|
|
| Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) (1334638) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
|
| (1334736) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Jan 20 21:25:45 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 20 17:29:42 2015. Exactly. Construct a flyover track from just south of the Astoria Blvd Sta to run down the middle of GCP to the airport. Just figure out a way to get by the NY Connecting RR bridge that crosses the GCP. |
|
|
| (1334738) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Tue Jan 20 21:29:02 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by The Silence on Tue Jan 20 14:14:58 2015. wtf |
|
|
| (1334739) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Jan 20 21:31:53 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by italianstallion on Tue Jan 20 18:20:00 2015. Don't go over or under it, go around it (your post). IMHO that's worth doing even without the LGA expansion. With the SBTC built send the LGA Airtrain from the South Bronx Transit Center through LGA to Willets point, then down the Van Wyck to connect with Jamaica and the JFK Airtrain. Finally, proclaim the glory of the state over airport user fee foolishness to wrest the Airtrain system from the PANJNY's grasp and build in-fill stations to create a heavy rail ZPTO crosstown connector from the South Bronx to Howard Beach. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1334741) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Tue Jan 20 21:44:46 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by r33/r36 mainline on Tue Jan 20 15:53:51 2015. Wrong. Even with CBTC, capacity will still very much remain an issue. |
|
|
| (1334742) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Tue Jan 20 21:45:45 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by r33/r36 mainline on Tue Jan 20 16:07:01 2015. 7 line will be 100 percent NTT, CBTC, ATO, not to mention Met Games, U.S Open, etc, from a PR prospective, the 7 line >>>>> Astoria.That makes no sense at all. Seriously. |
|
|
| (1334747) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 20 21:58:34 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 20 17:29:42 2015. That works. |
|
|
| (1334748) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 20 22:08:18 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by The silence on Tue Jan 20 17:59:10 2015. Your post was ambiguous.Why mention Ditmars usage if it has nothing to do with the extension? |
|
|
| (1334749) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 20 22:11:00 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by N6 Limited on Tue Jan 20 17:46:18 2015. They also opposed the construction of the first subway because of the inconvenience. There will always be some opposition to any construction. It just shoudn't drag on a long time. |
|
|
| (1334750) | |
Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:13:03 2015, in response to Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by gOlD_12tH on Tue Jan 20 11:59:31 2015. Any capital project should pay for itself either by decreasing operating costs or by increasing the value of the real estate tax base. A project that does neither fits perfectly with such recent gems as South Ferry, Fulton Transportation Center, Path WTC Terminal, East Side Access and the SAS. There are projects like the extension to the West Side that should pay for themselves by increased real estate taxes.Any rail link to LaGuardia will not bring any additional business to NYC. LaGuardia is already maxed out as an airport. A "convenient" rail link won't increase its traffic. Not having a rail link will not decrease its traffic. The number of passengers benefiting from an LGA rail link will be far fewer than those benefiting from extending the subway network to undeserved areas. The introduction of direct subway service to such areas means increased density to these areas and increased real estate valuations. Also, buses are more expensive to operate than subways. Substituting subways for existing buses will also reduce overall operating costs. NYC has the density that allows subways economies to scale to fill subway trains. That's not true for all areas. One exception is airports. The demand for transportation to/from airports is dictated by the number of travelers not by population density. NYC has the biggest population and density but JFK and LGA are not the busiest airports. Let's consider JFK's AirTrain. The number of passengers using AirTrain in 2013 was 6,002,835 paying passengers. This includes arriving and departing passengers. It is necessary to divide this figure by 2 to compare its use to a subway station. This gives a "turnstile count" of 3,001,418. If JFK were a subway station it would have ranked 165th in the NYC system, it would have placed between 46th St (M/R) and 96th St (B/C) stations. Both are local stations; neither station is considered to be heavily used. JFK ranked 6th in passenger volume with 50,423,765 passengers. Chicago's O'Hare ranked 2nd with 66,883,271 passengers. LGA ranked 20th with 26,722,183 passenger. Chicago's Midway Airport ranked 24th with 20,491,422 passengers. AirTrain's equivalent station use corresponded to 5.95% of JFK's passengers. O'Hare's CTA turnstiles counted 3,483,126 passengers. This corresponds to 5.21% of O'Hare's passenger total. Midway's CTA turnstiles counted 2,783,645 passengers. This corresponds to 13.6% of Midway's passenger total. One might expect a rail link to LGA to 4,000,000 turnstile counts, assuming 15% of LGA's passenger total. This would place a LGA station 120th on the list of busy stations. It fall lie between the 59th St Bklyn (N/R) and Rockaway Pkwy (L) stations. Neither station is particularly distinctive, except to subway buffs. Increased air travel will not increase the turnstile count. LGA is maxed out in terms of the number and size of the planes it can accommodate. It will remain a niche airport. Despite its reputation for being a "business" airport, only 28.9% of LGA's departing passengers list any business as the trip's purpose. JFK's figure is 18%. This means that 71.1% and 82% of departing passengers from LGA and JFK are leaving only for leisure. Despite JFK's AirTrain only 25.2% of departing passengers use their personal car vs. 31.3% for JFK. Taxis are favored by 44% LGA's passengers vs. only 27.3% for JFK. Despite the its lack of quick public transit, average travel time to LGA is 41 minutes vs. 62 minutes for JFK. The projected transit time for the new rail link is 30 minutes for a net savings of 11 minutes. |
