|
|
| 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 5 of 7 |
||
|
| (1335131) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 22 23:19:19 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 21:37:38 2015. Yes! |
|
|
| (1335132) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 22 23:26:16 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 22 21:52:31 2015. The sooner you underground it, the more it will cost.You could get a track on either side of the GCP roadway, but you are right, the nearby overpasses will be in the way. The only way I see it is to widen the ROW area under the overpasses (i.e., longer overpasses) to allow room for a additional track on either side of the GCP. Probably this would need to be done on at least 4 overpasses - 44 St., BQE ramp, 47 St. and 49 St. Also, the Steinway overpass would have to modified in some way as well. |
|
|
| (1335133) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 22 23:28:28 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 22:28:55 2015. Is there not a way you can build subways in a flood zone, by super-duper waterproofing/flood mitigation? Don't we already have subways in flood zones? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1335134) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by steamdriven on Thu Jan 22 23:29:06 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 22 22:52:21 2015. #6 sounds ambitious, expensive and also worth doing since it will be used for another 50 years at least, unlike the Airtrain-To-Nowhere princess Andrew wants. But what is FBA? |
|
|
| (1335135) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 22 23:32:56 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 22 22:52:21 2015. Delta used to run a ferry as you describe. It was discontinued.Why not a branch of the 7 from Willetts into LAG? One seat ride, potentially greater frequency than LIRR. |
|
|
| (1335136) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 22 23:33:37 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by steamdriven on Thu Jan 22 23:29:06 2015. Flatbush Ave. |
|
|
| (1335137) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 23:50:35 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 22 23:28:28 2015. by super-duper waterproofing/flood mitigationThe super-duper waterproofing will not last after the first few successful suits for popped ear drums. |
|
|
| (1335138) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by steamdriven on Fri Jan 23 00:28:41 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 22:28:55 2015. Flood problem options:w) Provide trains with flippers. z) Provide passengers with flippers, and snorkels if generous /s There does not seem to be a good solution, as the train needs to get well below the airplane flight path. Within the airport, doesn't it need to be underground, or is there some routing allowing it to be elevated? I'm not familiar with this detail. Obviously its better from the transit perspective if the entire line is above the occasional flood, but perhaps that can be mitigated: Flood mitigation, amateur hour ideas: --Make tunnels water-resistant, make most/all equipment within rated for 24 hours immersion in brackish water. -- Enclose/elevate all tunnel portals, vents, etc so that flooding is indirect, from leakage, rather than from direct flooding. ---Install air powered pumps like IRT has, those keep working regardless of nearby electrical issues. // all of the above to be replaced by real engineering, I'm just making the point that just as tunnels run under rivers, they can run under flood zones. Flood mitigation, essential item: Fire anyone who shows signs of idiocy or laziness, else one has WMATA syndrome. e.g., MBTA had a flood in which they "forgot" to close the flood doors built into one tunnel portal. Feds bailed them out 100%+, paying overtime. Floods may still cause surface rust on the rails, but that can be fixed rapidly. I do not concur with building a train to nowhere aka end of the 7 line. A 10 mile ground trip should not take longer than a 1000 mile flight. In this case, building nothing is better than using good labor, materials and revenue to pursue a defective plan. |
|
|
| (1335143) | |
Tear Down The AMTRAK El... WAS Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport |
|
|
Posted by b/p rupture on Fri Jan 23 03:16:23 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 21:37:38 2015. Before proposing spur lines over the Grand Central Parkway, why don't you resolve the problem of clearing Amtrak?Problem solved! (see title) |
|
|
| (1335157) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 09:45:12 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 21:48:32 2015. So 3.2% of LGA users are destined to/originating in LI? It's really that low? What's that number for JFK? |
|
|
| (1335158) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 09:48:54 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 22:28:55 2015. I was not. Thank you for that. So now how will anything reach LGA from the west since it needs to pass below the flight path? I guess take a lane out of each side of the GCP right in the immediate area of the runway? |
|
|
| (1335160) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 09:54:29 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 21:31:49 2015. Geez, 19 million at Main St...that's intense. With the additional 8 tph, you could perhaps just run a branch service off the 7 direct into the airport at 7.5 min headways, but then you again have the problem of making all those stops to Manhattan when going in the off peak direction. I think it would be a poor use of resources for that 8tph, as I'd rather see that be used for a branch up into Northern Queens (which you could actually redirect some of that 28tph Flushing as well since some of that 19 million will now be boarding closer to home). There's a better option for LGA. |
|
|
