7 ms·

Beyond the constant delays and overcrowded trains, the biggest impediment I experience is the lack of subways to the airports. LGA doesn't have any train lines,

Beyond the constant delays and overcrowded trains, the biggest impediment I experience is the lack of subways to the airports. LGA doesn't have any train lines, while JFK and EWR have "airtrains" separate from the MTA or PATH. Chicago's "L" goes directly to both ORD and MDW. My brief time there showed that things could be far more connected than New York's system.

jcranmer 9y ago
Transit to the airport is less helpful than you'd think. The main people who are going to want to use transit are the people who work there (being both lower income and not having to carry lots of luggage around), and the working hours of subways is generally inconvenient for airport workers.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > The main people who are going to want to use transit are the people who work there I live in Manhattan and regularly take the LIRR to Jamaica, from where I catch the Airtrain to JFK. It's a predictable-duration trip. It costs $10 to Juno to Penn Station, $7.50 (off peak) to $10.25 (peak) for the train ticket, and $5 for the Airtrain. And I don't get sick reading on a train like I do in a car.
- mi100hael 9y ago
  Transit to the airport is hugely helpful for travelers. A subway ride from LGA to a Manhattan hotel would be far cheaper and more efficient than taking a cab.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    If cost is an issue, there's the NYC Airporter bus, which is a flat $15 to Midtown. Or you can take the Q70 bus to the Roosevelt Ave - Jackson Heights subway station (in Queens). Airports are a particularly visible omission, for a certain class of people, but they aren't in the top 5 or so most valuable possible extensions to the subway system.
    - usrusr 9y ago
      > Airports are a particularly visible omission, for a certain class of people, but they aren't in the top 5 or so most valuable possible extensions to the subway system. Speaking of class, some transit systems suffer more than others from lacking a healthy mix of ridership affluence (MTA isn't one of them). Descending into a spiral of "only for the poor" is one of the failure modes of transit systems. If an airport line "injecting" its share of non-destitute riders is what keeps the while system from falling off that cliff it would be worth far more than just their tickets or the directly prevented road traffic. High status destinations have indirect benefits for the whole system.
      - dionidium 9y ago
        Airports aren't in the top five most beneficial routes for middle- and upper-class residents, either. There are all kinds of outer borough routes that would be of far greater benefit to the residents there. This is sort of like the case of the couple who buys more house than they need because the in-laws visit once a year and they insist on having a room for them. It's silly to optimize for rare events. When you have to go to the airport, then it's particularly noticeable that there isn't a route to the airport. But going to the airport isn't on your everyday agenda. There are far more beneficial routes.
- isostatic 9y ago
  Yet in the rest of the world many people use the train to get to the airport. When I fly into Moscow DME, why would I want to sit in a traffic jam for 90 minutes when I could get the train in under half that time. Taxi from Amsterdam Schipol? That would be crazy. From Tokyo Narita? You're having a laugh. London Heathrow? Get the express to Paddington and a taxi from there. Or just take the tube the whole way.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > From Tokyo Narita? You're having a laugh. When I told a cab driver in Tokyo I wanted to go to Narita he was extremely confused and had the hotel bell hop explain to me that, basically, I was nuts and should take the train.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      You're lucky he didn't stick you on one of those awful hotel-affiliated coach buses to Narita, the drivers of which are forbidden from applying steady pressure to the accelerator.
      - Grue3 9y ago
        Nothing wrong with taking the bus in certain cases. I used one last time from the Ginza area. It was either being compacted in peak hours Tokyo Metro, or walking to a nearby hotel and waiting for a bus in the lobby. The choice was clear and I don't regret it.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > London Heathrow? Get the express to Paddington and a taxi from there. Or just take the tube the whole way. That's about as convenient as taking the LIRR to/from JFK, or the NJ Transit to EWR, which many people in NYC already do.
