|
|
| AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built (1436553) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1436553) | |
AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 18 17:43:06 2017 This is an article I just wrote about why the Airtrain to LGA will not work. Here is the link.Here is the first part: LaGuardia Airport is known for being considered inferior. Just ask former Vice President Joe Biden, who called it a “third-world” airport. The other two main airports in the New York City area are John F. Kennedy Airport, and Newark Liberty Airport. Both of these are more accessible via public transportation. There are AirTrains connecting the airports and commuter rail lines. The AirTrain JFK also connects to the A, E, J, and Z subway routes. While not a one-seat connection, they provide easy access to the airport. While LaGuardia is closer to Manhattan, it does not have a train connection to it. Currently, most people get there by car or taxi, clogging up the highways leading up to the airport. While the LaGuardia Link, the Q70 Select Bus Service, provides quick access to the airport (16 minutes from Woodside, and 10 minutes from Jackson Heights), there have been calls for better transit access to the airport. Governor Cuomo announced the plan for an AirTrain to LaGuardia in early 2015, proposing that it run between LaGuardia and Willets Point, where transfers would be available to the 7 and the Long Island Rail Road’s Port Washington Branch, which would have its service increased. This month, Parsons Brinckerhoff, was hired to desire the transit link. While on the surface it might seem like the right idea, when it is further looked at, it is clear that this helps noone, and that it is a political stunt by the Governor, who is clearly seeking higher office. To continue reading my article, click on the link. |
|
|
| (1436555) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Thu May 18 17:46:30 2017, in response to AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 18 17:43:06 2017. "This month, Parsons Brinckerhoff, was hired to desire the transit link."If the state needed to hire someone to desire the transit link, that is a pretty bad omen. |
|
|
| (1436556) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu May 18 17:52:30 2017, in response to AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 18 17:43:06 2017. I agree with you 100% |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1436563) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Thu May 18 18:35:05 2017, in response to AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 18 17:43:06 2017. I have no problem with a LGA airtrain my thing is the routing makes no logical sense. The vast majority of passengers has to pass LGA to connect with the Airtrain to backtrack to the airport. |
|
|
| (1436564) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu May 18 18:49:25 2017, in response to AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 18 17:43:06 2017. Here's an interesting statistic from the Port Authority.Average time to get from origin/destination to airport: JFK - 57 minutes EWK - 56 minutes LGA - 45 minutes. |
|
|
| (1436567) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu May 18 18:53:23 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu May 18 18:49:25 2017. OK, if we sent the Astoria el to LGA, what does the time drop to then ? |
|
|
| (1436575) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu May 18 19:35:30 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Mitch45 on Thu May 18 17:46:30 2017. I will be happy to desire the transit link if the price is right. I have spare time and could desire it nights and weekends. They could hire someone else to desire it days. |
|
|
| (1436576) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu May 18 19:42:09 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Joe V on Thu May 18 18:53:23 2017. I included that statistic to show that sometimes third world solutions are better than those for the first world.A better first question would be how many people would it benefit and how many people would it hurt. If you thumb through the link, you will note that approximately 30M passengers used LGA in 2016. Only 49% have an origin/destination in Manhattan. That rounds to approximately 15M passengers to be helped. Let's look at the Astoria Line. Approximately 21M paid their fare at the stops between Queensboro Plaza (not included) and Ditmars Blv. Double that to be on a comparable basis because the LGA figure counts both directions. So, 42M Astoria riders will have endure more crowded trains to help 15M LGA passengers. These passengers already enjoy the shortest travel time between the airport and their origin/destincation. Unlike other American cities, airports do not represent masses of passengers compared to other stations. It's an argument I made, when the Astoria Line extension was proposed. Do you want to look at the average income of the LGA passengers? It's in the link I provided. |
