Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

  • 307 posts
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  by Terry Kennedy
 
When I toured the (then under construction) JFK Airtrain site, they say they had learned their lessons from the Newark system and explicitly decided to avoid the problems. While the JFK system uses linear induction for motive power, the trackage is compatible with standard 3rd-rail powered rolling stock.
  by philipmartin
 
The Newark Air Train is going on nineteen years of age, near the end of its life expectancy. They spend millions building these things and expect them to last only twenty years.
If they want to extend PATH rails from South Street, Newark, to the airport station, and they have to replace the monorai, why not extend the PATH to the airport terminals?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/0 ... s_say.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by ACeInTheHole
 
drewh wrote:What they should have done from the start is build a proper Airtrain system like JFK got. They could've run it to Newark Penn where all trains stop and not built the airport rail station. Too late for that though.
Newark Penn needs the airport stations help.. You should see the crowds that get on at the airport stop. You hit Penn with that on top of its current load and there wouldve been trouble
  by 35dtmrs92
 
philipmartin wrote:The Newark Air Train is going on nineteen years of age, near the end of its life expectancy. They spend millions building these things and expect them to last only twenty years.
If they want to extend PATH rails from South Street, Newark, to the airport station, and they have to replace the monorail, why not extend the PATH to the airport terminals?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/0 ... s_say.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think it is a good idea that the PA is not taking the PATH all the way in to the terminal complex to replace the Airtrain, right now. The Airtrain has stops at each terminal, serving as an intra-airport circulator as well as a link to the RAILink station--the only station where access is paid. I am hard pressed to see how the PATH fare control system could be redesigned to serve intra-airport traffic for free while requiring customers going beyond airport limits to pay. One possible solution is to build one stop for all three terminals, near where the control tower is, but in this case the PATH would not be able to serve as a circulator given how the terminals are designed.

Which brings me to my next point: all three terminals are too small for the amount of passengers they serve anyway, and they were not designed according to today's standards (Going into that is a topic for airliners.net). It's not really the fault of the designers; the evolution of air travel would have been difficult for anyone to predict when EWR was being planned. However, I think that retrofitting the current terminal complex will be more costly and yield fewer benefits than building new structures. The PA is already eyeing a new Terminal A where the south cargo ramps are. It is anyone's guess if that plan will come to fruition as designed, which is exactly my point: there are too many unknowns right now. Here is my armchair educated guess: all three current terminals come down and get replaced gradually over the next few decades. Given UA's EWR dominance, I think a rebuilt EWR will come out more homogeneous than JFK. Eventually, I can see the PATH coming into the EWR terminal complex, but I say it can wait until at least a loose vision for the whole airport is more fleshed out.
  by Jeff Smith
 
Don31 wrote:
Ken W2KB wrote:As I understand it, PFCs are Passenger Facility Charges, which are effectively a tax on airline tickets in the $4 or $4.50 range. The funds by FAA regulation can only be used for certain FAA approved projects directly related to the airport, such as passenger movement within the airport boundary. So if the Port Authority, or its PATH system, uses those funds to construct a terminal at the airport, it cannot be for a facility in whole or in part for general commuting. In the case of the existing EWR station, passengers cannot go to/from except via the monorail which exclusively serves the airport.
Ken - correct. Because they are a surcharge on airline tickets, they must be used for legitimate airport purposes; capital or operating costs that directly and substantially relate to air transport.
Does it have to be ON airport property? Or can it be like JFK, where most of the mileage is down a public ROW and into Jamaica. It seems to me if the "terminal" is on airport property, it should qualify, even if people are using it to commute to the airport.
  by Don31
 
No, it doesn't need to be on airport property, as long as it serves a legitimate airport purpose. EWR's Rail Link Station was PFC-funded. That's why its a closed system, between the NEC and the CTA, with no option for automobile or pedestrian access.
  by Jeff Smith
 
Thanks for that clarification.
  by Don31
 
Jeff Smith wrote:Thanks for that clarification.
No worries....
  by Fan Railer
 
They should really be focusing more on replacing that crap monorail they have the audacity to call a people mover lol. If PATH isn't going directly to the terminals, capacity is going to need to increase on the AirTrain system.
  by Don31
 
Fan Railer wrote:They should really be focusing more on replacing that crap monorail they have the audacity to call a people mover lol. If PATH isn't going directly to the terminals, capacity is going to need to increase on the AirTrain system.
It's already in the works.....
  by Fan Railer
 
Don31 wrote:
Fan Railer wrote:They should really be focusing more on replacing that crap monorail they have the audacity to call a people mover lol. If PATH isn't going directly to the terminals, capacity is going to need to increase on the AirTrain system.
It's already in the works.....
I heard it was; but the real question is: where are they getting all the money for this stuff? It's not exactly a pair of cheap projects. I'm surprised Governor Crispie would green-light funding for stuff like this.
  by Hawaiitiki
 
Another interesting thing I just read in an official PA document. The PATH platforms at EWR Train Station would actually be built on the far west end of the station. I, and a number of folks on these forums, believed that the EWR Train Station was purposely built with space for PATH platforms on the eastern side closer to the monorail. I made the small picture below, but I'll try and dig up the document, its public. And also, the tail tracks would be in a vacant plot also to the west.

Image
  by Don31
 
Hawaiitiki wrote:Another interesting thing I just read in an official PA document. The PATH platforms at EWR Train Station would actually be built on the far west end of the station. I, and a number of folks on these forums, believed that the EWR Train Station was purposely built with space for PATH platforms on the eastern side closer to the monorail. I made the small picture below, but I'll try and dig up the document, its public. And also, the tail tracks would be in a vacant plot also to the west.

Image
Your sketch actually shows, very roughly, the two alternatives being considered. Only one will be selected (assuming of course that the project ever advances). The NEC Station was NOT built with space for PATH, but rather, slots for the old NERL alignment. Depending upon which alternative is selected, the NERL slots would now be used by PATH. The "vacant lot" to the west is actually a solid waste transfer station last time I was down there. The storage yard envisioned for it would only be under one of the alternatives, not both.
  by Adirondacker
 
Don31 wrote:...The storage yard envisioned for it would only be under one of the alternatives, not both.
If they are going to be using the storage between Penn Station and South Street to run trains and run trains that are 25% longer on the line they need someplace to store trains. And more cars. And more cars because they'll have more trains on the road during peak periods.

They have to examine alternatives, document that they need more storage, eliminate the one without storage because it has a fatal flaw - no storage - and move the one with storage onto the next phase of study. If they don't someone will sue.

..something I'm sure you know and almost everybody else that reads these kind of things...
  by Don31
 
Adirondacker wrote:
Don31 wrote:...The storage yard envisioned for it would only be under one of the alternatives, not both.
If they are going to be using the storage between Penn Station and South Street to run trains and run trains that are 25% longer on the line they need someplace to store trains. And more cars. And more cars because they'll have more trains on the road during peak periods.

They have to examine alternatives, document that they need more storage, eliminate the one without storage because it has a fatal flaw - no storage - and move the one with storage onto the next phase of study. If they don't someone will sue.

..something I'm sure you know and almost everybody else that reads these kind of things...
BOTH alternatives have storage yards.....
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21