|
|
| (1334751) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 20 22:13:33 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 20 18:51:53 2015. Why is there no study to determine te best route? Nor any opportunity for public feedback? |
|
|
| (1334752) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:20:24 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 20 17:29:42 2015. No one is suggesting extending it from the terminal. It shoud be extended from right before the Astoria Blvd station.Here's the problem. About 4 million people would use a LGA service annually. That's 33% more people than currently use JFK's AirTrain or the train services for O'Hare or Midway. 3.9 million people use Astoria Blv and 5.4 million people use Ditmars Blv. You cannot run more rush hour trains on the Astoria Line because the 60th St Tunnel is maxed out at 30 tph with the R merge. |
|
|
| (1334753) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:27:52 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 20 22:13:33 2015. Why is there no study to determine te [the] best route?Studies are conducted by consultants. The first rule of consultants is: if the customer wants peanuts - shovel him peanuts. Guiliani wanted an extension of the N train. Therefore the study was for extending the N train with no other alternatives were considered. Cuomo wants an extension of the 7 train. No other routes will be studied. The other question is what are the criteria for determining "best route." |
|
|
| (1334757) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:42:40 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by The Silence on Tue Jan 20 20:41:40 2015. proximity to Stengel depot. cuts down deadheading.Not all the bus routes use that depot. Almost all the buses would have to add that extra mile to each trip. That more than wipe out any mileage reduction from deadheading. If bus traffic is to be reduced in Downtown Flushing, buses will have to terminate east of Main St. There simply are not enough roads going between Main St and Willets Pt. There are a lot of buildings in the way, as well as the Flushing River and associated wetlands. |
|
|
| (1334760) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 20 22:56:49 2015, in response to Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:13:03 2015. Airport workers would benefit from better transit. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence, but any time I've been on the JFK Airtrain, there seem to be quite a few of them. For the most part, they are not taking cabs or airport express buses. Capital projects that improve quality of life my be very worthwhile even if they are not self supporting, or improve the tax base. If something slowed or prevented a future deterioration of economic conditions it might be very valuable without increasing the tax base. A major purpose of government is to take on projects for the public benefit, if something really needs doing it should be forgotten about just because it has a cost that may not be fully recovered. |
|
|
| (1334762) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 23:04:24 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 20 22:56:49 2015. Airport workers would benefit from better transit. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence, but any time I've been on the JFK Airtrain, there seem to be quite a few of them.There are many more workers at JFK than at LGA. JFK has freight operations; LGA does not. JFK has customs and immigration for international flights; LGA does not. Capital projects that improve quality of life my be very worthwhile even if they are not self supporting... The question is priority. There are many capital projects that can be justified financially that would not get built because the money to build them would be wasted on projects like LGA extension, South Ferry, etc. These unbuilt capital projects would also improve the quality of life. |
|
|
| (1334766) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Tue Jan 20 23:11:46 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 20 22:08:18 2015. it was not ambiguous, you didn't read it right.why did I mention Ditmars? I felt like it. Do I need any other reason? |
|
|
| (1334767) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 20 23:28:49 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 23:04:24 2015. The JFK Airtrain doesn't do a very good job for the cargo area. LGA is a smaller airport, and does have less workers, but the number is not insignificant. In the case of LGA, the only thing that will allow a major increase in flight ops would be adding another non intersecting runway, and the list of reasons why that won't happen is a mile long. Sadly, we seem to botch projects in a lot of ways, lack of vision, lack of political will to overcome nimby-ism, pandering to special interests, political correctness, and the list goes on. Someone give a good reason why we didn't put in at least a shell for a future 42nd and 10th station on the 7 extension. That would facilitate development of that area and increase the tax base as you mentioned. Ridiculous. |
|
|
