NFT: LaGuardia Airport to be torn down and rebuilt.

The question has to be: if this major, long overdue re-build was even a whisper, why was the reconstruction project directly in front of the main terminal for Delta, which is ponying up a good chunk of some of the moneys for this, begun ~two years ago (at great inconvenience to passengers and drivers) if it is likely to be subsumed in the general overhaul? At least I think that is the case.

And Del, before the Hudson River tunnels, which I agree are a major need, there has to be initiation of rail link to LGA as part of the project, as well as expansion/integration of rail links to JFK. Taking the train to the plane to/from JFK is painful, as e.g., when you take the A from Fed Circle or Jamaica.

Tell me if I'm off base.

In comment 12388501 ColHowPepper said:

Quote:

The question has to be: if this major, long overdue re-build was even a whisper, why was the reconstruction project directly in front of the main terminal for Delta, which is ponying up a good chunk of some of the moneys for this, begun ~two years ago (at great inconvenience to passengers and drivers) if it is likely to be subsumed in the general overhaul? At least I think that is the case. And Del, before the Hudson River tunnels, which I agree are a major need, there has to be initiation of rail link to LGA as part of the project, as well as expansion/integration of rail links to JFK. Taking the train to the plane to/from JFK is painful, as e.g., when you take the A from Fed Circle or Jamaica. Tell me if I'm off base.

Because this is NY.

I put it at $10 billion.

Completion date over/under 2025

In comment 12388501 ColHowPepper said:

Quote:

... And Del, before the Hudson River tunnels, which I agree are a major need, there has to be initiation of rail link to LGA as part of the project, as well as expansion/integration of rail links to JFK. Taking the train to the plane to/from JFK is painful, as e.g., when you take the A from Fed Circle or Jamaica. Tell me if I'm off base.

Well, at least it's possible to take some manner of train(s) to JFK. It's a fucking crime that the only public transportation to LGA is a freakin local bus that's only route in Manhattan is 125th street. Especially considering LGA is only about 1 mile from the N subway line.

They had a nicer airport in Belgrade.

POS should have been bulldozed years ago.

I wonder if this will have any impact on potential funding for more rail tunnels across the Hudson...a dire situation that needs immediate attention.
Aamtrak: Hudson tunnels have 20 years of life left before needing to close for a year - ( New Window )

In comment 12388507 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

I put it at $10 billion. Completion date over/under 2025

Com'on, these projects are always under budget and completed ahead of schedule.

In comment 12388538 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I wonder if this will have any impact on potential funding for more rail tunnels across the Hudson...a dire situation that needs immediate attention. Aamtrak: Hudson tunnels have 20 years of life left before needing to close for a year - ( New Window )

Is this the project Christie killed?

In comment 12388548 Giants2012 said:

Quote:

In comment 12388507 Victor in CT said: Quote: I put it at $10 billion. Completion date over/under 2025 Com'on, these projects are always under budget and completed ahead of schedule.

Okay, I raise you: What gets completed 1st: LAG, the LIRR into Grand Central or the 2nd Avenue Subway?

In comment 12388555 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

In comment 12388548 Giants2012 said: Quote: In comment 12388507 Victor in CT said: Quote: I put it at $10 billion. Completion date over/under 2025 Com'on, these projects are always under budget and completed ahead of schedule. Okay, I raise you: What gets completed 1st: LAG, the LIRR into Grand Central or the 2nd Avenue Subway?

I just threw shit against a wall and nothing stuck.

In comment 12388558 Giants2012 said:

Quote:

In comment 12388555 Victor in CT said: Quote: In comment 12388548 Giants2012 said: Quote: In comment 12388507 Victor in CT said: Quote: I put it at $10 billion. Completion date over/under 2025 Com'on, these projects are always under budget and completed ahead of schedule. Okay, I raise you: What gets completed 1st: LAG, the LIRR into Grand Central or the 2nd Avenue Subway? I just threw shit against a wall and nothing stuck.

