Rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5619 times:
I was just pondering this thought. LGA is the preferred airport for business travellers in the NYC area. It is a quick, cheap cab ride from midtown Manhattan.
If there were a high speed train from Grand Central Station to JFK that took about 15 minutes, what effect do you think it would have on JFK? It would be similar to other cities "Train to the Plane" systems, checkin at the train station, etc.
Would JFK be an attractive option then, or would the NYC businessmen still go for the cab (many people's companies pay for the cab I suppose) to LGA? Thoughts....?
CopySouthwest From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 123 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5464 times:
A direct link could have happened if the Airtrain had been built as a branch of the LIRR allowing a direct train to operate to/from JFK and Penn Station.
Sit back, relax and enjoy your flight with us today.
AA787 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 597 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5442 times:
I doubt this will happen. They would need to build new tracks through heavily populated areas and then they would have an even harder task...how do they get the trains across the East River. The price tag on such a project would be huge!! As a New Yorker, I would die to see such a train exist I just don't think it is conceivable.
For anyone who is more knowledgeable about the project please enlighten us...Is there any possibility for a direct link on AirTrain using LIRR tracks?
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6345 posts, RR: 56 Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5338 times:
Hey RJPieces...
There was just an article in the NYTimes the other day about a proposed downtown-JFK direct train. One option is to use the A train tunnel and connect up with existing LIRR tracks in Brooklyn. Another option is to use the M train tunnel and connect up with the LIRR tracks. A 3rd option is to build a new tunnel (the most expensive option by far), and a 4th option is to use both the A and M tunnels, thereby causing the least disruption... it will be interesting to see what develops.
Mohan From India, joined Nov 2003, 78 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5295 times:
Apparently the new leadership in China has abandoned the train Link linking Pudong International (PVG) to Shanghai City Centre. The reasons are un known just leadership issues I guess and they had laid these magnectic tracks more than halfway thru.This article appeared in the latest Newsweek or time (not sure which one)
There would not be an economic viability for sure for a new fast speed rail link to mid town Manhattan......... I feel only a small percentage of people getting into JFK go to Manhattan they either connect through or go to other suburbs of New York, Conneticut, Long Island......Etc
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 14931 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5283 times:
"JFK that took about 15 minutes"
They are working on connecting the JFK Airtrain to Lower Manhattan, they have four plans. 3 plans would steal either the A/C tunnels or the N train tunnels and connect them to the LIRR's Atlantic Ave branch, the fourth would see the construction of a brand new tunnel under the East river to connect the new World Trade Center Transit hub with the LIRR's Atlantic Ave branch and through to JFK.
These plans would cost either $1.5 Billion or as much as $6 Billion depending on the plan, a one seat ride to JFK would take about 30 minutes.
There's a tremendous amount of debate on whether or not to spend the money to connect JFK to Manhattan directly considering the tremendous amount of money it would cost, there are "several" worthy transit projects that are more deserving of the limited funding many people would argue.
To be realistic how many people do you think would ride this train on a daily basis?.
If they connect JFK directly to Manhattan a normal days ridership would not exceed 10,000 (imo), the current JFK system is behind what the PA projections for ridership would be. EWR's Airtrain is attracting the most ridership but still only about 3,500 riders a day connect from the EWR Airtrain to NJ Transit/Amtrak.
To build a "high speed" Maglev or another brand new system all the way from Manhattan to JFK would never be able to get built, there's no way to justify the spending of over $20 Billion Dollars for a system that would carry less than 10,000 people a day and would be used mostly by out of towners who would have come to NY anyway with or without the "high speed" train.
The Port Authority in the early 1990s were studying building a one seat ride from JFK to Laguardia then into Manhattan via the 63rd street tunnel, they then would have built a Airtrain terminal on the Upper East side of Manhattan by Grand Central.
They gave up on the plan because it's price tag was in the $15 Billion Dollar range, that was 12 years ago. To attempt the same construction today would probably be double that figure.
The options they are working on now are more affordable, there's just no way to build a "brand" new "high Speed" line to JFK. Any direct connection would have to utilize existing rights of way of the LIRR, NYC Transit or JFK Airtrain.
