Jump to content

Could subway to LGA still be possible under this new FAA policy?


T to Dyre Avenue

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Lex said:

To/from Willets Point? The very same Willets Point with nothing of note beyond a few sports facilities?

If the talk about out-of-towners having multiple bags is the justification for building a train to nowhere with ridiculous fares, that's all the more reason to scrap it.

Yup.

They’ll ride it. Just like NYers flying out of and into LGA.

Sorry that disappoints you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 hours ago, Lex said:

Yeah, let's build something that ends in the middle of f*cking nowhere and requires either two transfers (from the east) or blowing past the airport, only to backtrack with a sky-high fare (from the west). That's a great idea.

For all its faults, the Q48 is a better use of resources.

Which is pathetic, given how useless the Q48 is a] in the bus network from start to finish & (more specifically) b] for transporting pax in/out of LGA....

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

To transit fans, yes it is.

But to folks with a cheap ticket to Chicago or Atlanta, or connecting to the West Coast, with several bags, they’re going to pay that sky high fare to avoid being stuck in traffic in cabs or on buses and possibly missing the flight - whether coming from the City or LI.

Quite a leap to go from transit fans to out-of-towners....

4 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Yup.

They’ll ride it. Just like NYers flying out of and into LGA.

Sorry that disappoints you.

Not enough of them enough for this rendition of an AIRTrain to be worth the price of admission, figuratively & literally speaking....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2021 at 6:33 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

My only question with an extension of the Astoria line to LGA is how do they go about doing it? Houses and such will have to be torn down to allow the elevated line to go to LGA past Ditmars Blvd unless the extension happens from the Astoria Blvd station where the line could run above the Grand Central Parkway? However that whole station would potentially have to be redone to allow tracks to spur off onto the Grand Central. 

Well it can be split into two segments after broadway the line splits kinda like how the (2) splits at 142 st or the (A) approaching Rockaway Blvd ...therw will be 2 (N) trains (similar to the split (A) trains. To leffets blvd and the Rockaways) after leaving broadway station which I think is the previous stop before Astoria Blvd the (N) train will use the center tracks be elevating (similar to how the (7) is at 111 st station) before arriving Astoria Blvd station the LGA bound (N) train will turn east and a upper level Astoria Blvd station will exist thus having the transfers between the 2 Astoria Blvd station at the northern end and west end respectively and the following stations would exist:

Steinway St

Hazen St 

82 Street 

94 Street

Terminal D

Terminal C 

Terminal B (last stop unless the mta risk it go to the deserted Marine Air Terminal)

In total 7 stops (8 if we count the upper level Astoria Blvd station) will thus be created

But there is a catch I mean if the (W) train exist why not let it stay at the remaining part of the Astoria line towards Ditmars Blvd and the (N) go towards the airport

Then again is quite a total waste since PANYNJ can easily have Airtrain do the actual q70 bus segment into a new line so I don't think extending a subway may be a good idea also if LGA gets a subway line in its airport why not the (A) train extended from leffets blvd towards the airport via Liberty Avenue and the van wyck...i mean if Chicago has its own subway line go towards its very busy airport at O'hare International Airport why not the more busier (MTA) Subway lines.

Edited by DS4Ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think the Willets Point idea is useless for LGA use I do wonder if this has something to do with the PA and EWR. I keep reading about the PA and Newark airport connection improvements and wonder if this is a New York State way to redirect some of this funding toward this side of the Hudson. I think I’ve made clear in my opposition to the westward swing of the SAS along 125th St. instead of a northward path to the Bronx that it’s money and not usefulness that’s been the primary motivator behind many of these projects. Maybe I have become more cynical these days. I think that Willets Point was chosen because where else could a maintenance facility be erected for this idea with minimal opposition and not threatening a land grab to threaten a residential neighborhood ? Just my opinion. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I personally think the Willets Point idea is useless for LGA use I do wonder if this has something to do with the PA and EWR. I keep reading about the PA and Newark airport connection improvements and wonder if this is a New York State way to redirect some of this funding toward this side of the Hudson. I think I’ve made clear in my opposition to the westward swing of the SAS along 125th St. instead of a northward path to the Bronx that it’s money and not usefulness that’s been the primary motivator behind many of these projects. Maybe I have become more cynical these days. I think that Willets Point was chosen because where else could a maintenance facility be erected for this idea with minimal opposition and not threatening a land grab to threaten a residential neighborhood ? Just my opinion. Carry on.

At least 125th Street has some potential. (Yes, I'd prefer to see a Bronx extension, but I'd argue that the former being a major street with plenty of connections and people in the vicinity warrants something. I'm actually of the opinion that the third phase should bring 125th Street service to Broadway and a Bronx extension to Fordham in addition to extending it to Houston Street. Of course, that requires money and better project management, so I don't expect anything of the sort.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lex said:

At least 125th Street has some potential. (Yes, I'd prefer to see a Bronx extension, but I'd argue that the former being a major street with plenty of connections and people in the vicinity warrants something. I'm actually of the opinion that the third phase should bring 125th Street service to Broadway and a Bronx extension to Fordham in addition to extending it to Houston Street. Of course, that requires money and better project management, so I don't expect anything of the sort.)