LOL

In comment 12388507 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

I put it at $10 billion. Completion date over/under 2025

I'll take the 10 billion, but completion date, over.

Any hour now the 2nd av subway will be done too.

In comment 12388550 schabadoo said:

Quote:

In comment 12388538 Go Terps said: Quote: I wonder if this will have any impact on potential funding for more rail tunnels across the Hudson...a dire situation that needs immediate attention. Aamtrak: Hudson tunnels have 20 years of life left before needing to close for a year - ( New Window ) Is this the project Christie killed?

Yes. He killed it on the grounds that NJ would have been on the hook for any cost overages. While that is a reasonable concern, the need to build new rail tunnels across the Hudson can not be overstated. He has since said that if elected President he would find a way to get the tunnels built.

agree!! And it is friggin ridiculous that in that perpetual slog to/from LGA, there has been zero link, as close as LGA is to Manhattan and squarely in a major population corridor of the three most populous boroughs.

Why in heavens name would you make such an airport accessible by mass transit?? Preposterous.

$4 billion is laughable, and imo so is 2020. $10B is better, and worse.

The criminals who inhabit the executive offices of the MTA and Port Authority, i.e., the executive officers of those two bodies, are immune from scrutiny (Christy and Cuomo have seen to that, perpetuating a vile practice), there is no public oversight of their compensation. But I can assure you that their salaries and perqs have not suffered one penny and have only soared as they tell the public fare/toll increases are required while services are curtailed.

This state of affairs is as old and repugnant as is the state of LGA.

that the Army Corp of Engineers should be tasked with the tunnel project so it's not subject to Union games. Hmm.

That's what he stated.

He kills a much-needed project and he suddenly has almost $2 billion in Port Authority funds to play with.

Terrible decision long-term for NJ, but perfect for him short-term politically.

connecting the Brooklyn pier to Manhattan and NJ piers. It was never built. It's de facto became building up NJ infrastructure by siphoning tax $$ from NY and spending it in NJ.

In comment 12388608 schabadoo said:

Quote:

That's what he stated. He kills a much-needed project and he suddenly has almost $2 billion in Port Authority funds to play with. Terrible decision long-term for NJ, but perfect for him short-term politically.

I completely agree.

In comment 12388507 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

I put it at $10 billion. Completion date over/under 2025

I'll take the under on the completion date (too much of a PR nightmare to miss there). I think $10B on the cost end might still be low...

my first instinct is that NYC transportation has much bigger priorities
before a new LaGuardia
including the 11 Billion dollars shortfall of the new MTA capital plan
but then the Governor let slip that State is going to pony up 8.3 Billion to MTA capital plan which is huge news that was totally overshadowed by this announcement


the AirTrain routing is insanely horrible .

. it will take much much longer for a person to use airtrain to get to laguardia than a cab which defeats the purpose of the air train

Common sense suggests leaning on century old foundations may not be the heathiest thing.

.

In comment 12388608 schabadoo said:

Quote:

That's what he stated. He kills a much-needed project and he suddenly has almost $2 billion in Port Authority funds to play with. Terrible decision long-term for NJ, but perfect for him short-term politically.

Are you saying New Jersey was responsible for less than 100% of the cost overruns?

How much was New York supposed to kick in for the budgeted costs?

How much tax revenue was New York going to get from the construction workers, including New Jersey residents, working on the New York terminal at the end of the tunnels?

What do you think of the negotiating skills of Jon Corzine, who left this debacle of a deal for Christie?

In comment 12388674 njm said:

Quote:

In comment 12388608 schabadoo said: Quote: That's what he stated. He kills a much-needed project and he suddenly has almost $2 billion in Port Authority funds to play with. Terrible decision long-term for NJ, but perfect for him short-term politically. Are you saying New Jersey was responsible for less than 100% of the cost overruns? How much was New York supposed to kick in for the budgeted costs? How much tax revenue was New York going to get from the construction workers, including New Jersey residents, working on the New York terminal at the end of the tunnels? What do you think of the negotiating skills of Jon Corzine, who left this debacle of a deal for Christie?