Also the Port Authority is going to extend PATH trains to Newark Airport's Rail link station, the cost of connecting the PATH to Newark Airport from the World Trade Center is a mere $500 Million.
A bargain compared to the $1.5- $6 Billion to connect Lower Manhattan to JFK, they are also starting ferry service to JFK and Laguardia from pier 11 this year.
High speed ferry service is ALOT cheaper than building high speed rail lines, NY Waterway had the DL shuttle ferry for a few years but it never "took off".
StarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 5222 times:
A little bit OT, but since the issue has been brought up... Shanghai's high speed airport link is up and running: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1431_A_1071037,00.html.
I understand it is not very popular with travellers because it does not get you into the city centre and is fairly expensive on top of that (the equivalent of 8E; 10$ springs to my head).
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 14931 posts, RR: 55 Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 5201 times:
MAGLEVs are not compatible with NYC, MAGLEVs operate on fixed elevated guideways.
There's no way to build a fixed guideway into Manhattan, all rail has to be under ground.
Building tunnels under Manhattan to accomodate a MAGLEVs guideway is nearly impossible, the tunnels would have to be twice the size of a commuter trains tunnels. Which means a MAGLEV would be atleast twice as expensive to build as a conventional Subway or Commuter line.
The Second ave Subway's cost is estimated at $16- $17 Billion, to build a Maglev under Second ave would probably be twice the cost of building the Second Ave Subway.
Maglevs would work in an open enviroment, not in dense cities like NY.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 14931 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 5183 times:
"Next Step in Rail Commuting
Linking Jamaica, Manhattan
By Errol A. Cockfield, Jr.
Staff Writer
February 4, 2004, 9:21 PM EST
Map of the proposed plan for a train from downtown Manhattan to JFK Airport Wednesday.
State and city officials Wednesday unveiled four alternate plans for direct, one-seat rail access to Lower Manhattan from the Long Island Rail Road's Jamaica Station and Kennedy Airport, calling it the top economic development priority for Lower Manhattan.
The options -- designed to bolster the economy by easily shuttling thousands of workers downtown -- build on the Air Train service established in December that takes riders directly from Jamaica Station to Kennedy. State and city officials will jointly choose a plan in April.
Under the alternatives, which could cost up to $6 billion, passengers would board trains at Kennedy or Long Island Rail Road's Jamaica Station and ride through Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn. The plans differ in how riders would be sped from Brooklyn to Manhattan. They include building and enhancing tunnels under the East River:
The construction of a new East River tunnel.
The use of the Montague Street Tunnel which now serves the M, N, and R subway lines.
The use of the Cranberry Street Tunnel which serves the A and C subway lines.
Combined use of Cranberry and Montague depending on capacity.
Improving rail links from Long Island and Kennedy to Lower Manhattan, the third-largest business district in the country, has long been a goal of business groups, who say lengthy, circuitous commutes limit economic growth in Lower Manhattan.
"Transportation has been the biggest detraction," said Kathryn Wylde, president and chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, a business group.
Critics however, say the plan would only improve commuting times by minutes, at a time when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is working on projects to add more East River ferry service and an LIRR link to Grand Central Terminal.
Lower Manhattan Development Corp. President Kevin Rampe said the rail link "will ensure that Lower Manhattan will have easy access to the Long Island labor pool."
But Mitch Pally, vice president for government affairs of the Long Island Association business group, said the Island faces more important priorities than a new rail link, including an LIRR link to Grand Central Station, a third track on the LIRR's main line for freight, and the redevelopment of the Nassau Hub area.
"The Long Islanders that work in the city already have the LIRR," he said. "We just think it's misguided to spend billions of dollars to provide any additional access."
At a news conference Wednesday in Lower Manhattan by representatives from the city, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the MTA, and the Port Authority, officials said they would release the initiative's possible cost when they decide on a single option.
For now, the various agencies said they will study how many people would use the new service and what effects it might have on current subway ridership. The only disruption in the four plans would be a diversion of the C train to another tunnel, but officials were unable to say if it would slow that line.
Gene Russianoff, staff attorney of the Straphangers Campaign, said the new service will have to be justified against other pressing transportation initiatives, including a new Second Avenue subway line.
"No one's going to build a $7 billion line that only moves 5,000 people during rush hour if that's what the numbers show," Russianoff said.