 Let's not forget that the theory of an extended bx41 may still occur to happens with the new redevelopment plans with the extension of the bx41 it will not only be the ONLY the longest Bronx Route but also the ONLY Bronx Route to enter Queens although in technically does enter it by virtue of the Q50 being that this bus line is based out of Eastchester depot in the Bronx so that makes the Q50 be the BX50 in reality but since the (MTA) hasn't made official the change is de facto the Q50...but yeah the BX41 is like the same route as the Q44 should the BX41 access the airport and (MTA) won't have to develop bus lanes not vending machines since the BX41 will coexist with the M60 between Astoria Blvd (N) station and LGA...this would mean than when either bus arrives the aforementioned subway station the B/O will have to speak at the speaker phones what route it is and what will be the next stop (for the M60 is 2nd a.m. and for the BX41 will be Willis av/135 st (NB) and 135 st/St Ann's av (SB) so in retrospect the BX41 will somewhat recuperate its old bus terminal but only til 138 Street

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I think that Willets Point was chosen because where else could a maintenance facility be erected for this idea with minimal opposition and not threatening a land grab to threaten a residential neighborhood....

Feasibility is all that it's been about.

The problem I have with this project is that it's being portrayed as the best option for potential commuters... The fact that it's the only option being presented, doesn't make it the best option.... This is the fallacy some people are buying into.... I don't operate from a scarcity mindset (this notion that anything is better than nothing, because nothing currently exists).... Quality matters.... For example, it's why you have as many subway enthusiasts (hell, commuters period) ridiculing the decrepit state of Chambers st (J).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Feasibility is all that it's been about.

The problem I have with this project is that it's being portrayed as the best option for potential commuters... The fact that it's the only option being presented, doesn't make it the best option.... This is the fallacy some people are buying into.... I don't operate from a scarcity mindset (this notion that anything is better than nothing, because nothing currently exists).... Quality matters.... For example, it's why you have as many subway enthusiasts (hell, commuters period) ridiculing the decrepit state of Chambers st (J).....

It's the " take it or leave it " , "my way or the highway " ramrod approach that bothers me the most. I used to fly out of LGA quite frequently and I always used an auto,  car service,  or airport shuttle service. Depending on your starting point this " proposal " doesn't make sense to me unless you're a contractor or a construction worker. Looks like a vanity project more than a realistic idea to me. My opinion.  Carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

It's the " take it or leave it " , "my way or the highway " ramrod approach that bothers me the most. I used to fly out of LGA quite frequently and I always used an auto,  car service,  or airport shuttle service. Depending on your starting point this " proposal " doesn't make sense to me unless you're a contractor or a construction worker. Looks like a vanity project more than a realistic idea to me. My opinion.  Carry on. 

Why do people favorite LaGuardia more then JFK? IIRC, LGA doesn't have direct flights to any place west of Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

It's the " take it or leave it " , "my way or the highway " ramrod approach that bothers me the most. I used to fly out of LGA quite frequently and I always used an auto,  car service,  or airport shuttle service. Depending on your starting point this " proposal " doesn't make sense to me unless you're a contractor or a construction worker. Looks like a vanity project more than a realistic idea to me. My opinion.  Carry on. 

Your sentiment is inclusive in my thoughts about the irrationality of this project; it supposedly being the best rail-based option for LGA commuters *because I said so*... So I most certainly concur that this project has more everything to do with the boosting of Cuomo's image (as he'd deem it doing so anyway).....

21 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Why do people favorite LaGuardia more then JFK? IIRC, LGA doesn't have direct flights to any place west of Texas.

Generally speaking, its proximity to Manhattan.

Ironically though, I read/hear more about ppl's frustrations with LGA.... Could partially explain the revamping of the thing, among other things.

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Your sentiment is inclusive in my thoughts about the irrationality of this project; it supposedly being the best rail-based option for LGA commuters *because I said so*....

I most certainly concur that this project has more everything to do with the boosting of Cuomo's image (as he'd deem it doing so anyway).....

Generally speaking, it's proximity to Manhattan....

Ironically though, I read/hear more about ppl's frustrations with LGA.... Could partially explain the revamping of the thing, among other things.

Based on what I've seen having ridden the M60 for almost a year, I can see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Why do people favorite LaGuardia more then JFK? IIRC, LGA doesn't have direct flights to any place west of Texas.

I'd say more people favor EWR over JFK at this point, at least for international flights- unlike Kennedy, Newark doesn't leave you waiting 2-1/2 hours to get through customs.  That incident several years ago was the last straw for me.

55 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Ironically though, I read/hear more about ppl's frustrations with LGA.... Could partially explain the revamping of the thing, among other things.

Strangely I've been able to dodge a lot of bullets at LGA over the years- the M60 can be a PITA sometimes, but it beats the Q10 slogging down Lefferts as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, R10 2952 said:

I'd say more people favor EWR over JFK at this point, at least for international flights- unlike Kennedy, Newark doesn't leave you waiting 2-1/2 hours to get through customs.  That incident several years ago was the last straw for me.

I get the same inkling.... I mean before (as in, I'd say, before the past decade or so), you didn't really hear NY-ers even mentioning EWR all that much... Over the course of time leading up to the present though, not only do I hear of more NY-ers referencing EWR, but proclaiming that it's better than JFK/LGA for their specific reasons....

Just now, R10 2952 said:

Strangely I've been able to dodge a lot of bullets at LGA over the years- the M60 can be a PITA sometimes, but it beats the Q10 slogging down Lefferts as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, I was talking about the airport/experience in general with that particular reply....

