going to Downtown Flushing which would arguable make constructing the Airtrain more justifiable. 

[Trainmaster5]

13 minutes ago, Lex said:

Did this really warrant a separate thread, especially since you should already know the answer?

Although we know the answer,  or think we do, the simple reason pertains to the funding mechanism.  A PANY&NJ  project or an MTA one ?  Carry on. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Trainmaster5

[Lawrence St]

14 minutes ago, Lex said:

Did this really warrant a separate thread, especially since you should already know the answer?

This issue affects multiple things in the NYC transportation network, so yes, it did warrant a separate thread.

[Lawrence St]

2 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Although we know the answer,  or think we do, the simple reason pertains to the funding mechanism.  A PANY&NJ  project or a NY (mta) one?  Carry on. 

Wouldn't this be a joint project between the two agencies though? How does CTA do it with the Blue Line at O'Hare?

[Trainmaster5]

4 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Wouldn't this be a joint project between the two agencies though? How does CTA do it with the Blue Line at O'Hare?

Correct me if I'm wrong but AirTran projects in this metro area are PANY&NJ services for airport passengers who pay for me right to not mingle with the regular commuters. 

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Wouldn't this be a joint project between the two agencies though? How does CTA do it with the Blue Line at O'Hare?

 

8 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but AirTran projects in this metro area are PANY&NJ services for airport passengers who pay for me right to not mingle with the regular commuters. 

Not only is this only being funded by PANYNJ, the way that this is probably being financed (fees on airline tickets) is, by federal law, only allowed to be used on airport-specific projects.

This is the primary reason why, despite the fact that it might be a good idea for ridership in general, there are no stops between Federal Circle and Jamaica.

[Mtatransit]

12 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

and riders know to well, the Astoria Line is always at capacity with no room to expand with existing services or for future services (such as the ). Extending the Astoria Line to LGA would not only be beneficial for millions of commuters, it would also greatly improve operations within the BMT divison with a new yard between Ditmars Blvd and LGA.

But why are politicians so set on this stupid AirTrain that no one is asking for??? Wasting all this money on new infrastructure that can be used to expand existing infrastructure shouldn't be happening, especially when the new AirTrain terminal is out of everyone's way.

Can someone please explain this backwards logic?

I don't see an area where you could put a new yard in that general area between Ditmars and LGA. That area is very residential, unless you want to remove the plants in that area

 

On a positive note, tourist would enjoy the real NYC subway experience. That is witnessing pushing, shoving and fights at 74th Street trying to get on the  . 

Then once they get there they will enjoy paying $7.75 more at Mets-Willets Point for the airtrain ignorant of the fact that the Q48 is right there.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Mtatransit

[Lawrence St]

24 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

I don't see an area where you could put a new yard in that general area between Ditmars and LGA. That area is very residential, unless you want to remove the plants in that area

 

On a positive note, tourist would enjoy the real NYC subway experience. That is witnessing pushing, shoving and fights at 74th Street trying to get on the  . 

Then once they get there they will enjoy paying $7.75 more at Mets-Willets Point for the airtrain ignorant of the fact that the Q48 is right there.

Honestly, I don't see what the issue with the Q70-SBS is. It could be much better if it became an actual BRT route with dedicated bus lanes on the highway, which would also make a great test for the XE60's.

[Mtatransit]

6 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Honestly, I don't see what the issue with the Q70-SBS is. It could be much better if it became an actual BRT route with dedicated bus lanes on the highway, which would also make a great test for the XE60's.

With the traffic condition in that area, I don't think its feasible putting a dedicated busway on that portion of the BQE and GCP (or any portion as a matter in fact in Brooklyn and Queens)

Edited January 16, 2021 by Mtatransit

[bobtehpanda]

41 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

With the traffic condition in that area, I don't think its feasible putting a dedicated busway on that portion of the BQE and GCP (or any portion as a matter in fact in Brooklyn and Queens)

Having never ridden it, is that the slow part? It's been a while since I drove through the area but is it possible to use shoulder running to speed that up?

I feel like you would only need very small construction projects to speed it up, like

• a direct ramp from the BQE northbound to LGA, avoiding the turns on 94th St
• a reasonable two-way path within the airport itself (as in, not a loop)

and then I don't know what you'd do about the southern bit. Is the leg to Woodside heavily used?

[Lex]

3 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I don't see an area where you could put a new yard in that general area between Ditmars and LGA. That area is very residential, unless you want to remove the plants in that area

Then don't put it there. Willets Point is a thing, as are the many parking lots, some of which could be converted into multi-story garages if parking is really that much of an issue.

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Honestly, I don't see what the issue with the Q70-SBS is. It could be much better if it became an actual BRT route with dedicated bus lanes on the highway, which would also make a great test for the XE60's.