    - sgt101 9y ago
      Cross rail is a commin' http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/maps/ http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/maps/
- indemnity 9y ago
  cough respectfully disagree. In most major Asian cities the airport connection is super useful, going in and out of NYC felt like going to the 50s and it was better than most of the other cities when visiting the US. The NEX in Tokyo is great, since Narita is way outside of Tokyo. As is the connection to Incheon directly from the center of Seoul. Turns what would have been a painful ass commute into something relaxing. In Seoul I could even check in the luggage for my flight before hopping on the train. I guess if you hate convenience....
  - jschwartzi 9y ago
    Seconding this. I did not need a car at all in Tokyo, not even to get to the airport. The NEX and services like it are fantastic.
nasredin 9y ago
From memory: JFK: just have to transfer from AirTrain to regular subway in Jamaica (?) Queens. Newark: take the bus to Newark station and take PATH train to lower Manhattan. Plus you get to see real New Jersians and New Yorkers. They are not overly friendly and they dress way too fancy compared to the Californians.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Newark: take the bus to Newark station and take PATH train to lower Manhattan From Manhattan, it's an NJT to the Newark airport stop from where the cutest little monorail [1] takes you to the airport. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTrain_Newark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTrain_Newark
  - indemnity 9y ago
    Also one of the slowest monorails I’ve been on, even the Tokyo monorail built in 1964 was faster :)
- bobthepanda 9y ago
  JFK is actually even easier, in that you have LIRR trains departing from Jamaica to Penn Station (and in the future, Grand Central) every few minutes at nearly all hours of the day, and the transfer is a single elevator ride. You can be in Manhattan within 35 minutes of leaving the terminal.
nostromo 9y ago
American cities are the worst when it comes to this. Seattle just built a train to the airport (yay) but for bureaucratic reasons, it doesn't actually go in to the airport. It goes to the far edge of the airport, so you have to lug your luggage outside through the entire parking lot. Meanwhile, everyone who took an Uber can step right into the departures area. And, as you mention, New York is much much worse in this regard. The AirTrain from JFK costs $5, more than it costs to go from anywhere to anywhere else in all of NYC on the subway.
- bhandziuk 9y ago
  At least the whole walk is covered. Count your blessing.
- soperj 9y ago
  That kind of makes sense though. Most public transit is subsidized. Why subsidize people who aren't necessarily paying taxes in the area?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > The AirTrain from JFK costs $5, more than it costs to go from anywhere to anywhere else in all of NYC on the subway I'm okay with this. If I'm going to the airport, I'm identifying myself as a New Yorker (or visitor) with the means to travel by air. It doesn't make sense to use a minimum wage worker in the Bronx's taxes to subsidize my vacations. Broadly, however, I agree that our lack of downtown-to-airport express rail lines is embarrassing.
  - c22 9y ago
    What if you work at the airport?
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      Their employers should pay them more or buy them tickets. They've been pushing, instead, for a subsidy [1]. But at the end of the day, that's still using lower-income New Yorkers' wages to subsidize a system which principally (though not exclusively) benefits higher-income New Yorkers. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/nyregion/train-to-jfk-scores-with-fliers-but-not-with-airport-workers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/nyregion/train-to-jfk-sco...
dpeck 9y ago
This was a mindblowing discovery for me when I flew into NYC for the first time. One of the largest subway systems in the world and some of the busiest airports in the world a few miles from each other but not connected was/is confusing. Is there a well understood reason why?