In terms of commuting by way of public transportation to those respective airports specifically, the M60 & Q70 alone beats the options available for JFK (Q3, Q10, B15) IMO..... JFK AIRTrain bridges the gap some, but then there's still the PITA for a lot of people to getting to either Howard Beach or Jamaica.... Well that, and the fare of course....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Why do people favorite LaGuardia more then JFK? IIRC, LGA doesn't have direct flights to any place west of Texas.

Proximity to Manhattan and more flights to mid market towns than JFK/EWR.

There used to be two flights from EWR & JFK to Sacramento, ZERO to Long Beach (CA) and ZERO to Ontario (CA) - I’d have to fly to SFO or LAX then spend at least 90 minutes driving to Sacramento, San Juan Capistrano, or San Bernardino. LGA would get me a connection to each airport at Chicago, SLC, ATL or DFW, and would cost less by $50+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2021 at 6:45 AM, Trainmaster5 said:

I personally think the Willets Point idea is useless for LGA use I do wonder if this has something to do with the PA and EWR. I keep reading about the PA and Newark airport connection improvements and wonder if this is a New York State way to redirect some of this funding toward this side of the Hudson. I think I’ve made clear in my opposition to the westward swing of the SAS along 125th St. instead of a northward path to the Bronx that it’s money and not usefulness that’s been the primary motivator behind many of these projects. Maybe I have become more cynical these days. I think that Willets Point was chosen because where else could a maintenance facility be erected for this idea with minimal opposition and not threatening a land grab to threaten a residential neighborhood ? Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

19 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

It's the " take it or leave it " , "my way or the highway " ramrod approach that bothers me the most. I used to fly out of LGA quite frequently and I always used an auto,  car service,  or airport shuttle service. Depending on your starting point this " proposal " doesn't make sense to me unless you're a contractor or a construction worker. Looks like a vanity project more than a realistic idea to me. My opinion.  Carry on. 

IIRC (I read pieces covering the EIS, not the actual document) this pretty much is what the linchpin of the whole LGA remodeling is.

The remodel will push the terminals much closer to the GCP to make room for more gates, taxiways, etc. This in turn squeezes out the parking lots that are currently in between the current terminal and the GCP. 

Airport passengers will still be able to park somewhere on the LGA property (and a good deal of traffic is mostly pickup/dropoff anyways), but the employees have to go somewhere, and the biggest open parcel of land in the area is Corona Park/Willets Point.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news:

http://blog.tstc.org/2021/02/24/subway-to-laguardia-made-possible-by-faa-rule-change/

Quote

Subway to LaGuardia Made Possible by FAA Rule Change

POSTED BY: LIAM BLANK FEBRUARY 24, 2021

An antiquated rule that led to the Port Authority choosing an airtrain over a subway extension to LaGuardia Airport is no more. Eliminating the rule is a game-changer for U.S. cities looking to build a direct rail connection to their airports, which is already the standard practice in Europe and many cities in Asia. Before rushing ahead with a $2 billion airtrain that already has a reputation as a boondoggle, the Port Authority must reevaluate how it plans to connect transit riders with LaGuardia.

Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) changed the rule that had been used as a primary argument against any proposal for extending the NYC Subway to LaGuardia Airport. The statute allowed airports, with the FAA’s permission, to charge a small Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) for airport improvements. Revenue generated by this statute–a maximum of $4.50 per airline ticket, which has not been increased in 20 years–could be used for specific types of internal airport improvements only, such as airtrains.

According to a 2018 analysis of LGA AirTrain alternatives by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), “Funding using a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) and/or airline contributions is necessary for this Project, and therefore, the selected alternative would have to comply with the FAA’s requirements for the use of such funding sources.”

In other words, while an extension of the subway to the airport was determined by PANYNJ to be technically feasible, choosing this alternative would disqualify the project from funding through PFCs—that is, until last month.

One of three subway extension alternatives evaluated by PANYNJ (Source: PANYNJ)

Getting funding for major transportation projects is a long and difficult process, so PFCs provide cities and airports a convenient way to fund airtrain projects that connect airport terminals to mass transit. The problem is that train-to-train-to-plane connections, while better than nothing, are incredibly inconvenient for commuters. Not only does it force an additional transfer and long walks with luggage, it requires paying an additional fare. If you’re a traveling family, those costs add up quickly, which then encourages more people to drive instead of using transit–the exact opposite of the project’s intended goal.

The preferred alignment of AirTrain LGA, which will connect to the NYC Transit 7 Line and LIRR Port Washington Line at Willets Point Station (Source: PANYNJ)

The new rule, however, makes an extension of NYC Transit’s N/W Line to LaGuardia eligible for funding by PFCs, with costs prorated typically by estimating the percentage of ridership that would use the new airport station. 

The Port Authority should now reconsider a more direct subway connection before spending billions on an airtrain that is out of the way and offers only minimal time-saving benefits. Furthermore, any urban transportation project of this scale is going to inevitably cause some degree of community disruption, but this must be appropriately weighed against the project’s overall improvements for the city and the regional transportation network. The easiest option, while tempting, is not always the most strategic one.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty good time to start reconsidering that AirTrain, especially with the troubles going on with the Governor. Who knows, maybe he bullied some of those guys to get the AirTrain done instead of looking for a bettter connection (hint, hint, if any politico is reading this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently creating a track map with a better version of all the original IND second system proposals + mine. I call it, the THIRD SYSTEM!

Anyway, in my Astoria Line modification proposal (which I will post when I'm back home), I have moved the Astoria Blvd station back about 400 feet, and created a flat junction towards the GCP from the NB local and middle track. Then, the line runs along the GCP along a two track elevated, with stops at Steinway at 82nd St, before LGA.