The Q70 isn't a train, that's what the "issue" is..... Same ordeal surrounding suggesting an LGA AIRtrain from Astoria Blvd. subway to go about neutering the M60.....

[Bay Ridge Express]

19 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’m sure once things with covid die down you’ll probably see the homeless inside the place.

Already seen it on day two.

[Lex]

16 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

Not only is this only being funded by PANYNJ, the way that this is probably being financed (fees on airline tickets) is, by federal law, only allowed to be used on airport-specific projects.

This is the primary reason why, despite the fact that it might be a good idea for ridership in general, there are no stops between Federal Circle and Jamaica.

That's one law that I'd readily kill if I had the power to do that.

[bobtehpanda]

33 minutes ago, Lex said:

That's one law that I'd readily kill if I had the power to do that.

Meh, it's a law that prevents the perversion of the user fees model; user fees aren't supposed to be used for anything the user is not directly using. And the PFC is literally a surcharge on airplane tickets.

If NYC wants more subway extensions, they can raise the dedicated funding taxes already present, or they can figure out where to save money with the existing projects. Which, given the fact that we have the most expensive subway projects in the world, would probably not be the worst place to start.

[Lex]

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Meh, it's a law that prevents the perversion of the user fees model; user fees aren't supposed to be used for anything the user is not directly using. And the PFC is literally a surcharge on airplane tickets.

If NYC wants more subway extensions, they can raise the dedicated funding taxes already present, or they can figure out where to save money with the existing projects. Which, given the fact that we have the most expensive subway projects in the world, would probably not be the worst place to start.

If someone thought to make the argument that any plan with intermediate stops would merely have the side benefit of improving general travel in the process (including the potential to open up job opportunities at the airport), only to be laughed at, or if no one's attempted to make said argument in fear of such, then as far as I'm concerned, both the funding structure and the law surrounding said structure are pure bullshit that reinforce each other. The same applies if we're talking about obtaining funding exclusively for the portion on airport grounds.

Yeah, something needs to be done about MTA costs, but that only does so much.

[Trainmaster5]

26 minutes ago, Lex said:

If someone thought to make the argument that any plan with intermediate stops would merely have the side benefit of improving general travel in the process (including the potential to open up job opportunities at the airport), only to be laughed at, or if no one's attempted to make said argument in fear of such, then as far as I'm concerned, both the funding structure and the law surrounding said structure are pure bullshit that reinforce each other. The same applies if we're talking about obtaining funding exclusively for the portion on airport grounds.

Yeah, something needs to be done about MTA costs, but that only does so much.

I understand your point of contention fully. I think that you are overlooking a major point however. The PA is a creation of the states of New York and New Jersey. The subway system belongs to New York City .  LGA, JFK, and EWR are PA territory. NYC, through it’s own Transit Authority didn’t agree with your idea. That’s the reason we had the JFK express which didn’t enter the airport property itself, was more costly than the  , and bypassed most of potential ridership base on purpose. The only legal subway service, aside from the AirTrain, would have to be provided by PATH, if my understanding of the laws are correct. Changing said laws would require 2 state legislatures to agree, revisions to the original covenant forming the PA, and the bond holders agreement . There’s also the sticky point about the PATH/NYCT relationship to consider. Big hurdle. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I understand your point of contention fully. I think that you are overlooking a major point however. The PA is a creation of the states of New York and New Jersey. The subway system belongs to New York City .  LGA, JFK, and EWR are PA territory. NYC, through it’s own Transit Authority didn’t agree with your idea. That’s the reason we had the JFK express which didn’t enter the airport property itself, was more costly than the  , and bypassed most of potential ridership base on purpose. The only legal subway service, aside from the AirTrain, would have to be provided by PATH, if my understanding of the laws are correct. Changing said laws would require 2 state legislatures to agree, revisions to the original covenant forming the PA, and the bond holders agreement . There’s also the sticky point about the PATH/NYCT relationship to consider. Big hurdle. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

Indeed, the issue is that money doesn't grow on trees, the MTA doesn't have money, the City doesn't have money, the State doesn't have money, but PANYNJ is more or less free to sock it to the toll-payers, and as the manager of the airports is free to charge a ticket surcharge but for airport purposes only.

If we can get mad over MTA funding ski resorts upstate because that's unrelated to the funding charter, then this is the flip side of that coin. If we can rightfully say that the feds were right to demand payment back for ARC instead of letting New Jersey spread the money around, this is the flip side of that coin.

It is also worth noting that the current AirTrain JFK is not the original plan for that project. The original plan was for it to go past Jamaica, to LGA, and then I think end where the Roosevelt Tram terminal is. That also failed because no one could find the money.