| (1335161) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:00:10 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 21:37:38 2015. Thank you for not acknowledging my half assed idea that I've posted 3 or 4 times elsewhere in this thread. I was just addressing the operational logistics in this post, but since you insist:Underground, but it's a flood zone as you say, so there goes that I guess. Truth is, if the subway can't be done, than really nothing can going west of LGA because of that Hell Gate approach. I'd have to go take a look, but MAYBE there is space on either side of the GCP right in that area to make room for 2 tracks to run at the same level as the roadway briefly so it can pass under Hell Gate. You're good with GPS mapping and gradients and what not. While you're being critical, perhaps you can help out and tell us if that's a solution? Anything going west of the airport would have to run at GCP road level under the Hell Gate approach and past the runway. Is it physically possible? Is there space to shift the GCP lanes over in those two sections? Would the grades be too steep to dive from passing over the local roadways to passing under the Hell Gate approach and the runway approach? If they are, then pretty much anything west of the airport is DOA |
|
|
| (1335162) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 10:01:29 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 09:45:12 2015. So 3.2% of LGA users are destined to/originating in LI? It's really that low?Would the Port Authority lie? What's that number for JFK? 3.9% Nassau; 2.2% Suffolk. |
|
|
| (1335163) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:04:50 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 22 23:32:56 2015. Gotta deal with every stop from the merge just west of Willets Pt all the way to Manhattan. Frequency would be good though, as Stephen Bauman says there's room for an additional 8tph, so that's 7.5 min headways at LGA. My rebuttle was that I'd rather see that additional capacity be used for a branch to Northern Queens to serve an area devoid of rail transit. Basically, I feel like the resources could be better used and that there's a better option for LGA somewhere.Also, I wonder if there was perhaps a marketing problem with the ferry. Did only Delta Shuttle passengers know about it, or was it promoted by the Port Authority for the entire airport? |
|
|
| (1335164) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:07:25 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 22 23:11:46 2015. PW branch is already at every 30 mins. To be an acceptable option, it would really need to be every 15-20 mins at minimum. I just don't see the 7 being an acceptable option. |
|
|
| (1335167) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:15:13 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 18:08:11 2015. Agreed, sending them to Willets Pt is definitely not the answer. He wants buses getting off the street for layovers, then take a look at the lot bordering the south side of the LIRR station. Rework an intersection or two, build an underpass under the LIRR for buses to access the lot from Prince, and make the area the bus terminal. Even buses not terminating in Flushing benefit. You still have the problem of buses moving across Main St, but it at least gets the pedestrian traffic and stopped/laying over buses off the streets. You'd have to remove some street parking to allow for bi directional traffic in some spots and possibly change the direction of a street or two, snip the tip off the triange in front of the library to allow left turns, but I think it's a far better solution. One day I'm going to actually sit down and really draw up a proper proposal. Any interest in helping out? |
|
|
| (1335168) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:18:28 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 20 20:01:11 2015. Ehhh it wouldn't be as difficult as you think. I'm not really in favor of this though. It's basically saying, transfer at Jamaica for Willets Pt so folks can transfer again for LGA. Might as well just keep transfering at Woodside. |
|
|
| (1335169) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 10:18:40 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:04:50 2015. I wonder if there was perhaps a marketing problem with the ferry.Ferries are more expensive to operate than trains. That's why EDC opted for the Tram, when Roosevelt Island was built. |
|
|
| (1335170) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:19:28 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by northshore on Tue Jan 20 15:53:44 2015. Woodside is physically impossible. GCP you have the issue of passing below the flight path of that one runway and passing under the Hell Gate approach. Stephen Bauman was saying it can be done below the GCP because it is a flood zone. |
|
|
| (1335172) | |
Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:28:59 2015, in response to Re: Air Train Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport; video, posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 21 11:13:57 2015. Mike, I couldn't have said it better myself. We are doing a hell of a job being innovative here, debating the merits and flaws of each others proposals. This is where innovation comes from, groups like us. I just wish someone had some actual professional skills in relation to this, but given the lack of that, I say we're doing a pretty good job here. |
|
|
| (1335174) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:36:36 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 21 07:48:59 2015. The line would most likely be elevated in most sections. It would be no more susceptible to flooding than the GCP, especially the section of the GCP in the cut. If the flood plain is such a problem, we might as well demolish the entire area and return it to nature. |
|
|
| (1335175) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:43:28 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by pragmatist on Wed Jan 21 23:18:22 2015. Bogota is actually a pretty good example of successful BRT implementation. From what I witnessed over there, there's tons of traffic going in all sorts of directions all over the city. BRT is small and nimble enough to serve that widespread coverage need with routes going from everywhere to everywhere. The only failure is that it needs a subway network to take a primary transportation role on the heaviest of corridors, which is in the works, sort of. |
|
|