Edited by Lawrence St
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullyboy Andrew wants his LGA Airtrain because he is a chicken little with NIMBY's. 

The LIRR 3rd track through Mineola relegates it to a local staion and forces the Oyster Bay Branch to be even more of  a backwater operation so as to avoid any eminent domain condemnations to construct a wider ROW with 2 island platforms. 

Splitting N & W service at a flat junction around Astoria Blvd should not be a show-stopper.  It need not be as elaborate as Rockaway Junction. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The final EIS for LaGuardia Airport has been released:

 

https://www.lgaaccesseis.com/final-eis-document

Right now I'm looking at the Alternatives PDF:

http://ricondoprojects.com/LGAAccess/final/5-LGA_Final EIS_02_Alternatives_20210312.pdf

 

Here are the official objections as to why the Astoria extension was rejected:

 

2.6.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 8A: FROM ASTORIA BOULEVARD SUBWAY STATION: ELEVATED ABOVE ASTORIA BOULEVARD AND GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE

This alternative would create a branch of the existing N-W Lines from the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station on an elevated subway above Astoria Avenue and the GCP that transitions into a tunnel to access a subterranean station at LGA. This alternative would require extensive, complex construction on the N-W Lines and along the GCP. The branch extension would need two tracks to allow for frequent bi-directional service. These new tracks would connect to the existing northbound track, which is the local track for northbound service, and the center track. The connection to the center track would be via an interlocking system. The merge location would be south of the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station, which might have to be reconstructed and shifted northward to accommodate this new junction. The last station on the Astoria Line to serve the Airport route would be the station before the junction point, the 30th Avenue Subway Station. New crossovers would have to be constructed south of the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station to allow subway trains to move between tracks. Implementation of these improvements would disrupt transit service during peak commuter hours during construction on the N-W Lines, which would affect up to approximately 25,000 daily riders.

From 31st Street, the two tracks would be on an elevated structure within the GCP right-of-way to reach the Airport. East of Steinway Street, the Hell Gate rail trestle that crosses over the GCP would have to be raised to provide for adequate clearance between the elevated subway and the rail line using the Hell Gate rail trestle. This would result in disruption to train service using the rail line, including Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor service, which would affect up to approximately 10,000 daily passengers. Disruption of the Hell Gate rail trestle would require a temporary rail bridge adjacent to the existing trestle to provide for ongoing service during construction. Limited easements exist in this area, likely requiring property acquisition and displacement of existing land uses. Furthermore, the work would need to be scheduled in coordination with ongoing construction that also affects Amtrak service, including the LIRR East Side Access project, East River Tunnel repairs, the Gateway Program, and the Penn Station Access Project. In addition, as a branch of the N-W Lines, this alternative would result in the permanent reduction in service at the Astoria-Ditmars Subway Station, as the new service to LGA would have to be sequenced with the existing service along the N-W Lines, which would reduce the number of N-W trains from the east that could operate through the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station. This would have a permanent effect on up to approximately 13,000 daily users of the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station.

This alternative would result in the construction of support columns for the elevated subway and would require the permanent closure of travel lanes on Astoria Boulevard and the GCP, which would affect up to 75,000 daily drivers on Astoria Boulevard and up to 165,000 daily drivers on this segment of the GCP. The permanent closure of travel lanes would occur because it is not possible to place support columns for an elevated subway along this alignment without placing one of the support columns in an existing travel lane and it is not possible to shift travel lanes due to limitations associated with existing bridges.

A variety of underground utilities (such as water lines and sewer lines) are present along the elevated section of this alignment; this section would be designed to minimize impacts to underground utilities by following NYCDEP guidelines. However, the underground portion of this alignment could not be constructed in a manner to avoid having a material effect on the following major utilities, some of which provide services to more than 650,000 residents of Queens (see Appendix E):

- 175-inch by 96-inch combined sewer, which varies between 5 and 15 feet below grade, near the intersection of 19th Avenue and 82nd Street;

- 132-inch by 60-inch double-barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer, which varies between 10 to 20 feet below grade, at the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP;

- 129-inch by 96-inch double-barrel combined sewer, which is approximately 30 feet below grade, at the intersection of 82nd Street and the GCP; and

- 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor, which is approximately 20 feet below grade, near the intersection of 90th Street and the GCP.

Relocation of these utilities would require feasibility studies for the alignment/route of the relocated utilities to satisfy NYCDEP clearance requirements between relocated utilities and existing utilities. This would require a determination as to whether relocated utilities would necessitate additional replacement or relocation of other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.), and whether affected drainage plans would need to be amended. Relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could also result in changes to the slope of the utility, which could result in the need for additional pump stations or modification of existing pump stations. In addition, the relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could result in 1. the relocation and reconstruction of the outfall, which also would affect the existing shoreline, pier head, and/or bulkhead and could extend the outfall and riprap beyond the bulkhead line; 2. the need for temporary fluming of the sewer flow, although major storm events could overwhelm the system resulting in area-wide sewer backups and flooding; and 3. land acquisition and/or the purchase of easements from private property owners. An additional complexity is that the interceptors are pressurized to maintain flows 24 hours per day; any changes would be difficult to implement and could affect everyone within the service area. Relocation of these utilities could only begin after lengthy surveys and coordination with other utility providers and transportation agencies to understand what other effects may occur as a result of the alignment/route of the relocated utilities and the relocation of the combined sewer outfalls or interceptors. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include flow monitoring and modeling, and drainage plan amendments would be required. The construction plans for a relocated combined sewer outfall or interceptor would need to allow for continuous operation and management of the flow in the sewer or interceptor during construction to ensure that flooding does not occur anywhere within the system. Finally, relocation of the interceptor or combined sewer outfall could take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct.