|
|
| (1436578) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu May 18 20:01:48 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu May 18 19:42:09 2017. I would not expect all Q70 passengers to ride instead extended N & W trains. |
|
|
| (1436584) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by jrr4 on Thu May 18 20:32:03 2017, in response to AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 18 17:43:06 2017. With Uber so popular, cheap, and easy to use now do they really need an airlink? (I'm thinking for travelers, not employees). |
|
|
| (1436589) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu May 18 21:45:55 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu May 18 19:42:09 2017. The problem here is that politics is driven by emotion, not reason. "We are a world-class city with third-world transportation to one of our major airports! This is an outrage!" Nevertheless these facts are rather interesting. |
|
|
| (1436591) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu May 18 22:27:03 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu May 18 19:42:09 2017. actually, airports, like medical centers, college campuses, and oher similar work destinations have a large number of not very highly paid service personnel who need to commute there. They are in fact the more reliable transit market than travelers. |
|
|
| (1436598) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu May 18 23:12:05 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu May 18 22:27:03 2017. actually, airports, like medical centers, college campuses, and oher similar work destinations have a large number of not very highly paid service personnel...LGA isn't that great an employment center despite what the PA says. The 2014 US LEHD census records slightly less than 3000 full time private sector jobs within the airport. The figure for JFK is 18,500. |
|
|
| (1436599) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu May 18 23:28:06 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by ftgreeneg on Thu May 18 18:35:05 2017. Look at the map. It is actually closer than you think to Willets Point Sta. I didn't think it made any sense either until I checked. From Willets point you have a straight shot into LGA without going through any residential neighborhoods. It is across the Citifield parking lots and then along the GCP into LGA.Now imagine going from Ditmars. You have a few blocks on 31st Ave, then along a winding route through the ConEd plant and a few other facilities. It's just kind of a wash betweem them. |
|
|
| (1436606) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Fri May 19 00:42:28 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by zac on Thu May 18 23:28:06 2017. Actually imo it makes more sense connecting LGA Airtrain to Astoria Blvd sta instead of Ditmars. I'd envision building a deck over GCP ending at 31st where the Airtrain station would be with connection to the N/W. From there the airtrain simply follows the GCP median to LGA not needing to be routed through any residential streets. |
|
|
| (1436609) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 19 02:04:53 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu May 18 19:35:30 2017. 🤔😂Funny as heck. |
|
|
| (1436612) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by zac on Fri May 19 06:44:12 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by ftgreeneg on Fri May 19 00:42:28 2017. I suspect that is easier said than done. I think one of the reasons for Willets Point is that the LIRR is underutilized there and there is plenty of room to put a station. Astoria Blvd area is pretty congested with the GCP, which has no trucks, and then Astoria Blvd with the trucks.Extending the N/W directly to LGA would be the ideal, but not if they have to build the El out over 31st. I think this is why Willets Point would be the easiest solution. And really, if you've ever been to a Mets game at either Shea or Citifield, you know how close you are to LGA. |
|
|
| (1436615) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 07:50:12 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by zac on Thu May 18 23:28:06 2017. The distance between either the Astoria Line or the Flushing Line to LGA is approximately 4 miles. |
|
|
| (1436616) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 08:00:21 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by ftgreeneg on Fri May 19 00:42:28 2017. I'd envision building a deck over GCP ending at 31st where the Airtrain station would be with connection to the N/W. From there the airtrain simply follows the GCP median to LGA not needing to be routed through any residential streets.A modest proposal. Here's what's standing in the way of your plan. 