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > Is there a well understood reason why? LaGuardia, by all rights, shouldn't exist. It needs to be shut down - aside from the fact that the airport itself is already falling part, its mere existence actually creates delays across all three airport systems in the area (JFK, LGA, and EWR). Because of the way the traffic zones intersect, it would actually be more efficient to reroute all existing traffic from LGA to EWR and JFK, and we'd end up with fewer delays with the same overall capacity. Unfortunately, LGA is the most convenient airport for people who live on the Upper East Side. They're wealthy and politically well-connected, so they would strongly oppose any efforts to shut it down. They also are only a $20 cab ride away from LGA, so the fact that it doesn't have heavy rail/light rail transportation there doesn't bother them.
  - CPLX 9y ago
    This post is literally ridiculous, I don't think a single thing in it is true. The constraining factor for flights in and out of NYC, or nearly any place, is runway capacity, not available airspace. For all practical purposes airspace is essentially unlimited. You could bulldoze Brooklyn, strategically place a couple hundred runways on it, and land thousands of planes per hour if you wanted to, maybe a couple less if it got foggy. For reference I have a pilots license and have flown across and through NYC's class B airspace many times. This post makes no sense.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > This post is literally ridiculous, I don't think a single thing in it is true. The constraining factor for flights in and out of NYC, or nearly any place, is runway capacity, not available airspace. What you're saying flies in the face of a decent amount of reporting on the matter, as well as what I've been told by a friend of mine who happens to work in ATC at one of the aforementioned airports.
taserian 9y ago
I lived in New York until the early '80s (I was 11 at the time), and I recall the commercial "Take the Train to the Plane". I always thought that they were part of the MTA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkL1LIUsmqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkL1LIUsmqc
- msrpotus 9y ago
  It was part of the MTA. You'd still need to take a bus from the train, though.
gok 9y ago
I honestly try to take the L whenever I can, and do take it to the airport about 30% of the time. The trouble with the L approach is: 1. Normal rapid transit cars have no space for luggage 2. There are no express trains, so it’s not guaranteed to be faster than driving (it often is during rush hour however) 3. The airport stations are a 10 minute walk to security instead of a 1 minute walk like the car dropoff gets 4. When traveling for business I can charge in an Uber, spread out in the back seat and get some work done. On the L I’m in a cramped seat where using a laptop is hard. So on paper I appreciate the approach New York and London (and others) have taken with a premium airport-only service.
humanrebar 9y ago
I think the lack of elevators is worse. In fact, elevator availability is sort of a precursor to good airport access since schlepping luggage up and down slick stairs can be a nonstarter, especially if you are disabled, elderly, or have small children.
bobthepanda 9y ago
Transit to airports is generally a secondary concern. The only regular group of riders that would use such a line would be airport workers, because by definition there are not that many travelers, and on top of that many of them with luggage or in large groups could find it easier or cheaper to pay for the door to door ride of a taxi. The O/D pairs of people going to and from airports also tends to be very dispersed, which is not great for rail unless you have an extremely comprehensive, rapid rail network covering nearly all possible trips. Airports also, by their nature, tend to be out of the way and away from busy neighborhoods, which limits their potential catchment. Even when they are linearly arranged, terminals are generally set back from these linear routes due to their circular road networks and parking requirements. Look at how much additional mileage is required to serve the terminal at Dulles in DC, for example: https://i1.wp.com/www.thetransportpolitic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Dulles-Airport.jpg?ssl=1 https://i1.wp.com/www.thetransportpolitic.com/wp-content/upl... Finally, airport layouts themselves tend to be really bad for transit; common configurations for airports, laid out in a circle (JFK) or a very long terminal (LGA) will require some significant chunk of passengers to walk to and from any rail station sufficiently long enough for a regular train, to the point where you need a people mover around the airport anyways (SFO, ORD). And if you need a smaller people mover to shuttle people around anyways, why not just shuttle them to a central train station a bit of a distance away, so that the rail can effectively serve both further destinations and the airport passengers?