Debacle. Yeah.

He got his money, and they still need to build the tunnels. So short-sighted.

NYC + Philly airport flights cause half of nationwide airline delay.

Im going to say under on $10 billion. This is routine construction. Very different from stuff like digging a tunnel.

but if it was a partnership and the work was going to be done by state workers, and only one side had to pay for cost overruns, I would run away from it as fast as I could. You'd go bankrupt even before the third decade past the agreed-upon completion date was finished. Isn't that the reason Boston cited for pulling out of the Olympic bidding?

In comment 12388711 Bill L said:

Quote:

but if it was a partnership and the work was going to be done by state workers, and only one side had to pay for cost overruns, I would run away from it as fast as I could. You'd go bankrupt even before the third decade past the agreed-upon completion date was finished. Isn't that the reason Boston cited for pulling out of the Olympic bidding?

But none of that is true. From the GAO:

"Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey’s share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs."

Even if it starts today, this is a twenty year project start to finish

It's good, in theory. But, we all know the reality is this will go severely over budget and over time.

The other good news is that Delta is paying to rebuild it's own two terminals, a ferry will be added, as will a new rail line connecting both the LIRR and NYC subway system. We'll see if the transportation additions actually have a positive impact.

are welcome and long overdue, there appears to be nothing in the works that will improve the capacity of the airport. In other words, you will simply have a better environment in which to enjoy your wait for continuing flight delays.

Jonas
Airline Pilot and frequent visitor to LGA

In comment 12388946 Unblockable Jonas said:

Quote:

are welcome and long overdue, there appears to be nothing in the works that will improve the capacity of the airport. In other words, you will simply have a better environment in which to enjoy your wait for continuing flight delays. Jonas Airline Pilot and frequent visitor to LGA

The article claims that relocating the terminal will more than double the space for runways. Seems that would improve capacity.

In comment 12388946 Unblockable Jonas said:

Quote:

are welcome and long overdue, there appears to be nothing in the works that will improve the capacity of the airport. In other words, you will simply have a better environment in which to enjoy your wait for continuing flight delays. Jonas Airline Pilot and frequent visitor to LGA

It;s being reported as a 240% increase in space for flight operations. What does that mean, since you're a pilot.

what is actually delivered, and when it is finished.

I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything anytime soon.

In comment 12388906 Taggart said:

Quote:

BANNABLE OFFENSE!!! WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE?!!! I AM OFFENDED!!!

but the new BBI policy is what it is. Better watch your ass.

for gates is how I interpret that and less congestion in the alley ways that lead to the gates. Unless they are adding runways or redesigning the existing configuration of two, relatively short, intersecting runways, then I only see a marginal improvement in actual operations.

In comment 12389036 Unblockable Jonas said:

Quote:

for gates is how I interpret that and less congestion in the alley ways that lead to the gates. Unless they are adding runways or redesigning the existing configuration of two, relatively short, intersecting runways, then I only see a marginal improvement in actual operations.

It also mentions a ~33% increase in daily traffic, so maybe it does involve the above. Hard to believe it only has 2 runways...

and a full service airport out on the island

seems like a huge waste to me

operate out of teterboro.

It would be great to catch a commuter jet down to atlanta or chicago. Would make things great for people who connect on AA or DL through those hubs. Both of Teterboro's are long enough to accommodate CRJ's or 717's. They are even long enough to handle 737's if needed.

Even if you have no parking, the business crowd will still be able to come because we are taking taxis anyway.

This will never happen but would make sense to me. Even if you can pull some early morning traffic out of LGA or EWR (first flights so folks arent transferring on anyway) then this would help out with the congestion and provide another solution to this problem.