|
|
|
| (1436617) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 08:34:15 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 08:00:21 2017. Here's a link to the image.https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7687837,-73.909002,3a,75y,87.98h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEy5bsAGVqEcaRgwujOnCyA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DEy5bsAGVqEcaRgwujOnCyA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D87.33661%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en |
|
|
| (1436619) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Fri May 19 10:23:52 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 08:34:15 2017. Thanks fpr the link. Definetely an obstacle not impossible. Would involve a little thinking outside box possible taking out the grass the hills on each side of the highway and either A. Take out one inner lane in each direction expand a lane in former grass area in both directions airtrain run at grade in middle under the tcks or B. Have aitrain run at grade on the NB side of the former grass hill of the GCP under tcks. Long story short just looking at the map it seems like the room is there with a little imagination. |
|
|
| (1436620) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Fri May 19 10:34:06 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by zac on Fri May 19 06:44:12 2017. I agree I think the Willets Point would be easiest however not the best option. The reality is most ppl will take the already overcrowded on wkends local 7 line (If a Met game going on forget about it) to Willets Point. Not even factoring in the crowd the time it takes to take the 7 train to Willets Point passing LGA to make the connection to the Airtrain there would be no time saving compared to taking the bus.I agree the N/W extention's best but with the NIMBY's in the area a non starter unfortunately. |
|
|
| (1436627) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 19 11:31:40 2017, in response to AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 18 17:43:06 2017. LaGuardia Airport is known for being considered inferior. Just ask former Vice President Joe Biden, who called it a “third-world” airportHe's the last guy I'd go to for an opinion on an airport. Now PHL, which has SEPTA RRD access, that is a mess of an airport. |
|
|
| (1436636) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri May 19 12:09:00 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by ftgreeneg on Fri May 19 10:23:52 2017. That's OK as far as it goes. But beyond the trestle, there are heavily-trafficked street overpasses within 2 short blocks on either side of the trestle. One can be seen in the picture. If you run tracks at grade, then they would have to swoop up at an impossible angle to get over those overpasses. All this would be major disruptive construction. |
|
|
| (1436637) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri May 19 12:13:14 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 07:50:12 2017. How do you figure that? From either Ditmars or Willets to LGA is a little over 2 miles, with Ditmars being a little farther. |
|
|
| (1436704) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Fri May 19 20:17:52 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by zac on Thu May 18 23:28:06 2017. New York is the greatest city in the world! Why can't we have both? Start at Ditmars and go through LGA and end at Willets Point. Hey, the JFK AirTrain wasn't an either/or deal. |
|
|
| (1436708) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 20:43:52 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Andrew Saucci on Fri May 19 20:17:52 2017. Why can't we have both? Start at Ditmars and go through LGA and end at Willets Point.Approximately 25% of NYC residents live more than 1/2 mile from a subway station. The routing you suggest does not reduce this by a single resident. I would look more kindly at projects to aid the few, after the needs of all residents have been met. |
|
|
| (1436735) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat May 20 06:46:05 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 20:43:52 2017. So you think running a subway out Union Turnpike to Lake Success is more worthy than a real train to LGA ? |
|
|
| (1436754) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat May 20 15:57:47 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 19 20:43:52 2017. "Approximately 25% of NYC residents live more than 1/2 mile from a subway station. The routing you suggest does not reduce this by a single resident."This is false. If a route from Ditmars to LGA had stations at Steinway St. and Hazen St., it would put thousands of residents within 1/2 mile of the subway who are not currently. |
|
|
| (1436755) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat May 20 16:02:02 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by italianstallion on Sat May 20 15:57:47 2017. Just because nobody lives in LGA doesn't mean there isn't a market to serve.I also see nothing wrong with shifting some #7/Q70 riders to the N/W. Those with luggage would not have to deal with an el to bus transfer. |
|
|
| (1436757) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat May 20 16:14:11 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Joe V on Sat May 20 16:02:02 2017. Clearly the N/W extension has always been the most logical. It is more direct and has fewer stops, and is thus faster. It is less crush-loaded than the 7. It has an unused express track that can be used for uni-directional express service. It can add intermediate stations to serve an underused neighborhood (Steinway and Astoria Heights). It goes north-south in Manhattan rather than east-west. The list goes on. |
|
|
| (1436758) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat May 20 16:17:36 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by italianstallion on Sat May 20 16:14:11 2017. "underused neighborhood" -- LOL, meant "underserved." |