jcranmer 9y ago

Transit to the airport is less helpful than you'd think. The main people who are going to want to use transit are the people who work there (being both lower income and not having to carry lots of luggage around), and the working hours of subways is generally inconvenient for airport workers.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The main people who are going to want to use transit are the people who work there I live in Manhattan and regularly take the LIRR to Jamaica, from where I catch the Airtrain to JFK. It's a predictable-duration trip. It costs $10 to Juno to Penn Station, $7.50 (off peak) to $10.25 (peak) for the train ticket, and $5 for the Airtrain. And I don't get sick reading on a train like I do in a car.
mi100hael 9y ago
Transit to the airport is hugely helpful for travelers. A subway ride from LGA to a Manhattan hotel would be far cheaper and more efficient than taking a cab.
- dionidium 9y ago
  If cost is an issue, there's the NYC Airporter bus, which is a flat $15 to Midtown. Or you can take the Q70 bus to the Roosevelt Ave - Jackson Heights subway station (in Queens). Airports are a particularly visible omission, for a certain class of people, but they aren't in the top 5 or so most valuable possible extensions to the subway system.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    > Airports are a particularly visible omission, for a certain class of people, but they aren't in the top 5 or so most valuable possible extensions to the subway system. Speaking of class, some transit systems suffer more than others from lacking a healthy mix of ridership affluence (MTA isn't one of them). Descending into a spiral of "only for the poor" is one of the failure modes of transit systems. If an airport line "injecting" its share of non-destitute riders is what keeps the while system from falling off that cliff it would be worth far more than just their tickets or the directly prevented road traffic. High status destinations have indirect benefits for the whole system.
    - dionidium 9y ago
      Airports aren't in the top five most beneficial routes for middle- and upper-class residents, either. There are all kinds of outer borough routes that would be of far greater benefit to the residents there. This is sort of like the case of the couple who buys more house than they need because the in-laws visit once a year and they insist on having a room for them. It's silly to optimize for rare events. When you have to go to the airport, then it's particularly noticeable that there isn't a route to the airport. But going to the airport isn't on your everyday agenda. There are far more beneficial routes.
isostatic 9y ago
Yet in the rest of the world many people use the train to get to the airport. When I fly into Moscow DME, why would I want to sit in a traffic jam for 90 minutes when I could get the train in under half that time. Taxi from Amsterdam Schipol? That would be crazy. From Tokyo Narita? You're having a laugh. London Heathrow? Get the express to Paddington and a taxi from there. Or just take the tube the whole way.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > From Tokyo Narita? You're having a laugh. When I told a cab driver in Tokyo I wanted to go to Narita he was extremely confused and had the hotel bell hop explain to me that, basically, I was nuts and should take the train.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    You're lucky he didn't stick you on one of those awful hotel-affiliated coach buses to Narita, the drivers of which are forbidden from applying steady pressure to the accelerator.
    - Grue3 9y ago
      Nothing wrong with taking the bus in certain cases. I used one last time from the Ginza area. It was either being compacted in peak hours Tokyo Metro, or walking to a nearby hotel and waiting for a bus in the lobby. The choice was clear and I don't regret it.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > London Heathrow? Get the express to Paddington and a taxi from there. Or just take the tube the whole way. That's about as convenient as taking the LIRR to/from JFK, or the NJ Transit to EWR, which many people in NYC already do.
  - sgt101 9y ago
    Cross rail is a commin' http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/maps/ http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/maps/
indemnity 9y ago
cough respectfully disagree. In most major Asian cities the airport connection is super useful, going in and out of NYC felt like going to the 50s and it was better than most of the other cities when visiting the US. The NEX in Tokyo is great, since Narita is way outside of Tokyo. As is the connection to Incheon directly from the center of Seoul. Turns what would have been a painful ass commute into something relaxing. In Seoul I could even check in the luggage for my flight before hopping on the train. I guess if you hate convenience....
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  Seconding this. I did not need a car at all in Tokyo, not even to get to the airport. The NEX and services like it are fantastic.

nasredin 9y ago

From memory: JFK: just have to transfer from AirTrain to regular subway in Jamaica (?) Queens. Newark: take the bus to Newark station and take PATH train to lower Manhattan. Plus you get to see real New Jersians and New Yorkers. They are not overly friendly and they dress way too fancy compared to the Californians.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Newark: take the bus to Newark station and take PATH train to lower Manhattan From Manhattan, it's an NJT to the Newark airport stop from where the cutest little monorail [1] takes you to the airport. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTrain_Newark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTrain_Newark
- indemnity 9y ago
  Also one of the slowest monorails I’ve been on, even the Tokyo monorail built in 1964 was faster :)
bobthepanda 9y ago
JFK is actually even easier, in that you have LIRR trains departing from Jamaica to Penn Station (and in the future, Grand Central) every few minutes at nearly all hours of the day, and the transfer is a single elevator ride. You can be in Manhattan within 35 minutes of leaving the terminal.

nostromo 9y ago

American cities are the worst when it comes to this. Seattle just built a train to the airport (yay) but for bureaucratic reasons, it doesn't actually go in to the airport. It goes to the far edge of the airport, so you have to lug your luggage outside through the entire parking lot. Meanwhile, everyone who took an Uber can step right into the departures area. And, as you mention, New York is much much worse in this regard. The AirTrain from JFK costs $5, more than it costs to go from anywhere to anywhere else in all of NYC on the subway.

bhandziuk 9y ago
At least the whole walk is covered. Count your blessing.
soperj 9y ago
That kind of makes sense though. Most public transit is subsidized. Why subsidize people who aren't necessarily paying taxes in the area?
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The AirTrain from JFK costs $5, more than it costs to go from anywhere to anywhere else in all of NYC on the subway I'm okay with this. If I'm going to the airport, I'm identifying myself as a New Yorker (or visitor) with the means to travel by air. It doesn't make sense to use a minimum wage worker in the Bronx's taxes to subsidize my vacations. Broadly, however, I agree that our lack of downtown-to-airport express rail lines is embarrassing.
- c22 9y ago
  What if you work at the airport?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Their employers should pay them more or buy them tickets. They've been pushing, instead, for a subsidy [1]. But at the end of the day, that's still using lower-income New Yorkers' wages to subsidize a system which principally (though not exclusively) benefits higher-income New Yorkers. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/nyregion/train-to-jfk-scores-with-fliers-but-not-with-airport-workers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/nyregion/train-to-jfk-sco...