In comment 12389285 gidiefor said:

Quote:

and a full service airport out on the island seems like a huge waste to me

It might be a dump, but its a convenient one. And needed. The others couldn't handle the spillover traffic.

I 10% expect to be alive to see it completed.
And I am 100% certain to see a toll hike on the Hudson River within the next 18 months to finance it.

In comment 12389345 NoPeanutz said:

Quote:

I 10% expect to be alive to see it completed. And I am 100% certain to see a toll hike on the Hudson River within the next 18 months to finance it.

Actually what they should do is tax the heck out of the atlantic city airport and WTC. They raised tolls and taxes at other PANYNJ crossings and ports to finance that airport 3 hours away and other real estate transactions so it should be reciprocated.

In comment 12389397 asbasb said:

Quote:

In comment 12389345 NoPeanutz said: Quote: I 10% expect to be alive to see it completed. And I am 100% certain to see a toll hike on the Hudson River within the next 18 months to finance it. Actually what they should do is tax the heck out of the atlantic city airport and WTC. They raised tolls and taxes at other PANYNJ crossings and ports to finance that airport 3 hours away and other real estate transactions so it should be reciprocated.

Good idea. Tax the shit out of the airport of a city that nobody wants to visit. Brilliant.

$32 to ride the elevator to the observation deck of WTC seems like a pretty hefty tax to me.

But I've read in multiple places that closing LaGuardia and shifting that traffic to JFK and Newark would decrease congestion at those airports because LGA's airways interferes with the larger airports' airspace. Anecdotally, I've noticed multiple flights from the north making a turn over the Atlantic to land from a southern direction. If so, there really is no reason to keep LGA open.

I'm no expert in this, but I think it would make sense to improve rail links to JFK and EWR (Newark's AirTrain is due to replacement anyways), including one seat rides from downtown Manhattan; close LGA; enhance the freight and passenger rail infrastructure at Stewart Airport in Newburgh and relocate JFK's substantial air cargo operations.

Or you can spend a fortune rebuilding a fundamentally flawed airport.

One of the worst, and dumpiest, airports in the U.S.

parking garage project along the exact spot where the proposed new terminal will sit. I wonder how much $$ went into that?

I guess that's good, but don't you have to take a train to Jamaica from anywhere before you can even catch the AirTrain?

In comment 12390688 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

parking garage project along the exact spot where the proposed new terminal will sit. I wonder how much $$ went into that?

Apparently the terminal will be built on top of this new structure. I don't know what modifications need to be made to the existing construction to allow this.

In comment 12390772 Sarcastic Sam said:

Quote:

In comment 12390688 Victor in CT said: Quote: parking garage project along the exact spot where the proposed new terminal will sit. I wonder how much $$ went into that? Apparently the terminal will be built on top of this new structure. I don't know what modifications need to be made to the existing construction to allow this.

This could very well wind up being the biggest public works boondoggle in NYC metro area history.

with the 2nd av subway.

In comment 12390788 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

with the 2nd av subway.

Yes that's true. 60 years and counting.

and meaningfully improve capacity without spending upwards of $10 billion to reclaim land from the Flushing Bay, buy property and raze structures, and go through what would be a massive environmental challenge that could threaten the viability of such a project. That's not happening.

The new terminal reconfigures existing taxiways to improve flow around the airport, but does not increase the capacity of the airfield by one single arrival or departure, because the runways are staying as-is. What it will do is reduce delays caused when aircraft are forced to stay in place (either on another taxiway or at the gate) while other aircraft occupy the alleys between the existing concourses. After that, you'll still be waiting in line to take off ("ah, folks, looks like we are number 19 for departure").

What will continue to happen at LGA, same as elsewhere, is smaller aircraft will be replaced by larger gauge. For instance, a 37-seat Dash 8 or 50-seat ERJ will occupy more-or-less the same airspace as a 76-seat E-175 or 150-seat A320. Upgauging allows airlines to grow passenger capacity without increasing the number of flights, and this is really the only option for growth at EWR/LGA any time, or JFK at peak times. Unfortunately, it does not mean much in terms of reducing congestion at airports and in the NYC airspace.

