pa is out on the defense re lga airtrain costs:


Port Authority defends rising LGA AirTrain cost, now at $2.05 billion

https://www.amny.com/transit/port-au...ran-1.33057339


https://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/..._768/image.jpg

If there has ever been a more thrown together, ill-conceived and politically expedient transportation project of this scope in the city I can't think of it. They could likely extend the Astoria Line for 2-3 billion.

It will probably be $3B by the time they finish.

What an enormous waste of money.

more backlash over the 14st busway lawsuit:

https://ny.curbed.com/2019/7/9/20687...usway-nyct-mta

best subway performance in years, over 80% on time, so what to they do?

reorganize to screw over andy byford -- ugh:


Subway on-time performance hits 6-year high as MTA reorganization looms


The city's subway system continued gradual improvement in June as a potentially mammoth reorganization of the MTA looms.

The MTA’s on-time performance of trains surpassed 80 percent last month for the first time in nearly six years. On-time performance measures the percentage of trains that arrive at a terminal within five minutes of their scheduled time and is a common benchmark for quality of service.

MTA officials continued to credit the Subway Action Plan, a strategy to increase maintenance, and the Save Safe Seconds program to re-evaluate speed restrictions and fix faulty speed control equipment, the latter of which the MTA believes had slowed train movements for years. New subway vacuum equipment also helped reduce train delays, allowing more efficient clearing of flammable debris from the tracks, according to the authority.


more:
https://www.amny.com/transit/subway-...nce-1.33726030

True, it is a waste because it's 3 billion for a 2 seat rail ride, when most cities around the world did it properly the first time and have a one seat ride to the airport.

My dream solution would have been to replace the Astoria line with a new bored tunnel from Queensboro Plaza to LGA and (then with one leg onto College Point & one leg south to Willets Pt connecting with LIRR & 7) with express tracks that facilitated nonstop trains from QB to a subterranean LGA station. The new line could have also added local stations in Steinway and at the foot of the Rikers bridge in anticipation of its' future re-purposing.

I know of no cities that have a true one seat ride, unless they only have one terminal, and a tiny downtown. Certainly not Paris, London or any of the heavyweights.

Paris CDG, for example, has three terminals, and only T2 is connected to RER. And RER heads to Chatelet which is a ways east of the business heart of Paris. So the only way you have a "one seat ride" is if you're lucky enough to arrive at T2 and your destination is on the RER B (highly unlikely if you're a business or leisure traveler).

Let's pretend you have unlimited money and no NIMBYs. How could you do a one seat ride to, say, JFK? There are seven terminals. Where would it go in Manhattan? Even if it went directly to Times Square it would not give most visitors a one seat ride.

The LGA Airtrain isn't ideal, but it's a huge improvement, and there's no better option, so I'll take it.

I think there is an overblown focus on one seat rides however what NY has for JFK and is proposing for LGA is effectively a three seat ride. At several billion dollars in cost this seems like an extremely wasteful investment given the PA's other needs.

Given total freedom I would have extended the N/W via subway through Astoria Heights and Jackson Heights (adding 2-3 neighborhood stations) right onto the airport property with a loop to avoid terminal constraints. Also buy all open gangway rolling stock to service the line's increase in ridership.

Whilst you are correct that there will for the majority of people never be a completely one-seat ride because the ultimate onward destination could be anywhere in a city especially for massive cities from New York to Paris, it completely ignores the whole reason for airport express services. Namely dedicated express services have dedicated train paths to segregate them from day-to-day commuter passengers and those travelling to/from a city centre and airport. They tend to have extra space for luggage, few stops, and when they do stop it is typically for onward access to other parts of a city and destinations further afield.

The problem with this LaGuardia AirTrain concept is that it replicates the same issues of getting to/from Manhattan to JFK and Newark, namely that you are forced to make a transfer regardless of your end destination, and you’re competing for non-airport passenger capacity on a train. All three of New York’s airports could easily have accommodated small branches to the LIRR and NJT lines that come close to the stations. The vast majority of infrastructure for a Newark to JFK service already exists for example.

If you are in London you can take the train from Paddington to LHR directly into whatever terminal you are going. If you live near Paddington it's a one seat ride. Otherwise it's a two to three seat usually (depending on taxi, subway line connections, etc) Most tourists/travelers would do it in 2 because they would be taking a car to the station due to luggage.

If you are in walking distance of the 7/LIRR in NY you can get to LGA in 2 seats, but most people will need 3+ seats to get there depending on subway lines/taxi, etc.

