NEW YORK | LaGuardia Airport Redevelopment

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

$2 Billion for a train that you have to travel past the airport to reach and then double back, paying an extra fare just to ride it. What a boondoggle. Clearly, this was designed for the Long Islanders that will take the LIRR.

You do realize that thousands of Queens- and LI-residing airport employees will now have a direct rail connection to LGA, right? As with the Airtrain systems at JFK and Newark, the rail is intended to serve employees as much as flyers. Most employees are headed to LGA from points east. Do they not matter?

Nothing happens in NYC without people bitching and complaining. This is Exhibit A. LGA finally has subway and LIRR access, direct trains to Penn (and eventually Grand Central) as well as points eastward, and still people are complaining. Oh, and it doesn't cost locals a penny. Will be fully funded via airport fees.

The approved plan isn't just the best plan, it's the only plan. There's literally no other common Western Queens MTA/LIRR access point, except at Woodside, which would involve massive tunneling, crazy NIMBYism, and would probably take 20 years, and cost 5x as much. And it would maybe save 5 minutes to Manhattan, and cost 5 minutes to points east, so a wash. So unless you want to contribute $10 billion to the Port Authority, this is the plan.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You do realize that thousands of Queens- and LI-residing airport employees will now have a direct rail connection to LGA, right? As with the Airtrain systems at JFK and Newark, the rail is intended to serve employees as much as flyers. Most employees are headed to LGA from points east. Do they not matter?

Nothing happens in NYC without people bitching and complaining. This is Exhibit A. LGA finally has subway and LIRR access, direct trains to Penn (and eventually Grand Central) as well as points eastward, and still people are complaining. Oh, and it doesn't cost locals a penny. Will be fully funded via airport fees.

The approved plan isn't just the best plan, it's the only plan. There's literally no other common Western Queens MTA/LIRR access point, except at Woodside, which would involve massive tunneling, crazy NIMBYism, and would probably take 20 years, and cost 5x as much. And it would maybe save 5 minutes to Manhattan, and cost 5 minutes to points east, so a wash. So unless you want to contribute $10 billion to the Port Authority, this is the plan.

This is absolute hogwash. Other cities have run their subway systems right to the airport. It's MUCH more convenient for commuters and the people that work at the airport, too. Chicago and Atlanta does this and Austin just passed legislation to do the same. Barcelona and many, many other cities do as well. The Airtrain system in NYC is a joke and acting like it was the only solution makes you look like someone that hasn't ever been outside of the city to see what the world has to offer. The best approach would have been extending the N/W to Willetts point and allowing for an easy transfer without having to pay an additional fare.

Frankly, the airtrain is more expensive and not much different than the current bus service to LGA. It's not really an improvement and an expensive one at that.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You do realize that thousands of Queens- and LI-residing airport employees will now have a direct rail connection to LGA, right? As with the Airtrain systems at JFK and Newark, the rail is intended to serve employees as much as flyers. Most employees are headed to LGA from points east. Do they not matter?

Nothing happens in NYC without people bitching and complaining. This is Exhibit A. LGA finally has subway and LIRR access, direct trains to Penn (and eventually Grand Central) as well as points eastward, and still people are complaining. Oh, and it doesn't cost locals a penny. Will be fully funded via airport fees.

The approved plan isn't just the best plan, it's the only plan. There's literally no other common Western Queens MTA/LIRR access point, except at Woodside, which would involve massive tunneling, crazy NIMBYism, and would probably take 20 years, and cost 5x as much. And it would maybe save 5 minutes to Manhattan, and cost 5 minutes to points east, so a wash. So unless you want to contribute $10 billion to the Port Authority, this is the plan.

My god... Just no.

The LGA Airtrain is the shortest sighted, minimally effective, and I begrudgingly use this word, boondoggle, of any possible solution to LGA access. The whole thing just sucks and I have had passing thoughts actually rooting for Cuomo being forced out of office over the gross alpha man sex stuff for no other reason than it may have derailed the plan.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

This is absolute hogwash. Other cities have run their subway systems right to the airport. It's MUCH more convenient for commuters and the people that work at the airport, too.

How would this be a better plan? Be specific.

Remember, they tried to extend the N train already, and NIMBYs completely shut it down. It would also do little for tourists (who will take dedicated LIRR trains) or LGA employees (who are headed east). It also couldn't use Port Authority revenue, meaning you would be taking money from the MTA, assuming you could overcome the NIMBYs, so you would be starving the existing MTA services. And the N train doesn't serve Penn or Grand Central. And the N doesn't have room for dedicated airport express trains.

So please explain how that's a better plan? It's a dumb plan.