So, in the end, the LGA redevelopment will materially improve the passenger experience at LaGuardia, but I think it overstates the impact on delays. I'm not expecting to see materially better on-time performance.

In comment 12388501 ColHowPepper said:

Quote:

And Del, before the Hudson River tunnels, which I agree are a major need, there has to be initiation of rail link to LGA as part of the project, as well as expansion/integration of rail links to JFK. Taking the train to the plane to/from JFK is painful, as e.g., when you take the A from Fed Circle or Jamaica. Tell me if I'm off base.

I find the Hudson tunnels to be a much, much bigger need from my admittedly simplistic vantage point.

Thousands, potentially millions of peoples ability to get to work depends on this.

People in NYC act like it doesn't matter if the "bridge and tunnel" crowd can't get to work - "who needs em?, amirite"?... but it would be incredibly disruptive for the economy and really throw a wrench into the dynamics of the entire tri-state area (not saying you had that attitude, just pointing out that it exists).

upgrading LGA, which is why I mentioned them in the OP. I think the delaying factor there is that New Jersey has to buy in whereas the LGA project only requires NY. As discussed on this thread above, the rail tunnel improvements were previously proposed and didn't happen because of opposition on the NJ side (rightly or wrongly).

In comment 12391022 Del Shofner said:

Quote:

upgrading LGA, which is why I mentioned them in the OP. I think the delaying factor there is that New Jersey has to buy in whereas the LGA project only requires NY. As discussed on this thread above, the rail tunnel improvements were previously proposed and didn't happen because of opposition on the NJ side (rightly or wrongly).

Yes, i've followed the ARC project storyline for some time. I don't really like Christie, but I agree with him about cost overruns. Now, whether those cost overruns were actually the case is something I've heard differing things on.

I love NYC, and on a global scale, I treat it as MY city, MY home turf. But this notion that NJ is just a red headed step child, that we aren't all in this together, and that NJ doesn't help make NYC what it is is just incredibly misguided.

I don't mind NJ being the butt of jokes every now and then, but when it comes to securing the infrastructure of the region, we should all be in it together.

Also, some kind of mass transit to the outer boroughs from NJ would be amazing.

Maybe some of those on here that have more experience with infrastructure studies than me can chime in, but it's very frustrating that there is zero effort to link other parts of the NYC Metro area with eachother as opposed to just attaching everything to Manhattan.

These are pipe dreams and cost prohibitive, but just imagine:

1) A bridge and tunnel from NJ to Brooklyn.
2) An outerborough subway that connected the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn
3) An extension of the NYC Subway to Jersey City or Hoboken, making access to Queens and Brooklyn something that is more feasable from a commuter stand point (I do have one friend that reverse commutes from DUMBO to Hoboken).

It'd be incredible to see mobility open up in the tri state area, particularly between the "borough-esque" parts of NJ and the outer boroughs.

I understand this can't happen for a myriad of reasons, stemming from cost, environment, different states, different agencies, different cities... but on a basic level, I just wish they'd build these damn things.

"2) An outerborough subway that connected the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn"

No love for the G train? When I first moved to Brooklyn in the mid-'70s, that was one dog-ass train. Now it's probably the "coolest" subway line per capita.

In comment 12391131 Del Shofner said:

Quote:

"2) An outerborough subway that connected the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn" No love for the G train? When I first moved to Brooklyn in the mid-'70s, that was one dog-ass train. Now it's probably the "coolest" subway line per capita.

I'm actually moving to South Slope from Jersey City on Saturday and am a block from the G/F train stops. The G doesn't really cut it though. It doesn't go very far up, and it's so close to Manhattan. Something that was a little more in the interior, perhaps centrally located cutting through Bushwick could really be a boon.

I've heard from people that the G is the Ghost train because it never comes. I guess I'll find out soon enough.