| (1335177) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:55:43 2015, in response to Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:13:03 2015. No one will deny your ridership stats for LGA. A maxed out airport won't see much additional ridership even if the airlines started paying the passengers to fly out of there. Likewise, LGA isn't really suffering because of it's lack of rail service, because, as noted, it's maxed out. The problem is that our road network is maxed out and we need to start making dents where reasonably possible. We can sit here and debate why one project is more important than the other, but if we sit here and argue about why a different project is more important than whatever one we're discussing, nothing will ever get built. Fact is that LGA contributes a portion of the traffic congestion. GCP slows down in the area, the airport is hell to navigate during peak hours, etc. You quote an avg travel time of 41 mins to LGA. My friend, I drive a charter bus in Manhattan almost daily and I can tell you from experience, it could easily take 41 mins just to get across Manhattan at rush hour. I've done Red Hook to 23rd/3rd in 20 mins, just to spend 45 mins getting from 23rd/3rd to 6th/58th. An LGA rail service will provide more reliable and consistent travel times to the airport and will remove a small portion of the traffic from our highways. |
|
|
| (1335179) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:00:09 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:36:36 2015. If the flood plain is such a problem, we might as well demolish the entire area and return it to nature.That strategy is being pursued. NYS and NJ have been buying up Sandy damaged properties instead of paying the owners to repair them. Here's the flood plain map. You will note that a lot of the level 1 flood zones were originally swamps. Private developers could not get financing to build on these sites. They convinced the City to buy them for public use. |
|
|
| (1335181) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 23 11:03:57 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:55:43 2015. Actually, though, I'm impressed at how well the Q70 express bus from Roosevelt Ave works. They should have done that 30 years ago. |
|
|
| (1335184) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:09:43 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 10:01:29 2015. Interesting. Thank you for that. Jamaica would best serve roughly 10% of the LGA ridership (Brooklyn, Nassau, Suffolk) over any of the other proposed transit options. Plus it allows interlining with the existing airtrain which means it could use the currently existing support facilities for maintenance, etc. This is great info BTW, thank you for the link! |
|
|
| (1335185) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:11:09 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 10:18:40 2015. Yet they're still considering it with the advent of the Cornell campus. I agree they're pretty crappy on the operating expense side of things unless it's a super short route, but reality is that this might be the best overall option :/ |
|
|
| (1335186) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Fri Jan 23 11:16:05 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 10:18:40 2015. Very true. Plus the tram was originally intended to be temporary, until the subway opened, but that was changed later on and it has become "permanent" |
|
|
| (1335188) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:18:21 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 23 11:03:57 2015. They should have done that 30 years ago.The Port Authority makes money off the parking lots. They have had no incentive to spend their capital funds to reduce their existing revenue stream. Likewise, they have had very little interest to allow others to reduce it without compensation. |
|
|
| (1335189) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:19:50 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:00:09 2015. Yes, but we've been waiting until a disaster wipes out the area and then buying the property. Also, seems like you've been misreading your map. None of Ditmars is in any flood plain, only a small portion of 21st is a border, and no section of the GCP west of the BQE eastern spur (looks like we can build a subway after all). The GCP from 82nd St to the Whitestone Expressway is actually the border between Zone 1 and Zone 4 flood zones, so the threat of flooding for any service running along the highway is far exaggerated, especially given that the line would most likely be elevated over the highway. Funny how we clearly haven't learned diddly as a society from Sandy given that we're redeveloping the iron triangle |
|
|
| (1335190) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:21:56 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:18:21 2015. Oh cronyism, how wonderful you are for progress. |
|
|
| (1335191) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:22:26 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 23 11:03:57 2015. That's been a MAJOR improvement, but it's a stop gap until we get a proper solution. |
|
|
| (1335192) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:27:06 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:21:56 2015. The Port Authority did not build LGA, NYC did. NYC leased LGA to the Port Authority after WWII. One of the PA's first acts was to remove LGA's existing rail link. |
|
|
| (1335193) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:33:51 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:19:50 2015. you've been misreading your map.It's NYC's map not mine. Re-read my post. I stated that 20th Ave (subway extension north from Ditmars Blvd) is adjacent to level 1 flood zone. |
|
|
| (1335194) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:37:59 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:33:51 2015. And about the GCP? |
|
|
| (1335195) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:39:14 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:27:06 2015. Progress... |
|
|