Avoidance of these major utilities would require tunneling the subway beneath the utilities. Geotechnical information based on borings at LGA indicate that bedrock is at least 150 feet deep, groundwater is present at 6 to 13 feet below ground surface, and the predominant soil is a mixture of marshy soil, sediment, and clay not suited to provide structural support. NYCDEP requires 20-foot separation between their utility and other structures. Thus, a tunnel beneath the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor would need to be at least 50 feet deep. Due to the poor soil conditions and presence of groundwater at LGA, a subway tunnel not in bedrock would need to be constructed on pilings and would need extensive water pumps to keep groundwater out of the subway tunnel. Additionally, structural supports would need to be provided for the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor, which would greatly complicate construction even further. For these reasons, construction of a tunnel through the soils beneath these utilities was determined to not be practicable.

Alternatively, the subway tunnel could be constructed in bedrock, which would require a tunnel approximately 175 to 200 feet below ground surface. Emergency access and ventilation of tunnels at these depths would be challenging due to the complex urban environment. To achieve this depth for a subway tunnel, the distance needed to transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require at least 5,000 linear feet using the assumption of a maximum 3 percent grade. Given the location of the combined sewer line near the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP, it is likely that the end of the transition to the underground portion would need to occur at 78th Street and the GCP. At a minimum of 5,000 feet, the start of the transition would have to begin on Astoria Boulevard as it crosses under the Hell Gate rail trestle (the distance from 78th Street and the GCP to Astoria Boulevard and the Hell Gate rail trestle is about 5,000 feet). This means that the transition would result in the permanent closure of travel lanes on Astoria Boulevard and the GCP, both of which are identified as major roadways by NYSDOT. Finally, construction of a station at the Airport at a depth of 200 feet would require specific engineering analyses and means and methods of construction to excavate a station and not affect existing structures and roadways at the Airport that exist above the excavation. Deep stations would also require special ventilation and enough vertical circulation elements to meet safety regulations and may require continuous dewatering.

To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $976.0 million for elevated subways and $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 2.09-mile elevated subway and the 0.61-mile underground subway in this alternative would cost approximately $2.7 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative.

This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points.

This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative would result in the need to modify the Hell Gate rail trestle, would result in a permanent reduction in service at the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station and the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station, would require the permanent closure of travel lanes on Astoria Boulevard and the GCP, and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Additionally, this alternative would disrupt peak-hour operation of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor and the N-W Lines during construction. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

 

2.6.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 8B: FROM ASTORIA-DITMARS BOULEVARD SUBWAY STATION: ELEVATED ABOVE 31ST STREET AND 19TH AVENUE ALTERNATIVE

This alternative would extend the elevated N-W Lines beyond the final stop at the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station on an elevated subway above 31st Street and 19th Avenue, with a transition into a tunnel to access a subterranean station at LGA. The new elevated section of the subway in this alternative would be supported by columns located either in the street or sidewalks of 31st Street and 19th Avenue. This would require the temporary closure of travel lanes on 31st Street and 19th Avenue, which are identified as major collectors by NYSDOT and would affect up to 10,000 drivers on a daily basis.

The elevated section of this alignment would cross several existing utilities, including City Water Tunnel No. 2, a 60-inch-diameter trunk water main, a 20-inch and a 24-inch cast iron water main, a 96-inch interceptor sewer, a 60-inch combined sewer, a 39-inch combined sewer, several sewer chambers, a 66-inch combined sewer, and four different large-scale sewer interceptor lines (see Appendix E). However, it is possible to minimize impacts to these underground facilities through design of the elevated subway and by following NYCDEP guidelines. The underground portion of this alignment could not be constructed in a manner that avoids having a material effect on the following major utilities, some of which provide services to more than 650,000 residents of Queens (see Appendix E):

- 175-inch by 96-inch combined sewer, which varies between 5 and 15 feet below grade, near the intersection of 19th Avenue and 82nd Street;

- 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor, which varies between 15 to 25 feet below grade, underneath 19th Avenue and 81st Street;

- 132-inch by 60-inch double-barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer, which varies between 10 to 20 feet below grade, at the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP;

- 129-inch by 96-inch double-barrel combined sewer, which is approximately 30 feet below grade, at the intersection of 82nd Street and the GCP; and

- 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor, which is approximately 20 feet below grade, near the intersection of 90th Street and the GCP.