dpeck 9y ago

This was a mindblowing discovery for me when I flew into NYC for the first time. One of the largest subway systems in the world and some of the busiest airports in the world a few miles from each other but not connected was/is confusing. Is there a well understood reason why?

chimeracoder 9y ago
> Is there a well understood reason why? LaGuardia, by all rights, shouldn't exist. It needs to be shut down - aside from the fact that the airport itself is already falling part, its mere existence actually creates delays across all three airport systems in the area (JFK, LGA, and EWR). Because of the way the traffic zones intersect, it would actually be more efficient to reroute all existing traffic from LGA to EWR and JFK, and we'd end up with fewer delays with the same overall capacity. Unfortunately, LGA is the most convenient airport for people who live on the Upper East Side. They're wealthy and politically well-connected, so they would strongly oppose any efforts to shut it down. They also are only a $20 cab ride away from LGA, so the fact that it doesn't have heavy rail/light rail transportation there doesn't bother them.
- CPLX 9y ago
  This post is literally ridiculous, I don't think a single thing in it is true. The constraining factor for flights in and out of NYC, or nearly any place, is runway capacity, not available airspace. For all practical purposes airspace is essentially unlimited. You could bulldoze Brooklyn, strategically place a couple hundred runways on it, and land thousands of planes per hour if you wanted to, maybe a couple less if it got foggy. For reference I have a pilots license and have flown across and through NYC's class B airspace many times. This post makes no sense.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > This post is literally ridiculous, I don't think a single thing in it is true. The constraining factor for flights in and out of NYC, or nearly any place, is runway capacity, not available airspace. What you're saying flies in the face of a decent amount of reporting on the matter, as well as what I've been told by a friend of mine who happens to work in ATC at one of the aforementioned airports.

taserian 9y ago

I lived in New York until the early '80s (I was 11 at the time), and I recall the commercial "Take the Train to the Plane". I always thought that they were part of the MTA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkL1LIUsmqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkL1LIUsmqc

msrpotus 9y ago
It was part of the MTA. You'd still need to take a bus from the train, though.

gok 9y ago

I honestly try to take the L whenever I can, and do take it to the airport about 30% of the time. The trouble with the L approach is: 1. Normal rapid transit cars have no space for luggage 2. There are no express trains, so it’s not guaranteed to be faster than driving (it often is during rush hour however) 3. The airport stations are a 10 minute walk to security instead of a 1 minute walk like the car dropoff gets 4. When traveling for business I can charge in an Uber, spread out in the back seat and get some work done. On the L I’m in a cramped seat where using a laptop is hard. So on paper I appreciate the approach New York and London (and others) have taken with a premium airport-only service.

humanrebar 9y ago

I think the lack of elevators is worse. In fact, elevator availability is sort of a precursor to good airport access since schlepping luggage up and down slick stairs can be a nonstarter, especially if you are disabled, elderly, or have small children.

bobthepanda 9y ago

Transit to airports is generally a secondary concern. The only regular group of riders that would use such a line would be airport workers, because by definition there are not that many travelers, and on top of that many of them with luggage or in large groups could find it easier or cheaper to pay for the door to door ride of a taxi. The O/D pairs of people going to and from airports also tends to be very dispersed, which is not great for rail unless you have an extremely comprehensive, rapid rail network covering nearly all possible trips. Airports also, by their nature, tend to be out of the way and away from busy neighborhoods, which limits their potential catchment. Even when they are linearly arranged, terminals are generally set back from these linear routes due to their circular road networks and parking requirements. Look at how much additional mileage is required to serve the terminal at Dulles in DC, for example: https://i1.wp.com/www.thetransportpolitic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Dulles-Airport.jpg?ssl=1 https://i1.wp.com/www.thetransportpolitic.com/wp-content/upl... Finally, airport layouts themselves tend to be really bad for transit; common configurations for airports, laid out in a circle (JFK) or a very long terminal (LGA) will require some significant chunk of passengers to walk to and from any rail station sufficiently long enough for a regular train, to the point where you need a people mover around the airport anyways (SFO, ORD). And if you need a smaller people mover to shuttle people around anyways, why not just shuttle them to a central train station a bit of a distance away, so that the rail can effectively serve both further destinations and the airport passengers?