| (1334768) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Tue Jan 20 23:51:52 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:42:40 2015. Not all the bus routes use that depot.enough do. Almost all the buses would have to add that extra mile to each trip. That more than wipe out any mileage reduction from deadheading A mile with maybe one stop, but in service versus empty. Losing dead head miles is good if you are carrying passengers instead. And I'm sure the drivers would not mind the extra hop if it meant a clean toilet and break room reserved for them, and as I said before, not using the side of church... If bus traffic is to be reduced in Downtown Flushing, buses will have to terminate east of Main St. There simply are not enough roads going between Main St and Willets Pt. There are a lot of buildings in the way, as well as the Flushing River and associated wetlands. I don't think you know Willets Point the way I know Willets Point. We just need the one road, and, believe it or not, it doesn't actually get as much traffic as you think it does. I used to do contract retail security work. I did a few shifts at a kids clothing store on the corner of Jamaica Ave and Guy R. Brewer Blvd. Jamaica at that point has two traffic lanes and two parking lanes. It also hosts 11 bus routes. Now, Roosevelt, for most of it's length between Main street and 114th street on the far side of the park, has. well. nothing. Jamaica Ave is a prime shopping strip and is full of people and traffic. Rooesvelt cuts through a park. Just a baseball stadium that sits empty 284 days a year. |
|
|
| (1334770) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Jan 20 23:55:06 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jan 20 20:48:40 2015. You can probably squeeze a track under the structure on the strip of land between the GCP outermost lanes and the service roads. The real problem is then avoiding the very nearby overpasses at Steinway and 44th Streets that cross the GCP. |
|
|
| (1334772) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Jan 20 23:58:12 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by MainR3664 on Tue Jan 20 14:26:16 2015. There is but one block of residences north of Ditmars Boulevard, and that is only on the west side of the street. Why should THAT stop extending the el?wayne |
|
|
| (1334773) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jan 21 00:13:42 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Jan 20 23:58:12 2015. NIMBY-ism does not have to be based on facts, only emotions. Wasn't the last big push for the Astoria line idea when Peter Vallone was Speaker of the City Council? A decent idea but dead on arrival. |
|
|
| (1334779) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Jan 21 01:29:01 2015, in response to Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:13:03 2015. Airtrain LaGuardia will probably be paid for the same way Airtrain JFK was paid for, with the Federal Passenger Facility Surcharge. |
|
|
| (1334781) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jan 21 03:28:40 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 20 23:28:49 2015. Someone give a good reason why we didn't put in at least a shell for a future 42nd and 10th station on the 7 extension.Building a shell is probably the *most* expensive part of building a station. In other words, if you had the money to build a shell, you might as well spend the additional $100M to $200M needed to fit it with escalators, tiles, and other ancillary equipment and use it. |
|
|
| (1334782) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jan 21 03:35:15 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jan 21 03:28:40 2015. The other possibility is that after the businesspeople in the area refused to chip in for it, Doomberg pulled a Hylan on their asses. :) |
|
|
| (1334783) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 21 04:23:28 2015, in response to Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:13:03 2015. Not having a rail link will not decrease its traffic.New York as a city wants to compete with other cities for events and full-time businesses. Some feel NYC needs such a link because so many other cities have such airport links. |
|
|
| (1334792) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 07:48:59 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by The Silence on Wed Jan 21 01:29:01 2015. Federal Passenger Facility SurchargeThat means any rail link must be completely separate like JFK's AirTrain. Where will the storage and maintenance facilities be located? JFK had room within the airport. There's no room within LGA. All the area around Willets Point is taken. Besides the entire ROW, along the Grand Central Parkway and Willets Point lies within a Level 1 flood plain. |
|
|
| (1334796) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Wed Jan 21 08:24:02 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 07:48:59 2015. Most of the area around Willets point is flat, empty parking lots that could easily be built over. Since this line would be smaller that JFK it will need less equipment, and probibly only a light work and inspection shed. Heavy work can be done by trucking the cars to JFK. If that sounds odd it's not without president as the Staten Island RaiIway has been doing it for years, shipping cars in need of heavy work to Coney Island Yard by truck. |
|
|
| (1334797) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jan 21 08:30:26 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jan 21 03:28:40 2015. Which is still not a good reason, the future return to the city would have been substantial. Javits has always needed this, and the project has enabled Manhattan West and Hudson Yards, it could have done much more. |
|
|
| (1334805) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 21 08:47:53 2015, in response to Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:13:03 2015. Very well thought out! |
|
|
| (1334807) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jan 21 08:52:51 2015, in response to Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:13:03 2015. The number of passengers benefiting from an LGA rail link will be far fewer than those benefiting from extending the subway network to undeserved areas.Freudian typo? |
|
|