Edited January 17, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Lex said:

If someone thought to make the argument that any plan with intermediate stops would merely have the side benefit of improving general travel in the process (including the potential to open up job opportunities at the airport), only to be laughed at, or if no one's attempted to make said argument in fear of such, then as far as I'm concerned, both the funding structure and the law surrounding said structure are pure bullshit that reinforce each other. The same applies if we're talking about obtaining funding exclusively for the portion on airport grounds.

Yeah, something needs to be done about MTA costs, but that only does so much.

The end result of opening up this federal law as a general transportation piggy bank would probably be the removal to exercise this charge at all. The airlines already hate this charge as it is.

[MHV9218]

On 1/16/2021 at 11:50 AM, bobtehpanda said:

Not only is this only being funded by PANYNJ, the way that this is probably being financed (fees on airline tickets) is, by federal law, only allowed to be used on airport-specific projects.

This is the primary reason why, despite the fact that it might be a good idea for ridership in general, there are no stops between Federal Circle and Jamaica.

 

9 hours ago, Lex said:

If someone thought to make the argument that any plan with intermediate stops would merely have the side benefit of improving general travel in the process (including the potential to open up job opportunities at the airport), only to be laughed at, or if no one's attempted to make said argument in fear of such, then as far as I'm concerned, both the funding structure and the law surrounding said structure are pure bullshit that reinforce each other. The same applies if we're talking about obtaining funding exclusively for the portion on airport grounds.

Yeah, something needs to be done about MTA costs, but that only does so much.

Yeah, my question with this has always been, how wide is the 'airport-specific' benefit? Cause what Lex is saying is perfectly plausible to me, and you have to figure something like the JFK Express or other direct-to-airport services combined a direct benefit to the airport and its passengers with a general service system-wide. Arguably, you could even claim a subway extension to the airport is 'airport-specific' if it massively increased traffic to the airport. I don't really understand why the law would require a distinct modal form (i.e., sky-tram rather than subway) just to distinguish the new service from other available options. But I don't know really know how narrow the federal language is.

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Yeah, my question with this has always been, how wide is the 'airport-specific' benefit? Cause what Lex is saying is perfectly plausible to me, and you have to figure something like the JFK Express or other direct-to-airport services combined a direct benefit to the airport and its passengers with a general service system-wide. Arguably, you could even claim a subway extension to the airport is 'airport-specific' if it massively increased traffic to the airport. I don't really understand why the law would require a distinct modal form (i.e., sky-tram rather than subway) just to distinguish the new service from other available options. But I don't know really know how narrow the federal language is.

Relevant text in the federal code:

Quote

(a)Prohibition.—Local taxes on aviation fuel (except taxes in effect on December 30, 1987) or the revenues generated by an airport that is the subject of Federal assistance may not be expended for any purpose other than the capital or operating costs of—

 the airport;

 the local airport system; or

 any other local facility that is owned or operated by the person or entity that owns or operates the airport that is directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property.

where 3 is subject to interpretation by the FAA, and airlines can lodge public comments against a PFC.

There isn't a modal split mandated by law. However, because of the following limitations:

• PFC projects have to be owned or operated by the airport operator
• They have to be "substantially" related to the airport
• The PFC funding is really not a lot. The cap is $4.50 a flight segment involving the local airport, and a passenger can only be charged $18 for their entire round-trip flight, and the PFC is for *all airport improvements*, so LGA AirTrain, JFK and LGA remodeling, the existing AirTrain JFK operations, and everything else only gets $4.50 a flight total

This tends to bias towards short, automated systems, which most American rail systems are not, which is why you see all these different modal forms.

(I am not a lawyer, so take everything with a grain of salt)

Edited January 18, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[Lex]

8 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Relevant text in the federal code:

where 3 is subject to interpretation by the FAA, and airlines can lodge public comments against a PFC.

There isn't a modal split mandated by law. However, because of the following limitations:

• PFC projects have to be owned or operated by the airport operator
• They have to be "substantially" related to the airport
• The PFC funding is really not a lot. The cap is $4.50 a flight segment involving the local airport, and a passenger can only be charged $18 for their entire round-trip flight, and the PFC is for *all airport improvements*, so LGA AirTrain, JFK and LGA remodeling, the existing AirTrain JFK operations, and everything else only gets $4.50 a flight total

This tends to bias towards short, automated systems, which most American rail systems are not, which is why you see all these different modal forms.

And when was that cap set?

[bobtehpanda]

23 minutes ago, Lex said:

And when was that cap set?

2001.

It's worth noting that Wikipedia details several attempts to raise it or eliminate the cap (2015, 2016, 2017). Each attempt failed due to airline opposition arguing it would cut demand for air travel. And if you've haven't noticed airlines aren't doing too hot these days.