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Chicago and Atlanta does this and Austin just passed legislation to do the same.

What does this mean? Chicago and Atlanta have no express rail service to their core terminals. Atlanta doesn't even have a core terminal, or regional rail. Austin has nothing. Also, who cares? This plan is for NYC, not for other cities. I don't know, or care, where O'Hare employees live, or where Hartsfield visitors are headed.

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Frankly, the airtrain is more expensive and not much different than the current bus service to LGA. It's not really an improvement and an expensive one at that.

The Airtrain costs exactly $0 to local taxpayers. It's 100% funded by airport fees, which can only be used towards airport systems. If there were no Airtrain, the feds wouldn't allow you to assess the fees.

If you personally feel a local bus service is superior to subway/express LIRR service, you're free to continue to take the bus. I guarantee that the vast majority of visitors and employees will prefer dedicated LIRR trains. I can't wait to tell my foreign relatives to just get on a train to Penn, instead of navigating Uber or taxis.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How would this be a better plan? Be specific.

Remember, they tried to extend the N train already, and NIMBYs completely shut it down. It would also do little for tourists (who will take dedicated LIRR trains) or LGA employees (who are headed east). It also couldn't use Port Authority revenue, meaning you would be taking money from the MTA, assuming you could overcome the NIMBYs, so you would be starving the existing MTA services. And the N train doesn't serve Penn or Grand Central. And the N doesn't have room for dedicated airport express trains.

So please explain how that's a better plan? It's a dumb plan.

What does this mean? Chicago and Atlanta have no express rail service to their core terminals. Atlanta doesn't even have a core terminal, or regional rail. Austin has nothing. Also, who cares? This plan is for NYC, not for other cities. I don't know, or care, where O'Hare employees live, or where Hartsfield visitors are headed.


The Airtrain costs exactly $0 to local taxpayers. It's 100% funded by airport fees, which can only be used towards airport systems. If there were no Airtrain, the feds wouldn't allow you to assess the fees.

If you personally feel a local bus service is superior to subway/express LIRR service, you're free to continue to take the bus. I guarantee that the vast majority of visitors and employees will prefer dedicated LIRR trains. I can't wait to tell my foreign relatives to just get on a train to Penn, instead of navigating Uber or taxis.

I mean, Chicago and Atlanta both have rapid transit rail service that goes right to the terminal. I've taken both, lots of times. And I never claimed bus service was better than subway or LIRR service. It's as good and cheaper than the Airtrain. And you know who pays airport fees? YOU DO! Every time you go to the airport. I do too. I don't want my money going to this stupid idea. You are just so wrong about all of this.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

I mean, Chicago and Atlanta both have rapid transit rail service that goes right to the terminal. I've taken both, lots of times.

And so does NYC, to all three airports now. In fact JFK has, by far, the highest rail ridership to any airport in the U.S. It's the most successful airport rail in North America. What's your point?

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

And I never claimed bus service was better than subway or LIRR service. It's as good and cheaper than the Airtrain.

Then you're fine. You can still take the bus, in any city, if you feel it's just as good as rail. Most others prefer the train. Don't think too many tourists are gonna take a bus to Jackson Heights, when they can take an express train to Grand Central.

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

And you know who pays airport fees? YOU DO! Every time you go to the airport. I do too. I don't want my money going to this stupid idea. You are just so wrong about all of this.

You prefer that $2.1 billion in federal aviation user fees go to other cities' airports, rather than NYC? Why?

How would your imaginary ideal system even work? In Chicago and Atlanta, you first take an airport train to get to city rapid transit. You cannot, by definition, have an airport with multiple terminals, with a single rapid transit stop, without people first using the airport train. There has to be a circulator system to access the transit stop, unless the entire airport has only one terminal complex.

Even if you somehow built a subway to LGA, you would still need an Airtrain. There are three LGA terminals. But you'll never get a subway directly to LGA, due to NIMBYism, cost, inconvenience, capacity issues on the N, and lack of connections to LIRR.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And so does NYC, to all three airports now. In fact JFK has, by far, the highest rail ridership to any airport in the U.S. It's the most successful airport rail in North America. What's your point?

Then you're fine. You can still take the bus, in any city, if you feel it's just as good as rail. Most others prefer the train. Don't think too many tourists are gonna take a bus to Jackson Heights, when they can take an express train to Grand Central.


You prefer that $2.1 billion in federal aviation user fees go to other cities' airports, rather than NYC? Why?

How would your imaginary ideal system even work? In Chicago and Atlanta, you first take an airport train to get to city rapid transit. You cannot, by definition, have an airport with multiple terminals, with a single rapid transit stop, without people first using the airport train. There has to be a circulator system to access the transit stop, unless the entire airport has only one terminal complex.