| (1334811) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 09:15:23 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by The Silence on Tue Jan 20 23:51:52 2015. I don't think you know Willets Point the way I know Willets Point...Now, Roosevelt, for most of it's length between Main street and 114th streetThe first problem is crossing Main St from points east. The bus routes have been designed to avoid crossing Main St. as much as possible. It's still a nightmare with its current vehicle traffic. Requiring almost all buses to cross Main St at Roosevelt will make it much worse. N.B. most of the pedestrian traffic is local and will not go away by routing the buses to Willets Point. The second problem is the College Point Blvd intersection. There's now a shopping mall on the southwest corner. Pedestrian traffic reaches it by crossing this intersection. This has reduced the number of vehicles that can cross or turn at this intersection from any direction. It's bad for cars traveling eastbound. The roadway is two lanes wide and cannot be widened. The right lane is backed up because cars cannot turn onto College Pt Blv because of pedestrians crossing College Pt Blvd entering and exiting the shopping mall. The third problem is parking garage entrance/exit for this shopping mall. It's located just west of the elevated portal. They have added a traffic light there. This has reduced the westbound roadway to a single through lane. The left lane is a holding lane for cars making a left turn and waiting for the traffic light to change. Through traffic for the remaining single lane has been reduced because traffic light must allow cars exiting the garage to turn left (westbound) onto Roosevelt. The result is that westbound through capacity has been reduced to 25% of what it was previously (50% for taking away the left lane and 50% for the traffic light). Through eastbound traffic is hardly better. It's also got to wait for the traffic light for cars entering/leaving the garage. After it gets past there, there's the abovementioned backup from cars trying to turn right (south) onto College Pt Blvd. Your Jamaica experience is not analogous. The Jamaica shopping district is spread out over from Sutphin Blvd to 170th St (the old Mays store), a distance of 1 mile. The magnet stores: Montgomery-Ward, Gertz, Macy's and Mays were dispersed. The traffic they generated was also dispersed. The shopping mall in Flushing is different. All the traffic from Targets, Old Navy, Marshals, Best Buy, BJ's etc., is concentrated at a single corner. This mall may be a collection of losers but collectively they overwhelm Rosevelt Ave. The fourth problem is on the horizon at 126th St/Willets Pt Blv. This is the new shopping center and housing development to replace the auto junk yards. Its backers expect this development to generate more traffic than Citifield and the tennis stadium combined. I have lived in this area for more than 50 years. Navigating by car over the Roosevelt Ave Bridge isn't the clear shot it once was. You can get some idea of what it might be like by taking the shuttle bus, when the Flushing line is closed between Willets Point and Main St. The next scheduled service interruption is May 22nd. |
|
|
| (1334812) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 21 09:23:32 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by The Silence on Tue Jan 20 23:11:46 2015. Nice...being a dick,like usual. |
|
|
| (1334813) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 09:26:23 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Charles G on Wed Jan 21 08:52:51 2015. So much for spell check.Actually, it's the reverse of a Freudian typo. I want to extend the existing rail network geographically. Most of planners want to freeze it and provide BRT to areas without rail transit. It's the planners' cure du jour. The BRT snake oil salesmen convinced them it's as good as rail at for a fraction of the cost. I'm not convinced. |
|
|
| (1334814) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by localacrosstheplatform on Wed Jan 21 09:28:14 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jan 20 19:42:27 2015. LaGuardia does have international service -- to preclearance airports in Canada!And Heathrow also has two other rail services -- Heathrow Express and Connect. |
|
|
| (1334816) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jan 21 09:46:45 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:20:24 2015. So you are saying the capacity on 7 is greater with smaller subway cars and #7 service can be increased or are you considering the LIRR? |
|
|
| (1334817) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jan 21 09:54:04 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:27:52 2015. I disagree. Consultants don't work for the consumer. They work for the party they were hired by. That's who they are going to please. More likely they will be told, this is the route I want to build. Now prove that is the best option by eliminating the alternatives. They will nt be asked to seek out the best route.The best route is determined by which is most feasible to build engineering wise, which is the cheapest to build, which would carry the most passengers, which has the greatest capacity, which woud take the shortest tine to construct, which is the shortest and most direct route in terms of construction, and which route would take the least travel time from origin to destination. All the factors have to be weighed against each other considering the trade offs, since most likely no single route would be the best on all accounts. |
|
|
| (1334819) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 21 10:03:53 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by localacrosstheplatform on Wed Jan 21 09:28:14 2015. I also had a non-stop flight with Delta from Nassau, Bahamas to LGA, back in 2006. They do not seem to operate that anymore. I forget if I was pre-cleared in Nassau. I must have been though, right? |
|
|
