5 ms·

Hong Kong Airport made me realize how idiotic it is that we don't have these rail links: - PATH to EWR - 7 to LGA Not only does Hong Kong have a subway termi

Hong Kong Airport made me realize how idiotic it is that we don't have these rail links: - PATH to EWR - 7 to LGA Not only does Hong Kong have a subway terminating inside the main terminal, it runs separate from their MTR line, takes 30 mins to get into Central and makes a handful of stops at major MTR junctions along the way. It felt like public transit working exactly as it should.

enobrev 10y ago
Chicago as well. The blue line goes from downtown to inside ORD within 45 minutes, and the orange line goes to MDW. Not sure how long as haven't flown to / from MDW in years. I generally ask visitors to take the CTA instead of a cab because it's much faster during the day. Getting to any airport in NYC via public transportation is a pain, including JFK. Which is strange because the MTA is otherwise very impressive.
- inferiorhuman 10y ago
  SFO-OAK is pretty easy (despite that ridiculous, overpriced cable car at OAK). Tokyo's great too even if you don't understand Japanese. Haneda is in a great location and has tons of connections. Haneda to Narita is also pretty easy (bonus: monorail). Airports are, by design, generally out in the middle of nowhere and their connectivity suffers as a result. You get things like London where Heathrow and London City are reasonably accessible, but things like Stansted are out in the middle of bloody nowhere.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Stansted has a direct train. The problem is that it's way out, not that it doesn't have a good transit link.
    - inferiorhuman 10y ago
      Sure, and from Liverpool Street the Stansted Express is quite expensive (> 30 GBP) especially when compared to simply taking the tube to Heathrow (<= 6 GBP). That is, IMO, bordering on expensive enough to consider that poor connectivity.
      - greglindahl 10y ago
        I always take the Heathrow Express, so I guess you aren't on an expense account! If I read the rate card correctly, the Stansted Express is cheaper than the Heathrow Express.
        inferiorhuman 10y ago
        Well, Stansted is kind of a giveaway, right? It's the RyanAir airport.
cheetos 10y ago
Yep. It's bad. The A to JFK is also a poor experience.
tedmiston 10y ago
I've turned down 3-hour layovers before that required change of airport in NYC because I'm not confident it's enough time. On the other hand, I take the Chinatown buses in / out regularly. It's a pretty smooth arrival experience in comparison.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  There's an effective private bus that does NY airport transfers. EWR is not so good, but I'd be confident about LGA/JFK. Discovery is a problem. When I only occasionally traveled to NY I didn't know about this bus. My NY-based girlfriend told me about it.
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    Do you the name?
    - manacit 10y ago
      There are more than one around the city, but I usually take http://www.nycairporter.com http://www.nycairporter.com to get to/from JFK/LGA and Manhattan when I don't want to take public transit (usually because I have a lot of luggage). I live within easy access of one of their pickup/dropoff stops in Manhattan, so it's quite convenient.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  I had a 3 hour layover at JFK, once . . . It was barely enough time to change terminals at one airport, never mind changing airports. Immigration was part of the problem, but still . . .
mason55 10y ago
> Not only does Hong Kong have a subway terminating inside the main terminal, it runs separate from their MTR line, takes 30 mins to get into Central and makes a handful of stops at major MTR junctions along the way. It felt like public transit working exactly as it should. And you can check your bags at the train station and you don't have to see them again until you get to your final destination
T-hawk 10y ago
The lack of the 7 or any other subway to LGA is thanks to rampant NIMBYism. Everyone wants it but nobody wants it to run down their street. EWR has the Airtrain instead of the PATH. That was more practical than building a new right-of-way for the PATH. PATH trains couldn't run on the NJ Transit/Amtrak tracks because of incompatible power systems (third rail vs overhead.) Also those tracks are at capacity at peak times and couldn't fit Path trains in addition.
- L_Rahman 10y ago
  I was not aware of the practical limitations in connecting PATH to EWR. This makes a lot of sense.

enobrev 10y ago

Chicago as well. The blue line goes from downtown to inside ORD within 45 minutes, and the orange line goes to MDW. Not sure how long as haven't flown to / from MDW in years. I generally ask visitors to take the CTA instead of a cab because it's much faster during the day. Getting to any airport in NYC via public transportation is a pain, including JFK. Which is strange because the MTA is otherwise very impressive.

inferiorhuman 10y ago
SFO-OAK is pretty easy (despite that ridiculous, overpriced cable car at OAK). Tokyo's great too even if you don't understand Japanese. Haneda is in a great location and has tons of connections. Haneda to Narita is also pretty easy (bonus: monorail). Airports are, by design, generally out in the middle of nowhere and their connectivity suffers as a result. You get things like London where Heathrow and London City are reasonably accessible, but things like Stansted are out in the middle of bloody nowhere.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Stansted has a direct train. The problem is that it's way out, not that it doesn't have a good transit link.
  - inferiorhuman 10y ago
    Sure, and from Liverpool Street the Stansted Express is quite expensive (> 30 GBP) especially when compared to simply taking the tube to Heathrow (<= 6 GBP). That is, IMO, bordering on expensive enough to consider that poor connectivity.
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      I always take the Heathrow Express, so I guess you aren't on an expense account! If I read the rate card correctly, the Stansted Express is cheaper than the Heathrow Express.
      - inferiorhuman 10y ago
        Well, Stansted is kind of a giveaway, right? It's the RyanAir airport.

cheetos 10y ago

Yep. It's bad. The A to JFK is also a poor experience.

tedmiston 10y ago

I've turned down 3-hour layovers before that required change of airport in NYC because I'm not confident it's enough time. On the other hand, I take the Chinatown buses in / out regularly. It's a pretty smooth arrival experience in comparison.

greglindahl 10y ago
There's an effective private bus that does NY airport transfers. EWR is not so good, but I'd be confident about LGA/JFK. Discovery is a problem. When I only occasionally traveled to NY I didn't know about this bus. My NY-based girlfriend told me about it.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  Do you the name?
  - manacit 10y ago
    There are more than one around the city, but I usually take http://www.nycairporter.com http://www.nycairporter.com to get to/from JFK/LGA and Manhattan when I don't want to take public transit (usually because I have a lot of luggage). I live within easy access of one of their pickup/dropoff stops in Manhattan, so it's quite convenient.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
goodcanadian 10y ago
I had a 3 hour layover at JFK, once . . . It was barely enough time to change terminals at one airport, never mind changing airports. Immigration was part of the problem, but still . . .

mason55 10y ago

> Not only does Hong Kong have a subway terminating inside the main terminal, it runs separate from their MTR line, takes 30 mins to get into Central and makes a handful of stops at major MTR junctions along the way. It felt like public transit working exactly as it should. And you can check your bags at the train station and you don't have to see them again until you get to your final destination

T-hawk 10y ago

The lack of the 7 or any other subway to LGA is thanks to rampant NIMBYism. Everyone wants it but nobody wants it to run down their street. EWR has the Airtrain instead of the PATH. That was more practical than building a new right-of-way for the PATH. PATH trains couldn't run on the NJ Transit/Amtrak tracks because of incompatible power systems (third rail vs overhead.) Also those tracks are at capacity at peak times and couldn't fit Path trains in addition.

L_Rahman 10y ago
I was not aware of the practical limitations in connecting PATH to EWR. This makes a lot of sense.