Even if you somehow built a subway to LGA, you would still need an Airtrain. There are three LGA terminals. But you'll never get a subway directly to LGA, due to NIMBYism, cost, inconvenience, capacity issues on the N, and lack of connections to LIRR.

So confident and so very, very wrong.

In Chicago and Atlanta, there is no airport train. The airport terminal is just another stop in the system. No transfer, same train. For O'Hare, take the Blue line. For Midway, take the Orange line. In Atlanta, the MARTA system that you would take from downtown goes right to the airport. In Portland, you can take the streetcar system right from the airport to downtown without transferring or taking a dedicated airport rail system. The same train makes stops along the route because it is part of the metro system instead of a $2 billion dollar 1.5 mile single-use add on.

The point of all of this is that there are many, many alternatives (ferry, bus, bus rapid transit, building out the existing subway system to include a stop at LGA, and many other alternatives that were rejected by the FAA). All of these ideas, many of which were cheaper and more convenient, were rejected because one person, the Governor, was pushing for his preferred pet project. It's asinine. Assuming these other ideas would not work is your main problem. Every idea is going to have critics. That shouldn't stop a well-functioning public transit agency from pressing ahead with a system that serves the people better than this stupid idea.

[nyc_alex]

I have to agree with Crawford. I will likely never use the AirTrain to LGA (I'm in NJ) but it will definitely attract riders. It is very convenient for millions of LI residents. If it attracts enough riders to make it worth the price tag, then what is the issue. I don't think it's going to lack ridership.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nyc_alex

I have to agree with Crawford. I will likely never use the AirTrain to LGA (I'm in NJ) but it will definitely attract riders. It is very convenient for millions of LI residents. If it attracts enough riders to make it worth the price tag, then what is the issue. I don't think it's going to lack ridership.

And let's say you're coming from Jersey, and want to go to LGA, by public transit. Once the Airtrain opens, this will be a reasonably convenient possibility. Take a NJT train to Penn, and transfer to an LGA express LIRR train.

Currently, there is no public transit option from Jersey. Even if the subway were expanded to LGA, there would be no public transit option from Jersey. There are 9 million people in Jersey, and most live in North/Central Jersey, with a NJT rail station nearby, so this will be a potential option.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by nyc_alex

I have to agree with Crawford. I will likely never use the AirTrain to LGA (I'm in NJ) but it will definitely attract riders. It is very convenient for millions of LI residents. If it attracts enough riders to make it worth the price tag, then what is the issue. I don't think it's going to lack ridership.

Uh since the AirTrain only hits the Port Washington branch and not the main line I'm going to say no this isn't true. Unless the argument is that these people will pay to train all the way into an NYC terminal then pay a likely premium to transfer to a shuttle that will then take them to the LGA AirTrain which they will also have to pay to use.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And let's say you're coming from Jersey, and want to go to LGA, by public transit. Once the Airtrain opens, this will be a reasonably convenient possibility. Take a NJT train to Penn, and transfer to an LGA express LIRR train.

Currently, there is no public transit option from Jersey. Even if the subway were expanded to LGA, there would be no public transit option from Jersey. There are 9 million people in Jersey, and most live in North/Central Jersey, with a NJT rail station nearby, so this will be a potential option.

Wut?

PATH literally drops you at the N station in Herald Sq and reopening/widening/improving the Gimbels corridor from Penn is pretty simple.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by k1052

Uh since the AirTrain only hits the Port Washington branch and not the main line I'm going to say no this isn't true.

A high % of LGA employees live in Eastern Queens, which is served by the Port Washington branch. So, yeah, it will likely be heavily used for eastbound riders. The LIRR main line would cost megabillions more and would involve massive land acquisition, and the only Western Queens main line/subway junction is at Woodside.

Originally Posted by k1052

Unless the argument is that these people will pay to train all the way into an NYC terminal then pay a likely premium to transfer to a shuttle that will then take them to the LGA AirTrain which they will also have to pay to use.

JFK employees don't pay for the JFK Airtrain, so I doubt that LGA airport employees will be paying for the LGA Airtrain (or for the future, upgraded Newark Airtrain, which will now be heavy-rail, dual-track like JFK and LGA). The whole purpose is converting vehicle traffic to public transit usage, which was very successful at JFK and Newark and will likely be successful at LGA. Drivers from LI and Eastern Queens can park at Willets Point, or take the train/bus to Willets Point.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Crawford

A high % of LGA employees live in Eastern Queens, which is served by the Port Washington branch. So, yeah, it will likely be heavily used for eastbound riders. The LIRR main line would cost megabillions more and would involve massive land acquisition, and the only Western Queens main line/subway junction is at Woodside.