|
|
| (1436764) | |
Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat May 20 16:35:32 2017, in response to Re: AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by italianstallion on Sat May 20 16:14:11 2017. It would be like the CTA Logan Square / Jefferson Park branch extended to O'Hare.N/W serves more points in Manhattan than the #7, including Herald Sq, an avenue block east of Penn Station. |
|
|
| (1436769) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 20 18:22:46 2017, in response to AirTrain LGA: Why it should not be built, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 18 17:43:06 2017. If the NIMBYs in Astoria continue to block an extension of the (N) to LaGuaradia, how I would work around it and have such a line ALSO run to Willets Point:This would involve a Queens branch of the SAS that would turn off the main route either south or north of the 116th Street station: If South, it goes first to a station on 116th between 1st and Pleasant Avenues If North, it goes first to a station on 124th between 1st and 2nd Avenues, Either way, the line then goes to Roosevelt Island with the line then making two stops on Randalls Island: One at Ichan Stadium, the other on Reilly Boulevard, where it goes elevated. It then goes across to Queens north of Astoria and stops at 31st Street north of 20th Avenue before heading to Astoria. Such a line then continues via the proposed AirTrain route to Willets Point with provisions to later extend such route to JFK. |
|
|
| (1436795) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 20 21:28:12 2017, in response to Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 20 18:22:46 2017. Subways don't go to NYC airports thanks to the PANY(NU). Why change the thread title to an absolute non-starter? |
|
|
| (1436798) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 20 21:34:10 2017, in response to Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 20 18:22:46 2017. 21 st to Astoria Blvd...deep bore.No problem. Or a branch from the PW line. |
|
|
| (1436799) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat May 20 21:40:45 2017, in response to Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 20 21:28:12 2017. The MTA maintained a row from the Rockaway branch to JFK just in case it wanted to build a line there.The Reason none ever materialised was the MTA didnt want ANOTHER branch FROM A BRANCH LINE to divide service anymore than it already did...plus the added expense of building and maintaining airport/station faculties. |
|
|
| (1436800) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 20 22:10:46 2017, in response to Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia?, posted by Edwards! on Sat May 20 21:40:45 2017. Not how I heard it. Especially when it came to the AirTrain. The PANY(NJ) used airline ticket taxes for that too. |
|
|
| (1436803) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 20 22:42:18 2017, in response to Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 20 22:10:46 2017. in fact both the SFO BART extension (terribly designed IMHO) and AirTrain funding from airport taxes were subjects of a huge fight because the airlines hate to pay for ANYTHING even when it brings them workers and riders. |
|
|
| (1436807) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 21 00:49:44 2017, in response to Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia?, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 20 22:42:18 2017. I used BART to SFO and had no complaints... there's more convenient rail-airport connections (i.e. Philly) but there's certainly less convenient ones (Newark, Boston). |
|
|
| (1436808) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun May 21 01:28:59 2017, in response to Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 21 00:49:44 2017. I used BART to SFO and had no complaints...The problem is that it's rather overbuilt and rather expensive for what really should have been an extension of the SFO peoplemover to multimodal station on the BART mainline. If you're coming from Caltrain, you're stuck taking two trains, one from Milbrae to San Bruno BART, then another from San Bruno to SFO. So it's usable for going to downtown, but it's still a bit of a white elephant. |
|
|
| (1436809) | |
Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 21 02:50:48 2017, in response to Re: Running the SAS to LaGuardia?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun May 21 01:28:59 2017. Right you are. I even drew a diagram for a BART Director once showing a six track station w/four platforms so that Air Train users could exit to either BART or Caltrain roll on roll off under a full weather shield. But a cranky politician led a referendum in SF demanding BART into an SFO terminsal. So BART spent $1.5 billion on this monument to its tradition of misdesigned opverpriced crap.And the fares to the airport are veryu high, while Sam Trans (SFO is in San Mateo Cty) was coerced into axing the express buses which honored their passes. Not long after that, there was a piece in the SF paper abou a baggage handler (IIRC) who could not afford BART so his local bus commute exploded from an hour to 3 RT. Fun details; during that fiasco, the MTC (local MPO) "re-programmed" $91 million which was supposed to cover repairingthe SP Dumbarton Bridge in order to give people in Fremont (and S and E) access to the Peninsuls by a shorter route. That money "covered" a cost overrun. Then while the consultants had originally told BART they needed 28 new cars to cover the extended service require,ments, someone at BART figured ifthey just upped their maintenance game, they could get by without more fleet. The result in the last several years has been persisent car shortages leading to trains nearly as full as standard NYC subways in rush hour. BART has actually lost daily ridership over the last couple of years because of crowding, breakdowns,etc. |
|
|