| (1335197) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:54:52 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 11:37:59 2015. There's no question that GCP's westbound (north) roadway is in the level 1 flood zone east of 82nd St. GCP's eastbound (south) roadway is at the same height. Only Jersey Barriers separate the roadways.Jersey Barriers are not designed to stop flood waters. They are designed to prevent cars from jumping into oncoming traffic. There's a cliff further south that separates the GCP roadways from the rest of Queens. Your plan was to tunnel under GCP to get to LGA. It would have to cross 82nd St and enter the level 1 flood zone. |
|
|
| (1335199) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 12:12:46 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:55:43 2015. We can sit here and debate why one project is more important than the other, but if we sit here and argue about why a different project is more important than whatever one we're discussing, nothing will ever get built.Many projects should not be built but are. The MTA attracts them like flies to flypaper. What's needed first is a plan that states what the objective should be. Paris decided in the early 20th century that every spot within the 20 arrondissments should be within 300 m of a Metro stop. That guided the Metro's expansion. NYC has no such objective, only projects and ways to fund them. The result has been a hodgepodge of projects that frequently conflict with one another. LGA contributes a portion of the traffic congestion. If the objective is to reduce traffic congestion, a LGA rail link is a poor method to achieve it. Its principal deficiency is that any contribution to reducing traffic congestion is capped. One should be considering rail links whose ridership will grow with increasing population, if long term traffic congestion reduction is the objective. That means expanding rail links to areas not currently served by rail and areas that can grow in population or business as a result of the rail link. |
|
|
| (1335203) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 23 12:27:27 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 10:01:29 2015. Would the Port Authority lie?They seemingly have in the past. |
|
|
| (1335204) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jan 23 12:30:22 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 22 21:31:49 2015. So what would be the maximum trains per hour of the 60th Street tunnel?The Astoria line you say is maxed out at 20 tph. The R runs only every 6 to 8 minutes during the peak hour. Sounds like there is room for a few additional trains. Besides airport travel is spread out during the day and doesn't peak between 7:30 and 8:30 AM. |
|
|
| (1335208) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 23 12:40:50 2015, in response to Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 20 22:13:03 2015. LaGuardia is already maxed out as an airport.It may be maxed out in terms of the number of flights per hour, but it is not maxed out in terms of the number of passengers served. Terminal B is being completely rebuilt. You can read all the details in this article (LaGuardia), but long story short, they are expecting several million more passengers per year by 2030 and many more employees to work in the enlarged new terminal. So a rail link does have potential to affect usage of the airport. |
|
|
| (1335212) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Fri Jan 23 13:01:46 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 23 12:40:50 2015. When Delta took most of US Airways slots, they started using larger regional aircraft which allowed for passenger growth without increased flight ops. Without increased flight ops (virtually impossible with the current runway config) the only ways to increase passenger counts involve larger planes, and/or higher load factors. Several million more passengers is going to be almost impossible to achieve. Employee count (currently about 11k) could creep up with an enhanced terminal providing opportunities for more services. |
|
|
| (1335215) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 23 13:24:38 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by pragmatist on Fri Jan 23 13:01:46 2015. Did you read the article? |
|
|
| (1335216) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Jan 23 13:28:39 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 10:01:29 2015. I'll admit, those numbers seem so low, and it nearly implies that nobody in the suburbs flies... |
|
|
| (1335217) | |
Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Jan 23 13:30:11 2015, in response to Re: AirTrain Proposed To Connect (7) Line With LaGuardia Airport ($450 Million, 5 years), posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:04:50 2015. The Delta ferry (and Pan Am before that) only served Marine Air terminal and wasn't promoted for the entire airport. It was run by the airlines, not the PA. |
|
|
| (1335218) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 13:40:33 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 23 12:40:50 2015. Again, according to the Port Authority:LGA handled 26,722,183 passengers in 2013. LGA handled 371,565 aircraft movements in 2013. That comes to 71.9 passengers per plane. According to the article: To meet the growing demand, the authority said airlines are replacing smaller jets that have 50 seats with those fitted with 70-90 seats. I'd wager that's already old news. BTW, those 71.9 passengers represent a 79.9% load factor for the bigger 90 seat jets. |
|
|
| (1335219) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 23 13:41:37 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 11:18:21 2015. The Q70 has nothing to do with the Port Authority, except in the sense that the PANYNJ allows buses to pick up and discharge passengers at terminals. The Q70 is an MTA-NYCT bus. It gets you quite quickly from the LGA terminals to a very convenient subway station. |
|
|
| (1335220) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 13:48:48 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 23 13:41:37 2015. except in the sense that the PANYNJ allows buses to pick up and discharge passengers at terminals.Try setting up a scheduled bus service in/out of a PANYNJ airport and see what happens. |
|
|
| (1335221) | |
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Jan 23 13:59:58 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by pragmatist on Wed Jan 21 08:30:26 2015. Yes, but we need real money to do that. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 7 |
||