JFK employees don't pay for the JFK Airtrain, so I doubt that LGA airport employees will be paying for the LGA Airtrain (or for the future, upgraded Newark Airtrain, which will now be heavy-rail, dual-track like JFK and LGA). The whole purpose is converting vehicle traffic to public transit usage, which was very successful at JFK and Newark and will likely be successful at LGA. Drivers from LI and Eastern Queens can park at Willets Point, or take the train/bus to Willets Point.

Couple billion dollars seems like a lot for an employee shuttle. The PWB has exactly one station west of Willets so catchment form the 7 seems more probable if we're talking about employees.

Nearly the whole project seems aimed at simply changing where people park from on the airport property to decks out at Willets instead. JFK AirTrain is successful for a couple reasons 1) traffic is usually bad to JFK meaning car cost is high 2) it hits Jamaica where you have the pick of LIRR services and myriad NYCT options.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by k1052

Wut?

PATH literally drops you at the N station in Herald Sq and reopening/widening/improving the Gimbels corridor from Penn is pretty simple.

PATH isn't NJ Transit. It's useless for most of Jersey. And PATH doesn't connect to Penn or Grand Central. In contrast, LIRR and NJT will serve both Penn and Grand Central.

And the Gimbels corridor is under the jurisdiction of Vornado, which will only renovate/reopen the tunnel in tandem with the office tower planned to replace the Hotel Pennsylvania.

Also, PATH is basically a subway. The whole point is dedicated airport trains, not overburdening the existing networks. Again, the MTA will be running dedicated trains to Willets Point from Penn and Grand Central. So basically 1000x better for airport travelers than normal subway trains.

Subway access to airports is fine. But most travelers want commuter rail access, with dedicated trains, and room for luggage. Heathrow is lucky in that they have both. DeGaulle just has the commuter access, but it works fine. LGA will have both.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NJT will serve both Penn and Grand Central.

Unless they dug Alt G while I wasn't looking this is not accurate.

And the Gimbels corridor is under the jurisdiction of Vornado, which will only renovate/reopen the tunnel in tandem with the office tower planned to replace the Hotel Pennsylvania.

City could lean on Vornado any time if they thought it was a priority. It's the lack of will not leverage that's prevented this.

Also, PATH is basically a subway. The whole point is dedicated airport trains, not overburdening the existing networks. Again, the MTA will be running dedicated trains to Willets Point from Penn and Grand Central. So basically 1000x better for airport travelers than normal subway trains.

Ironically I expect the chief effect of the LGA AirTain project will be to overload the 7 with tourists.

Subway access to airports is fine. But most travelers want commuter rail access, with dedicated trains, and room for luggage. Heathrow is lucky in that they have both. DeGaulle just has the commuter access, but it works fine. LGA will have both.

Premium services to airports don't have the best track record.

[NYguy]

Order people!

This discussion has run all over the place, and I can't even read through all of that crap.

This isn't a discussion about what's built or being built in other cities. This discussion is about LaGuardia, and it's related developments. Any further mentions outside of this will be deleted.



Now, since we're talking LaGuardia, and the airtrain, a look at plans for the rebuilt ramp (bridge) into Flushing Meadows, and the airtrain station.



1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.



14.



15.



16.



17.



18.



19.



20.



21.



22.

[NYguy]

https://qns.com/2021/08/laguardia-ai...ort-authority/

LaGuardia AirTrain will not be derailed by Cuomo’s resignation: Port Authority

By Bill Parry
August 13, 2021

The $2.1 billion LaGuardia AirTrain project will not be derailed by Governor Andrew Cuomo’s resignation amid the sexual harassment allegations made against him, according to the Port Authority, which confirmed with QNS that it plans to move forward with construction on the 1.5 miles long light rail system connecting LaGuardia Airport to the transportation hub next to Citi Field in Willets Point.

“The Port Authority is committed to building both the new LaGuardia AirTrain and a new Newark Airport AirTrain as part of the agency’s priority to provide environmentally-friendly mass rail transit links to its airports,” a Port Authority spokesman told QNS. “Both are priority projects in the Port Authority’s capital plan, which was approved by the Board in September 2019.”

[Busy Bee]

Well son of a bitch. Can anything stop this monster? God help us.

[k1052]

The only time I truly would not be heartbroken to see a lawsuit. The alternatives analysis in the EIR was BS.

[TowerDude]

The only way to comprehensively connect LGA to mass transit is with BOTH the Airtrain AND a subway extension.

Ideally there would be a dedicated LGA/JFK/WTC/EWR connector line.