| (1334825) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 10:20:45 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jan 21 09:46:45 2015. I was replying to your statement that a spur off the Astoria Line was feasible. Notice the the first line which repeated your quote in italics.Your spur would have joined the Astoria Line south of the Astoria Blv station. This would have reduced service to the Astoria Blvd and Ditmars Blvd stations. I pointed out that passenger traffic at both these stations far exceeded that of the LGA spur. Additional Astoria Line trains would be required to service these stations. However, the Astoria Line is already maxed out because of traffic in the 60th St Tunnel. Therefore, any spur off the Astoria Line really isn't feasible. |
|
|
| (1334827) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 10:26:57 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jan 21 09:54:04 2015. Consultants don't work for the consumerReread my statement. I wrote customer not consumer. They work for the party they were hired by That's the customer. We have no disagreement. Consultants will slant their "engineering" studies to please their customer (i.e. the party that hired them.) The best route is determined by...All the factors have to be weighed against each other considering the trade offs, since most likely no single route would be the best on all accounts. The devil is in the details. What weightings do you assign to each of the factors you enumerated? BTW, one factor you did not enumerate was what the customer wanted. That trumps all the others from the consultant's perspective. |
|
|
| (1334831) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 21 11:13:57 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 10:26:57 2015. This message is basically a response to the entire stream of messages.Guys (however you define yourselves) just take a step back and reflect upon the entire conversation. Over good periods of time (like this) and others - on the message forums a whole variety of issues get hashed out and talked about. Serious ideas, fanciful ideas, critiques of ideas, discussions of ideas and even rejections of ideas --- all take place here. The advancement of the discussion of this LGA - Air-Train simply does not "come out of thin air" but rather from the wonderful interplay of ideas, thoughts, critiques and messages back and forth. Whatever the particular merits or the fine print of the various issues of the LGA - Airtrain - just step back and reflect upon the various contributions message forums like this add to the discussion. I return you now to your regularly scheduled ... Mike |
|
|
| (1334833) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 21 11:27:27 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Jan 20 23:58:12 2015. There are actually 2 blocks, from Ditmars to 20th Ave. In the second block, there are homes on both sides.Despite this, those residents got powerful allies on their side the last time. |
|
|
| (1334834) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 21 11:30:55 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 21 10:03:53 2015. Does LAG fly to Bermuda too? |
|
|
| (1334835) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Jan 21 11:35:26 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Tue Jan 20 21:44:46 2015. Remember though, the Port Washington branch could turn the Shea Stadium stop into a permanent stop if need be. That means direct service into Penn and Grand Central with only one intermediate stop @ Woodside. |
|
|
| (1334840) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jan 21 11:57:12 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 21 11:30:55 2015. At the present time, the only scheduled international flights are to pre-clearance Canadian destinations. I sort of remember some other places some time ago, but not sure. Not now though, there are no border clearance facilities for scheduled passengers. |
|
|
| (1334841) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Jan 21 12:13:16 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 10:20:45 2015. That's not true. The Q will be going to 2nd Ave soon, that frees up capacity for the W to the airport. |
|
|
| (1334850) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jan 21 12:34:59 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 10:20:45 2015. I hope that by "extend" BrooklynBus meant "site the transfer station to the AirTrain system" and not actually extend the subway system to LGA. |
|
|
| (1334852) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jan 21 12:37:48 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Jan 21 11:35:26 2015. We were talking about the 7 line. |
|
|
| (1334857) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jan 21 12:54:34 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 09:26:23 2015. The BRT snake oil salesmen convinced them it's as good as rail at for a fraction of the cost. I'm not convinced.I think BRT sells so well because it's a low upfront capital cost with a much shorter implementation time, along with the fact that you can dump some of your operating costs (street maintenance) onto another agency (state and municipal DOT). Other than the cost of some new buses, the ticket machines, and bus stop shelters, did they actually spend anything else on setting up SBS? |
|
|
| (1334858) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jan 21 13:04:00 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jan 21 12:54:34 2015. Despite what the MTA tries to sell us, true BRT and SBS are not the same thing. |
|
|
| (1334859) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 13:04:17 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by N6 Limited on Wed Jan 21 12:13:16 2015. The Q will be going to 2nd Ave soon, that frees up capacity for the W to the airport.Here's the bottom line however one re-arranges the deck chairs. There are currently 20 tph out of Ditmars (10 tph Q, 10 tph n). They will still need 20 tph out of Ditmars regardless of which letter(s) call it. There are also 10 tph R's using the 60th St Tunnel at the same time. That brings 60th St Tunnel use to 30 tph. How will service to LGA be routed? |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