Relocation of these utilities would require feasibility studies for the alignment/route of the relocated utilities to satisfy NYCDEP clearance requirements between relocated utilities and existing utilities. This would require a determination as to whether relocated utilities would necessitate additional replacement or relocation of other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.), and whether affected drainage plans would need to be amended. Relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could also result in changes to the slope of the utility, which could result in the need for additional pump stations or modification of existing pump stations. In addition, the relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could result in 1. the relocation and reconstruction of the outfall, which also would affect the existing shoreline, pier head, and/or bulkhead and could extend the outfall and riprap beyond the bulkhead line; 2. the need for temporary fluming of the sewer flow, although major storm events could overwhelm the system resulting in area-wide sewer backups and flooding; and 3. land acquisition and/or the purchase of easements from private property owners. An additional complexity is that the interceptors are pressurized to maintain flows 24 hours per day; any changes would be difficult to implement and could affect everyone within the service area. Relocation of these utilities could only begin after lengthy surveys and coordination with other utility providers and transportation agencies to understand what other effects may occur as a result of the alignment/route of the relocated utilities and the relocation of the combined sewer outfalls or interceptors. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include flow monitoring and modeling, and drainage plan amendments would be required. The construction plans for a relocated combined sewer outfall or interceptor would need to allow for continuous operation and management of the flow in the sewer or interceptor during construction to ensure that flooding does not occur anywhere within the system. Finally, relocation of the interceptor or combined sewer outfall could take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct.

Avoidance of these major utilities would require placing the subway in bedrock beneath the utilities. Geotechnical information based on borings at LGA indicate that bedrock is at least 150 feet deep, groundwater is present at 6 to 13 feet below ground surface, and the predominant soil is a mixture of marshy soil, sediment, and clay not suited to provide structural support. NYCDEP requires 20-foot separation between their utility and other structures. Thus, a tunnel beneath the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor would need to be at least 50 feet deep. Due to the poor soil conditions and presence of groundwater at LGA, a subway tunnel not in bedrock would need to be constructed on pilings and would need extensive water pumps to keep groundwater out of the subway tunnel. Additionally, structural supports would need to be provided for the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor, which would greatly complicate construction even further. For these reasons, construction of a tunnel through the soils beneath these utilities was determined to not be practicable.

Alternatively, the subway tunnel could be constructed in bedrock, which would require a tunnel approximately 175 to 200 feet below ground surface. Emergency access and ventilation of tunnels at these depths would also be challenging due to the complex urban environment. To achieve this depth for a subway tunnel, the distance needed to transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require at least 5,000 linear feet using the assumption of a maximum 3 percent grade. Also, given the location of the interceptor under 19th Avenue at 45th Street, it is likely that the start of the transition to the underground portion would need to occur at 31st Street and 21st Avenue, which would require the permanent closure of travel lanes and the permanent loss of street parking on a portion of 31st Street, which is identified as a major collector by NYSDOT. The distance from the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Station and 19th Avenue and 45th Street is approximately 5,300 feet.

To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $976.0 million for elevated subways and $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 1.97-mile elevated subway and the 0.83-mile underground subway in this alternative would cost approximately $2.82 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative.

This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points.

This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative would result in the temporary closure of a portion of 31st Street and 19th Avenue and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Avoiding the material effect on major utilities would result in the permanent closure of travel lanes on a portion of 31st Street. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

 

 

2.6.3.3 ALTERNATIVE 8C: FROM ASTORIA-DITMARS BOULEVARD SUBWAY STATION: TUNNEL BENEATH 31ST STREET AND 19TH AVENUE ALTERNATIVE

This alternative would extend the N-W Lines beyond the final stop at the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station in a tunnel beneath 31st Street and 19th Avenue to a subterranean station at LGA. The section of the subway in this alternative that would transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require the permanent closure of travel lanes and the permanent loss of parking on 31st Street, which is classified as a major collector by NYSDOT. This closure of travel lanes on 31st Street would affect up to approximately 10,000 daily drivers. In addition, there is insufficient distance along 31st Street for the subway to descend at a 3-degree grade from the existing Astoria Boulevard Subway Station, clear the GCP, and transition underground to a new Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station with adequate clearance to support the required elevated infrastructure. These two subway stations are approximately 2,300 feet apart, and there is less than 2,000 feet available once the subway passes the GCP. At that point, the subway is approximately 25 feet above ground level, and based on a maximum 3-degree grade for a subway, the tracks could only descend 59 feet before entering the new underground Astoria Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station. At this location, the subway would be approximately 35 feet below ground level (assuming the terrain is constant). Based on the required height clearance for the train and platforms, there would be less than 20 feet of cover over the subway station, which would be insufficient to structurally support aboveground infrastructure. In addition, the transition to an underground subway would occur beneath the Hell Gate rail trestle, which would require substantial excavation in proximity to that structure, as portions of the AstoriaDitmars Boulevard Subway Station lie beneath the trestle. During construction, this excavation could result in interruptions to the operation of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, which would affect up to approximately 10,000 daily passengers and the N-W Lines, which would affect up to approximately 25,000 daily riders. Furthermore, the work would need to be scheduled in coordination with ongoing construction that also affects Amtrak service, including the LIRR East Side Access project, East River Tunnel repairs, the Gateway Program, and the Penn Station Access Project.

The alignment for this alternative would be underground and could not be constructed in a manner that avoids having a material effect on the following major utilities, some of which provide services to more than 650,000 residents of Queens (see Appendix E):

- City Water Tunnel No. 2

- 60-inch-diameter trunk water main

- 20-inch and a 24-inch cast iron water main  96-inch-diameter interceptor sewer

- 60-inch combined sewer  39-inch combined sewer  several sewer chambers

- 66-inch-diameter combined sewer

- four different large-scale sewer interceptor lines:

— 175-inch by 96-inch combined sewer

— 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor underneath 19th Avenue and 81st Street

— 132-inch by 60-inch double-barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer

— 129-inch by 96-inch double-barrel combined sewer

Relocation of these utilities would require feasibility studies for the alignment/route of the relocated utilities to satisfy NYCDEP clearance requirements between relocated utilities and existing utilities. This would require a determination as to whether relocated utilities would necessitate additional replacement or relocation of other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.), and whether affected drainage plans would need to be amended.73 Relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could also result in changes to the slope of the utility, which could result in the need for additional pump stations or modification of existing pump stations. In addition, the relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could result in 1. the relocation and reconstruction of the outfall, which also would affect the existing shoreline, pier head, and/or bulkhead and could extend the outfall and riprap beyond the bulkhead line; 2. the need for temporary fluming of the sewer flow, although major storm events could overwhelm the system resulting in area-wide sewer backups and flooding; and 3. land acquisition and/or the purchase of easements from private property owners. An additional complexity is that the interceptors are pressurized to maintain flows 24 hours per day; any changes would be difficult to implement and could affect everyone within the service area. Relocation of these utilities could only begin after lengthy surveys and coordination with other utility providers and transportation agencies to understand what other effects may occur as a result of the alignment/route of the relocated utilities and the relocation of the combined sewer outfalls or interceptors. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include flow monitoring and modeling, and drainage plan amendments would be required. the construction plans for a relocated combined sewer outfall or interceptor would need to allow for continuous operation and management of the flow in the sewer or interceptor during construction to ensure that flooding does not occur anywhere within the system. Finally, relocation of the interceptor or combined sewer outfall could take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct.

Avoidance of these major utilities would require tunneling the subway beneath the utilities. Geotechnical information based on borings at LGA indicate that bedrock is at least 150 feet deep, groundwater is present at 6 to 13 feet below ground surface, and the predominant soil is a mixture of marshy soil, sediment, and clay not suited to provide structural support. NYCDEP requires 20-foot separation between their utility and other structures. Thus, a tunnel beneath the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor would need to be at least 50 feet deep. Due to the poor soil conditions and presence of groundwater at LGA, a subway tunnel not in bedrock would need to be constructed on pilings and would need extensive water pumps to keep groundwater out of the subway tunnel. Additionally, structural supports would need to be provided for the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor, which would greatly complicate construction even further. For these reasons, construction of a tunnel through the soils beneath these utilities was determined to not be practicable.

Alternatively, the subway tunnel could be constructed in bedrock, which would require a tunnel approximately 175 to 200 feet below ground surface. Emergency access and ventilation of tunnels at these depths would also be challenging due to the complex urban environment. To achieve this depth for a subway tunnel, the distance needed to transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require at least 5,000 linear feet using the assumption of a maximum 3 percent grade. Given that the transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would begin at the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station, there is sufficient distance to achieve a 200-foot depth to avoid the utilities. However, construction of a station at the Airport at a depth of 200 feet would require specific engineering analyses and means and methods of construction to excavate a station and not affect existing structures and roadways at the Airport that exist above the excavation. Deep stations also require special ventilation and enough vertical circulation elements to meet safety regulations and may require continuous dewatering.

To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 2.9-mile subway extension in this alternative would cost approximately $3.15 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative.

This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points.

This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utility lines. Specifically, this alternative would result in the permanent closure of a portion of 31st Street, would result in the permanent loss of parking on a portion of 31st Street, and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Additionally, this alternative would disrupt peak-hour subway, rail, and/or transit service during construction, including Amtrak Northeast Corridor service and the N-W Lines. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

 

 

2.6.3.4 ALTERNATIVE 8D: FROM ASTORIA-DITMARS BOULEVARD SUBWAY STATION: ELEVATED ABOVE DITMARS BOULEVARD AND GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE

This alternative would result in the development of an elevated subway above Ditmars Boulevard and the GCP. Because this alternative would require excavation in proximity to the existing Hell Gate rail trestle, this alternative could affect passenger rail service during construction, including Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, which could affect about 10,000 daily passengers.

Furthermore, the work would need to be scheduled in coordination with ongoing construction that also affects Amtrak service, including the LIRR East Side Access project, East River Tunnel repairs, the Gateway Program, and the Penn Station Access Project. In addition, this alternative would result in the construction of the support columns for the elevated subway in the rights-of-way of Ditmars Boulevard and would require the temporary closure of the roadway, which would affect up to approximately 30,000 drivers on Ditmars Boulevard on a daily basis during construction.

A variety of underground utilities (such as water lines and sewer lines) are present along the elevated section of this alignment; this section would be designed to minimize impacts to underground utilities by following NYCDEP guidelines. However, the underground portion of this alignment could not be constructed in a manner that avoids having a material effect on the following major utilities, some of which provide services to more than 650,000 residents of Queens (see Appendix E):

- 132-inch by 60-inch double-barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer, which varies between 10 to 20 feet below
grade, at the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP;
- 129-inch by 96-inch double-barrel combined sewer, which is approximately 30 feet below grade, at the
intersection of 82nd Street and the GCP; and
- 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor, which is approximately 20 feet below grade, near the intersection of 90th
Street and the GCP.