Setjet From Namibia, joined Mar 2002, 1063 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5121 times:
"MAGLEVs are not compatible with NYC, MAGLEVs operate on fixed elevated guideways.
There's no way to build a fixed guideway into Manhattan, all rail has to be under ground."
Sorry, but that's bullshit! Maglev (or Transrapid which is the original name!) doesn't need to run on elevated tracks. Just do a little research on their webpage http://www.transrapid.de/en/index.html.
It can run on Second Floor, First Floor, in the Basement and even in New York City!
If the city only had the guts to do something about their horrible ground transportation to the airports! To pay $10 to get to JFK in a Transrapid wuld be a real bargain! Shanghai can do it!
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 14931 posts, RR: 55 Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5067 times:
Hey you want to debate fine, but try to be mature.
As seen in this picture from the website you provided Maglevs operate on a guideway, similar to a Monorail.
Guideways built underground are twice as expensive as laying conventional "rail" , with conventional rail in tunnels connecting the rail directly to the concrete floor of the rail tunnel as seen in this picture saves space which equals less escavating which equals less money.
Tunnels would have to be excavated to twice the height of conventional tunnels to support a guideway, if you could show a picture of a Maglev in an underground tunnel I would be interested.
Maglev "guideway":
Fact is Maglevs and Monorails are not suitable for underground transit which is what would be needed in Manhattan, convential rail is the only way to go.
Jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1939 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4920 times:
There's actually a lot of bullshit floating on this page.
First off, the AirTrain ridership is lower than expected, but it still averages 15,000-20,000 passengers a day, not 10,000 as mentioned above. The initial projections were for 34,000 a day. This significantly surpasses AirTrain Newark's ridership.
Second, there will be no elevated trains built in Queens that go 100+ mph. Are you people kidding me?? Have you ever been to Queens?!?! The U.S. has very little high-speed train service, I don't think it is going to takeoff in the most densely populated area of the country.
Third, they would have to cross the East River as mentioned. Forget cost! Do you know how long it takes to burrow through the bedrock in New York? If they started tomorrow, they wouldn't be down for twenty years!
What will happen is a one-seat ride between JFK and lower Manhattan via the AirTrain on existing Long Island Railroad Tracks and subway tracks. This will require THE LEAST amount of construction--mostly reconfiguration of existing infrastructure.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 14931 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4888 times:
"First off, the AirTrain ridership is lower than expected, but it still averages 15,000-20,000 passengers a day, not 10,000 as mentioned above. The initial projections were for 34,000 a day. This significantly surpasses AirTrain Newark's ridership"
Your totally off, when looking at ridership numbers for the EWR and JFK Airtrains the number you want to look at is the number of riders connecting from the Airtrain to either LIRR, NJ Transit, Amtrak or NYC Subway.
Not the total numbers of people using the "entire" system, the media and obviously some on these boards get confused.
The busiest of the two Airtrain's is the EWR Airtrain..
The EWR Airtrain has a daily ridership of over 33,000, however ONLY(!) approximately 3,500 people are actually connecting from the Airport to a NJ Transit or Amtrak train.
The rest of the the 29,500 passengers use the Airtrain system to go from Terminal to terminal or to go from the 4 long term parking lots or the two rental car stations to one of the terminals.
At JFK about 20,000 people a day are using the system, but less than 4,000 are actually using the system to get from JFK to the LIRR or the NYC Subway.
Again most of the JFK riders are using the system to go from the rental car lots to the terminals, or from the Long Term lot to the terminals, or to connect from one terminal to another.
The combined number of daily riders from both JFK and EWR who use the two Airtrains to connect to either Amtrak, NJ Transit, LIRR or the NYC Subway is less than 10,000.
Jfernandez From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 301 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4824 times:
Put a good terminal close to the city (Long Island City, for example), and it would work. Grabbing the subway in Jamaica is an adventure. At least with the EWR train you can hop on the train and get out in Penn Station. Going through the subways with luggage is still iffy.
Rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4776 times:
Interesting responses, thanks. I didn't mean to build an elevated Maglev line but it is my understanding there are some LIRR tunnels that aren't used and with some additional construction this could be a dedicated High Speed train to JFK.
