(EWR) Newark Airport's AirTrain people mover targeted for scrap heap

C. · #1 Posted **Apr 28, 2015, 8:05 PM**

Image from NJ.com (Jerry McCrea | The Star-Ledger)

Quote:

Back in the mid-1990s, when the Port Authority opened the Newark AirTrain, it was widely viewed as a mess of a project. Trying to buy a customized product from a less-successful company, the Port Authority spent $354 million in mid-1990s dollars on the slow and hulking system with tiny cars and generally not enough capacity they have today. What they didn’t say at the time was that the design life of the system was 25 years, and well, wouldn’t you know, but time flies. That 25 years is almost up, and without a planning process that begins now, the PA will shoot past that deadline with no replacement in sight.

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2015/04...n-replacement/

Quote:

NEWARK — The 19-year-old AirTrain monorail system at Newark Liberty International Airport is being targeted for replacement.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has not publicly estimated the cost of a new system, or said when it expected the project to begin or end. But Port Authority commissioners are scheduled to vote Thursday to authorize spending $40 million on planning consultants for the project, plus another $30 million on technical experts.

"Although substantial investment has been made to maintain current operations, such investment has not extended the 25-year design life of the system, nor has it expanded capacity," states the planning resolution proposed for adoption Thursday.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201..._to_build.html

I always hated the thing. It's too slow and made the theoretical 2-seat ride from Manhattan to Newark via NJ Transit unbearable. Best case scenario is for the Port Authority to merge the PATH extension study and the AirTrain replacement study and who knows, we might even get direct PATH access from the World Trade Center to the Newark terminal buildings. But who are we kidding here?

NorthernDancer · #2 Posted **Apr 29, 2015, 1:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CIA

I always hated the thing. It's too slow and made the theoretical 2-seat ride from Manhattan to Newark via NJ Transit unbearable. Best case scenario is for the Port Authority to merge the PATH extension study and the AirTrain replacement study and who knows, we might even get direct PATH access from the World Trade Center to the Newark terminal buildings. But who are we kidding here?

First of all, the "AirTrain" is absolutely terrible. It made my ride from Newark Airport to Newport PATH station a FOUR-SEAT RIDE! On top of that, you're right in that it's brutally slow. It felt like it was moving about 5MPH.

As far as extending the PATH right to the airport, stopping at all three terminals (I think it's three), that is not just the best case scenario, that is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

sbarn · #3 Posted **Apr 29, 2015, 1:34 AM**

I've always hated the AirTrain at Newark Airport for reasons already stated - its slow and cramped. That said, it is useful and I don't look forward to it going out of service during a construction period.

blackcat23 · #4 Posted **Apr 29, 2015, 5:23 AM**

Good riddance. Being stuck on AirTrain is my least comfortable airport experience in recent years.

drumz0rz · #5 Posted **Apr 29, 2015, 3:37 PM**

I flew in late one night, it took an hour from when I got off the plane to when I got to my car in the long term lot thanks to the AirTrain. I didn't even check any bags. They only had 1 train in operation. It would have been faster if I had just walked.

Mr Downtown · #6 Posted **May 1, 2015, 1:39 PM**

The problem with extending PATH is that PFCs can only be used to pay for a distinct airport-only system.

mrnyc · #7 Posted **May 1, 2015, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The problem with extending PATH is that PFCs can only be used to pay for a distinct airport-only system.

private first class???

can you explain? i'd like to hear more about that problem.

C. · #8 Posted **May 1, 2015, 7:26 PM**

It's Passenger Facility Fee or something along those lines. It's a tax collected on air fares and varies by airport.

C. · #9 Posted **May 1, 2015, 7:32 PM**

Personally, I think it's a lame excuse. It's not that hard to get a federal waiver. If an agency did come to the Obama administration asking to extend PATH to the airport, is it really in the public's best interest to say no - go for the people mover and less connectivity. However, it is a very convenient excuse for agencies that don't play well together.

BrownTown · #10 Posted **May 1, 2015, 11:35 PM**

It seems really short-sighted that the original people mover is already needing to be replaced after just 20 years. Especially given the cost of doing anything in the North East I can't believe they are going to spend a Billion dollars to replace something that's younger than I am when there are 100 year old tunnels being used in other places. Guess they really don't build stuff like they used to.

Also, it always seemed like a massive oversight to me that PATH wasn't extended to the Airport, but I understand the politics of it all is daunting all well as the costs of doing anything in the North East. Quite Frankly all of these NYC threads are depressing as hell to me given the complete inability to get anything done. Can you imagine if it was like this back in the day when they were rapidly expanding the transit infrastructure? NYC as we know it wouldn't even exist. Even now NYC is surviving only due to the hard work and ingenuity of people who are all dead now. If they had to rebuild all of the current infrastructure there is no way the city would survive. What's going to happen when all of these old tunnels and bridges start to fall apart? They are struggling to just replace the Tappan Zee bridge, let alone finding money for new Hudson River tunnels or subway lines.

Mr Downtown · #11 Posted **May 2, 2015, 4:03 AM**

Longstanding [FAA] guidance on eligibility does not permit AIP (or PFC) funding of ground access projects that:

Are not located on airport property or on right-of-way owned or controlled by the airport; or
Are intended for the use of both airport and non-airport passengers, regardless of the benefit to the airport.

Source

FREKI · #12 Posted **May 2, 2015, 5:31 AM**

It was slow, but the view towards Manhattan was nice

mrnyc · #13 Posted **May 2, 2015, 11:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Longstanding [FAA] guidance on eligibility does not permit AIP (or PFC) funding of ground access projects that:

Are not located on airport property or on right-of-way owned or controlled by the airport; or
Are intended for the use of both airport and non-airport passengers, regardless of the benefit to the airport.