Relocation of these utilities would require feasibility studies for the alignment/route of the relocated utilities to satisfy NYCDEP clearance requirements between relocated utilities and existing utilities. This would require a determination as to whether relocated utilities would necessitate additional replacement or relocation of other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.), and whether affected drainage plans would need to be amended.80 Relocation of combined sewer outfalls could also result in changes to the slope of the utility, which could result in the need for additional pump stations or modification of existing pump stations. In addition, the relocation of combined sewer outfalls could result in 1. the relocation and reconstruction of the outfall, which also would affect the existing shoreline, pier head, and/or bulkhead and could extend the outfall and riprap beyond the bulkhead line; 2. the need for temporary fluming of the sewer flow, although major storm events could overwhelm the system resulting in area-wide sewer backups and flooding; and 3. land acquisition and/or the purchase of easements from private property owners. Relocation of these utilities could only begin after lengthy surveys and coordination with other utility providers and transportation agencies to understand what other effects may occur as a result of the alignment/route of the relocated utilities and the relocation of the combined sewer outfalls. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include flow monitoring and modeling, and drainage plan amendments would be required. The construction plans for a relocated combined sewer outfall would need to allow for continuous operation and management of the flow in the sewer during construction to ensure that flooding does not occur anywhere within the system. Finally, relocation of the interceptor or combined sewer outfall could take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct.


Avoidance of these major utilities would require tunneling the subway beneath the utilities. Geotechnical information based on borings at LGA indicate that bedrock is at least 150 feet deep, groundwater is present at 6 to13 feet below ground surface, and the predominant soil is a mixture of marshy soil, sediment, and clay not suited to provide structural support. NYCDEP requires 20-foot separation between their utility and other structures. Thus, a tunnel beneath the combined sewer outfall would need to be at least 50 feet deep. Due to the poor soil conditions and presence of groundwater at LGA, a subway tunnel not in bedrock would need to be constructed on pilings and would need extensive water pumps to keep groundwater out of the subway tunnel. Additionally, structural supports would need to be provided for the combined sewer outfall, which would greatly complicate construction even further. For these reasons, construction of a tunnel through the soils beneath these utilities was determined to not be practicable.

Alternatively, the subway tunnel could be constructed in bedrock, which would require a tunnel approximately 175 to 200 feet below ground surface. Emergency access and ventilation of tunnels at these depths would also be challenging due to the complex urban environment. To achieve this depth for a subway tunnel, the distance needed to transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require at least 5,000 linear feet using the assumption of a maximum 3 percent grade. Given the location of the combined sewer line near the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP, it is likely that the end of the transition to the underground portion would need to occur at 78th Street and Ditmars Boulevard. At a minimum of 5,000 feet, the start of the transition would have to begin on Ditmars Boulevard at Steinway Street (the distance from 78th Street and Ditmars Boulevard to Ditmars Boulevard and Steinway Street is about 5,000 feet). This would result in the permanent closure of travel lanes and the permanent loss of street parking on a portion of Ditmars Boulevard, which is identified as a principal arterial (other) by NYSDOT. Finally, construction of a station at the Airport at a depth of 200 feet would require specific engineering analyses and means and methods of construction to excavate a station and not affect existing structures and roadways at the Airport that exist above the excavation. Deep stations would also require special ventilation and enough vertical circulation elements to meet safety regulations and may require continuous dewatering.

To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $976.0 million for elevated subways and $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 1.89-mile elevated subway and the 0.61-mile underground subway in this alternative would cost approximately $2.51 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative. This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points. This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative could disrupt peak-hour Amtrak Northeast Corridor service during construction, would result in the temporary closure of travel lanes on Ditmars Boulevard, and would result in the permanent shift of travel lanes and the permanent removal of parking lanes on Ditmars Boulevard. In addition, this alternative would affect existing major underground utility lines. Avoiding the material effect on major utilities would result in a permanent closure of a portion of Ditmars Boulevard. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

Edited by GojiMet86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spin doctors most likely put such a negative slant on the alternatives because someone from higher up (i.e., Cuomo) told them to.  It's why I take many of these studies at face value.  Follow the money to see who stands behind things, and then you realize it's not so much logic and reason as it is who's got the money and the power to impose their will on others.

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really matters is the last paragraphs.

Quote

8A

This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative would result in the need to modify the Hell Gate rail trestle, would result in a permanent reduction in service at the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station and the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station, would require the permanent closure of travel lanes on Astoria Boulevard and the GCP, and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Additionally, this alternative would disrupt peak-hour operation of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor and the N-W Lines during construction. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

8B

This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative would result in the temporary closure of a portion of 31st Street and 19th Avenue and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Avoiding the material effect on major utilities would result in the permanent closure of travel lanes on a portion of 31st Street. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

8C

This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utility lines. Specifically, this alternative would result in the permanent closure of a portion of 31st Street, would result in the permanent loss of parking on a portion of 31st Street, and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Additionally, this alternative would disrupt peak-hour subway, rail, and/or transit service during construction, including Amtrak Northeast Corridor service and the N-W Lines. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

8D

To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $976.0 million for elevated subways and $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 1.89-mile elevated subway and the 0.61-mile underground subway in this alternative would cost approximately $2.51 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative. This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points. This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative could disrupt peak-hour Amtrak Northeast Corridor service during construction, would result in the temporary closure of travel lanes on Ditmars Boulevard, and would result in the permanent shift of travel lanes and the permanent removal of parking lanes on Ditmars Boulevard. In addition, this alternative would affect existing major underground utility lines. Avoiding the material effect on major utilities would result in a permanent closure of a portion of Ditmars Boulevard. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

All of the alternatives have serious problems except 8B; I would argue that 10,000 cars doesn't make anything a particularly busy street, since the FHWA estimates that's the capacity of a two-lane road, and that closing 31 St is not that big a deal, or also moving a utility is not a big deal.

But also, general reminder that if the subway is going to cost a billion dollars a mile it's just not going to be built, period.

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.