Anyhow, my original question stands: Would a 1 seat AirTrain (or high speed train) ride move some of the business passengers from LGA to JFK or would most of them still choose the short taxi ride to LGA?
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 14931 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4709 times:
People will still choose LGA for short flights, because remember the people who use LGA and JFK are NOT ALL(!) coming from Manhattan.
42% of JFK travelers are from Manhattan, 47% of LGA travelers are from Manhattan.
Meaning the majority of people who use JFK and LGA live where a direct rail link to Manhattan would be meaningless, people from Connecticut or the North Shore of Long Island will still continue to drive to LGA because it's closer.
High speed rail to Manhattan would only benefit the 42% of folks who are heading to Manhattan from either airport, the other 68% would not benefit from a Multi Billion Dollar direct rail line.
So to sum up, building a direct link from JFK to Manhattan will make it easier for people who already fly to JFK to go to Manhattan, and it will take business away from buses and taxis.
But overall it would not have a huge impact on Laguardia, it would just change the way people who already choose JFK would get to the airport.
Setjet From Namibia, joined Mar 2002, 1063 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4705 times:
"....if you could show a picture of a Maglev in an underground tunnel I would be interested."
Obviously, as there is only the Transrapid in Shanghai and the one in Emsland/Germany I can't show you a picture of a "Maglev" in an underground tunnel. I have spoken to some PR people after a test ride on the track in Emsland (I was working on a newspaper article on the future of the Transrapid project) and they told me that an underground tunnel is exactly what they are planning for the proposed Transrapid connection between MUC Airport and the city centre. Please don't talk about something don't know enough about.
"Fact is Maglevs and Monorails are not suitable for underground transit which is what would be needed in Manhattan, convential rail is the only way to go."
Fact is, you are wrong!
Obviously an underground track is the only way to go in Queens (I lived there). It is more a matter of costs and will to build it. As there are no fair assumptions on how much an underground Transrapid connection would be one shouldn't rule it out.
"Second, there will be no elevated trains built in Queens that go 100+ mph. Are you people kidding me?? Have you ever been to Queens?!?! The U.S. has very little high-speed train service, I don't think it is going to takeoff in the most densely populated area of the country."
I guess you are right. There is no history of high speed trains in the US of A and I guess this is one of the reasons why there will never be a history of high speed trains.
Although, this would be exactly the right answer for the "most densely populated area of the country".
VSLover From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1885 posts, RR: 28 Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4683 times:
the problem with the stats the media reports on daily usage of the EWR airtrain against the JFK airtrain are a bit convoluted, and when extrapolted, it would show the JFK airtrain still gets more people who use the service solely for access to/from the airport and the connecting trains. this is unusual since the trip to JFK from manhattan via the train can take 60min+ against the 30 minutes to EWR. the only sad thing about the EWR train is a) luggage space, especially during rush hour, with all daily commuters on there, and b) train schedules dont have the train operating very much on weekends or holidays.
i generally take the train to ewr when i have to fly from there because it is the least problematic of all options (bus, car, car), from jfk, i only opt for cab/car as there isn't time for anything else, since the airport is already so damn far out there! lga, well i prefer to stay away from there, as i like to take-off reasonably on time
there is no way for the port auththority to expect these services to take off unless they have dedicated train service (easier done from manhattan to EWR than to JFK) but if there was direct service, i truly believe there would be an unbelievable amount of daily usage. business or leisure, i and many other people would prefer a direct link than the hassle of a cab, or car service, traffic, and expense.
of course, fly VS upper class, have a car included, and your worries dissapear
Icarus75 From France, joined Oct 2003, 725 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4643 times:
The "maglev" do not link the airport to the city center but the airport to Pudong industrial area.
The expansion of the project was stopped for the following reasons :
* The ride with a cab is the same price than the ride on the "maglev" but the advantages with the cab are 1) it brings you in the city center, 2) people do not have to carry their luggages a lot.As a result, only the tourists are interested in the "maglev", not most of the locals.
* It was a very expensive project, too expensive project in fact and chinese authorities prefer to focus on high speed trains
Setjet From Namibia, joined Mar 2002, 1063 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4575 times:
The one thing I never understood about the trains going from Manhattan to the EWR train station:
Why can't they manage to start an easy to remember schedule with departing times like "09:10, 09:30, 09:50, 10:10..."