Hmm, well in a way you are right, it all depends on the city, where you are staying, the airport layout, transit system. True one seat rides of course are only for people staying/working near the terminus and where the arrival point is in the terminal of choice. For the majority of people, the airtrain is turning what is a two seat ride in many cities into a 3 seat ride, and that could be a major turn off for a lot of folks. It all depends on many factors though, and a comparison would have to be done city by city to see how air train stacks up.

That's correct. Heathrow Express provides nonstop service between all of Heathrow's terminals except T4. It runs every 15 minutes, and it only takes 15 minutes (21 minutes from T5) to get to what's more or less Central London. From there, it's a 10-minute Tube ride to Piccadilly Circus. I've never taken the HE, but I have ridden the Hong Kong MTR's Airport Express line (modeled after the HE), and it's fantastic. Whether an AirTrain or a Subway extension, neither experience would compare to what has existed in cities like London and Hong Kong for a while now. Even Toronto has its own airport-to-city rail link now in the Pearson Express.

I don't think the AirTrain is a terrible idea in and of itself. What is terrible, however, is the planned connection at Willets Point... the opposite direction of where most of the travel demand is. I understand the desire to connect with LIRR, but as has been mentioned, that's a commuter rail line that doesn't operate on a periodic schedule. Who the hell is going to take the 7 from Manhattan, LIC, or Sunnyside to outer Queens, only to backtrack 2 miles? It'll only be a great option for those who live in Flushing or Jackson Heights; otherwise, a cab makes much more sense.

I think NYC not having direct rail access to its airports isn't that big of a deal. How about finishing the SAS and improving the existing infrastructure first? The London Underground is even older than the NYC Subway, and its stations look as good as new.

Yes, this is a much bigger priority. SAS should be finished and extended to Brooklyn/Bronx. The airport connections are far from ideal, but unless you demolished the airports and rebuilt, I see no way you could ever do a one-seat ride, also because there is no true center in Manhattan.

The incremental improvements (the new Airtrain at LGA, the PATH extension to Newark and the Airtrain rebuilding/expansion at JFK) are fine, if less than ideal, for now. There are far bigger regional transit priorities.

^ Is nito correct that the infrastructure is already in place for an express rail airport link between, say, Jamaica and Grand Central? Heathrow Express shares tracks with other commuter rail services, but I don't know how it would impact LIRR or if there's capacity at Grand Central.

I think direct rail service between Jamaica and the WTC PATH Station would make sense if it's an extension of the LIRR from the Atlantic Terminal.

No, this isn't true. There's a rail line, of course, but it's at capacity into Manhattan. And Jamaica isn't JFK. There's a second LIRR tunnel into Midtown but it won't have service for a few more years (East Side Access).

JFK Airtrain was built to heavy rail/LIRR standards, so you could hypothetically run LIRR directly from JFK, but if such a service were started, it would go through Brooklyn, because that route has capacity, and they wanted to tie it into WTC reconstruction.

But additional tunneling would have to be dug, and the lower level of the WTC station would have to be finished. Bloomberg supported this extension, but it was controversial, never fully funded, and killed under DeBlasio. It may someday be resurrected but would cost billions and still won't serve most visitors, and I can think of about a dozen higher priority projects.

The AirTrain guideway was built to dimensional and electrical compatibility with LIRR but not to take the weight of existing LIRR rolling stock. The idea IIRC was that at some point in the future some sort of light weight stock could be built that could use regular LIRR trackage and AirTrain. Regulations, until recently, have made that an impossibility.

Forget Grand Central. New York Penn connects the NJT Northeast Corridor Line (for Newark) and LIRR Main Line (for JFK). Spurs on these lines (including to the LIRR Port Washington branch line for La Guardia), and you’d have one-seat rides from New York Penn to the three primary airports of New York.

These aren’t massive engineering projects; short spurs to existing lines, the introduction of digital signalling (which will be needed anyway at some point to facilitate higher frequencies) and airport express rolling stock. New York is peculiar among world cities in that it has dilapidated infrastructure whilst spending extortionate sums on projects that make little sense, compounded by lack of regional masterplanning. East Side Access and Penn Station South are incredibly ill thought out projects and would never get off the ground in Paris or London.

^ A project in Paris or London would have come in the form of a New Penn Station and ESA would have come in the form of a run-through connection between GCT and Penn instead of a stub terminal under GCT for a dozen billion dollars.

Once again, you cannot do that. The Penn tunnels are at capacity. The Penn platforms are at capacity. If you want a JFK to Penn direct link you would have to build a new tunnel. Good luck with that.

There are plans to run direct trains from JFK and LGA, but not until ESA is completed, and to Grand Central, which has capacity.

I don't know what this means. Paris and London both have massive rail projects which aren't dissimilar, and both ESA and Penn South are desperately needed projects.

Penn South is, by far, the most important transit infrastructure project in the U.S.