Source

that you. hmm, that seems to say a theoretical path train extension onto airport property cant be funded a certain way, but not that it wouldnt be allowed to be built if it could be funded some other way. if so that is good news. in other words, the path could still be allowed to be extended into the airport terminals as long as they dont use airport passenger fees to pay for the airport section. is that correct? anyone know??

C. · #14 Posted **May 2, 2015, 2:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Longstanding [FAA] guidance on eligibility does not permit AIP (or PFC) funding of ground access projects that:

Are not located on airport property or on right-of-way owned or controlled by the airport; or
Are intended for the use of both airport and non-airport passengers, regardless of the benefit to the airport.

Source

There are big differences between statutory requirements, regulatory, and policy. Policy can change. Regulatory can be waived as long as it doesn't violate a statute. There would be widespread abuse of PFCs if the FAA didn't have this policy in place, but that doesn't mean the policy is set in stone or if a carefully crafted train extension that will primarily benefit airport customers can't be funded partially with PFCs.

Here is the nitty gritty if anyone wants to delve into PFCs: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../PFC_55001.pdf

ardecila · #15 Posted **May 2, 2015, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc

that you. hmm, that seems to say a theoretical path train extension onto airport property cant be funded a certain way, but not that it wouldnt be allowed to be built if it could be funded some other way. if so that is good news. in other words, the path could still be allowed to be extended into the airport terminals as long as they dont use airport passenger fees to pay for the airport section. is that correct? anyone know??

Yes. That's why AirTrain at JFK is a non-stop from the airport to Jamaica or Howard Beach. I believe the viaduct was built with the ability to carry LIRR or subway trains at some future date, but the added cost of this feature had to be financed by the Port Authority without using PFCs.

mthd · #16 Posted **May 2, 2015, 11:27 PM**

I just rode this thing from the airport Amtrak station (a decent ride from baltimore) and while it's an odd choice of technologies, the implementation seems pretty good. Very direct station/terminal transfers, platform doors, nice enough stations. it is really slow, but maybe not the end of the world, and the little tiny compartments in the trains are bizarre.

I wonder if they could just replace the cars with something more cleverly designed, or the cara and the guideway using the same aerials? The speed issue appears to be because of some combination of vehicle design and turning radius on the monorail.

ardecila · #17 Posted **May 3, 2015, 12:19 AM**

I can't believe the replacement of this thing would be terribly difficult. The rolling stock is really what needs to be replaced, but when you buy a proprietary system and the manufacturer goes under, you're up shit creek. There's no way the guideway, structures, and stations need replacement after only 25 years.

Surely there is a lightweight tram technology out there that can be adapted to the existing aerial structures and stations.

I can't believe the PA can just throw $70M into this thing just to plan it. Planning and engineering are mostly labor, with very little in the way of materials... so in essence, the Port Authority is planning to keep a staff of SEVENTY engineers employed for a full decade at a salary of $100,000 each. This is absolutely unbelievable, and shows the ridiculous, insane amounts of money that large engineering firms are making on the backs of taxpayers.

Nexis4Jersey · #18 Posted **May 3, 2015, 12:33 AM**

Should have built the Newark - Elizabeth LRT...and then added Airport terminal Stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark%...beth_Rail_Link

mthd · #19 Posted **May 3, 2015, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

?..
Surely there is a lightweight tram technology out there that can be adapted to the existing aerial structures and stations.

I can't believe the PA can just throw $70M into this thing just to plan it. Planning and engineering are mostly labor, with very little in the way of materials... so in essence, the Port Authority is planning to keep a staff of SEVENTY engineers employed for a full decade at a salary of $100,000 each. This is absolutely unbelievable, and shows the ridiculous, insane amounts of money that large engineering firms are making on the backs of taxpayers.

the monorail guideway and it's geometry (seems to have very tight radii) probably limits design choices a lot, even if there were manufacturers building this kind of thing. how different is it than the Sydney or Seattle monorails?

$70M is a joke - but it doesn't work out nearly as you hypothesize. Salaries are perhaps a half or a third of the revenues of a big A/E firm (rent, taxes, benefits, etc), and the $70M probably includes management from the airport and fees and outreach and environmental reports and all that. Cut it in half twice though, and it still seems ridiculous. 35 people for 5 years!

ardecila · #20 Posted **May 3, 2015, 5:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mthd

the monorail guideway and it's geometry (seems to have very tight radii) probably limits design choices a lot, even if there were manufacturers building this kind of thing. how different is it than the Sydney or Seattle monorails?

$70M is a joke - but it doesn't work out nearly as you hypothesize. Salaries are perhaps a half or a third of the revenues of a big A/E firm (rent, taxes, benefits, etc), and the $70M probably includes management from the airport and fees and outreach and environmental reports and all that. Cut it in half twice though, and it still seems ridiculous. 35 people for 5 years!

OK, yeah, there's some overhead. But outreach, reports, etc is all really just manpower, which is covered under salaries. It's not like they're spending $1M on paper and toner, or presentation boards. Even community meetings are usually run by the planners themselves, with maybe some student volunteers and a nominal fee paid to some public building, just enough to keep the lights on into the evening.

The problem IMO is that the Port Authority and other large agencies don't have nearly enough engineers in-house, or if they do, they are not entrusted with the design of major capital projects. They should be able to select a replacement technology and manufacturer for the EWR AirTrain without hiring an outside consultant. Any needed design work should also be done in-house.

This is one of the reasons that Madrid was able to build its metro so cheaply. Private companies with a large need for engineering also, typically, have a large in-house staff. Union Pacific doesn't hire Parsons every time they need to replace a bridge.