It works in many cities around the world and is in my opinion the only way to successfully establish a airport-shuttle. What sense does it make to have two trains per hour leaving EWR, one at 10:46pm, the next at 10:55pm and then no train for almost an hour??? Please, come on NJTransit!!!
P.s.: Dreaming about the Munich S-Bahn. One train every ten minutes to the city center for a flat
Euro 8,- !
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 14931 posts, RR: 55 Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4538 times:
" Please don't talk about something don't know enough about."
Listen, I know enough that there is NO (!) Maglev that runs underground, you even supported that statement so I don't know where you come off so rude.
Second I did study (though did not finish) Public Transportation planning on the Graduate level at the Bloustein school at Rutgers University, also my Grand father worked for the MTA as an electrician so I feel I know "enough".
At night while the City sleeps teams of "track gangs" go into the tunnels to replace broken rails, they cut the broken rails out and replace them with new rail which they weld together. The process is done overnight and does not interfere with Rush hour, rail is "small" compared to replacing a "guideway".
DO you even have an idea of the size of the MOW equipment would have to be to lift up a cracked piece of guideway which would on average be about the length of a Toyota and weigh nearly as much, and they would have to lift the sections of guideway out and replace it with a new one in the confines of a tunnel?..
The Newark Monorail which operates over an elevated guideway was shut down for 6 months because of cracks which formed because of malfunctioning de-icers which caused the sections of guideway to crack in the cold weather.
If it were conventional rails, work teams could have replaced it working between midnight and 6Am and replaced the rail for the entire system in a week!
MAGLEVs are expensive and not practical for short inter Borough transportation, they work running across open space from one German City to another. However they have not had to deal with serving dense City Centers nor tunnel under rivers, as mentioned with the Chinese system it doesn't go to the City Center.
MAGLEVs would work on Corridors such as Los Angeles to Las Vegas, where the guideways could be built above freeways or in Highways medians for the entire trip.
MAGLEVs in Manhattan just don't work, the benefits do not justify the costs.
Yes it's physically possible to run Maglevs underground, but why spend twice as much as conventional methods when the benefits are miniscule on such a short route?
GARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1459 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4513 times:
Maybe Im not clear on something, but can someone tell me is it CURRENTLY
possible to take the Air Train from JFK and get into Grand Central station.
My wife and I will be arriving in JFK on Feb 27 and I thought it WAS
possible to get from JFk to Manhattan using an Air Train connection?
Appreciate if any one can clear that up.
Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
25 VSLover: No. You can only get to Penn Station, not Grand Central via AirTrain. You could: take the train from the airport to Station D, Jamaica Station and tra
26 STT757: "The one thing I never understood about the trains going from Manhattan to the EWR train station: Why can't they manage to start an easy to remember s
27 PA110: Garudarod, Currently, I'm afraid there are no rail links between JFK and Grand Central Station. Grand Central Station serves the northern suburbs (New
28 GARUDAROD: Thanks guys for the updates. We are staying at the Grand Hyatt. What would be your recommendations to get there quickly, safely and without hiring a
29 PA110: Garudarod, There is a bus service as follows: New York Airport Service Express Bus (718) 875-8200 Every 15 - 30 minutes 6:15 AM to 11:10 PM 45 - 65 mi
30 STT757: "Thanks guys for the updates. We are staying at the Grand Hyatt. What would be your recommendations to get there quickly, safely and without hiring a
31 VSLover: the yellow taxi from jfk-any point in manhattan is flat fare of $35 dollars, plus tolls and tip, so you are looking around 43-45 dollars total. depend
32 Ezra: Are you sure the flat-fare applies FROM Manhattan to JFK? I thought it was only for trips to Manhattan from the airport?
33 TWFirst: Yes, the flat-fare also applies from Manhattan to JFK, Ezra. Did it about a month ago.
34 Jfernandez: Flat fare is ONLY from JFK to Manhattan - not from Manhattan to JFK.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 689 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6345 posts, 
From India, joined Nov 2003, 78 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, 
From Namibia, joined Mar 2002, 1063 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2003, 725 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
