Originally Posted By leemac <<I like the idea in theory - the Jamaica to JFK driverless train works great.>> I'm usually in NYC every 8-12 weeks and I try to avoid JFK at all costs (I prefer EWR every time) and one of the reasons is the Airtrain. I just can't fathom why they opted for that to a connector station rather than a direct link. It is so much hassle to constantly change to get the train into Manhattan. Cabs are so much easier even if the trip can be tortuous due to traffic. EWR has similarly stupid train service. Why the PATH can't be extended out to the EWR Station is lost on me. After Sandy I ended up at Lincoln Harbor and the roads were a nightmare so I decided to take the train back to the airport. It is less than 12 miles and I had to take: 1) Light rail 2) PATH 3) NJ Transit 4) Airtrain It is just crazy. I presume it has something to do with the bureaucracy at PANYNJ. London's Heathrow Airport dumped a small fortune (c.$0.8bn) on a dedicated train line from the airport into London Paddington station. A significant portion of the line is underground. However it was absolutely essential for Heathrow's ability to maintain its status as the world's busiest international airport.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I just can't fathom why they opted for that to a connector station rather than a direct link. > Cost. Plain and simple. Best way is NOT to take the regular NYC subway line, which takes a long time from Manhattan to Jamaica, but the LIRR, which has very frequent service to Jamaica, as it's major transfer station to points east. Pretty much all LIRR trains go through Jamaica. So you take one LIRR train one stop to Jamaica, then the airtrain. I don't find it a hassle at all. Cabs are indeed easier, but much more expensive, and can take longer quite often. Don't get me started on rail to Newark. Never do that. If you have to use public transport, the direct bus from Port Authority is the only way. I took the dedicated train from Heathrow to Paddington. Not cheap, but definitely the way to go.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I took the dedicated train from Heathrow to Paddington. Not cheap, but definitely the way to go.>> Cheaper than a black taxi! Folks always complain that per-mile it is more expensive than Concorde. It is however incredibly frequent and reliable with clean trains. Price-wise it is on a par with most of the dedicated airport train services like Stockholm's Arlanda Express.
Originally Posted By leemac <<If you have to use public transport, the direct bus from Port Authority is the only way.>> With the PATH down it made it tough to even make it back across the Hudson! I've always been a fan of NY Waterways too - until last week!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Right now, I think they (LAX) have a shuttle bus<< HAD a shuttle bus in the case of OC. It's no more, as of a few months ago. I understand that some other routes are still running.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Cheaper than a black taxi! Folks always complain that per-mile it is more expensive than Concorde. It is however incredibly frequent and reliable with clean trains. Price-wise it is on a par with most of the dedicated airport train services like Stockholm's Arlanda Express.> Yes, I was happy to finally use that service. When I was young and broke I just took the Picadilly line all the way, but of course that takes forever. The express is well worth it if you've got some extra pounds. <With the PATH down it made it tough to even make it back across the Hudson!> Next time - taxi or the dedicated bus from PA. Do not mess with PATH to get to EWR. <I've always been a fan of NY Waterways too - until last week!> No kidding. During the transit strike here a few years back, just to get from Brooklyn to Manhattan I had to: 1). hoof it a couple of miles up to the ferry stop (or drive and PRAY to get a parking spot anywhere remotely close) 2). Take the ferry from Brooklyn to lower Manhattan - this was December, mind, and these were open air boats - F R E E Z I N G!! 3). Hoof it across Manhattan from east side to west (at the narrow southern end of the island, so not TOO bad...) 4). Take PATH into NJ. 5). Transfer to a different PATH line back into Manhattan, where it was close enough to... 6). Hoof it back to my office. Then after work, repeat in reverse. Thank God that strike didn't last long! I was imagining something similar after Sandy (the horror stories of trying to get a bus from the Barclay's center area quickly became legend) but luckily (!) my office lost power, so by the time that was back up, so were most of the subway lines.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <HAD a shuttle bus in the case of OC. It's no more, as of a few months ago. I understand that some other routes are still running.> I meant a shuttle bus from a stop on the green line. Perhaps Al Lutz would know. (Just noticing we're getting pretty OT)
Originally Posted By leemac <<Next time - taxi or the dedicated bus from PA. Do not mess with PATH to get to EWR.>> I always get a cab. I prefer to stay at the W Hoboken so that is much easier. I'm a huge PATH fan.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Here's a wacky idea: How about some sort of rail service to LAX?" There is Metro Rail service to LAX from downtown. I've used it and it's not bad: <a href="http://www.la-electric-travel.com/LAX-via-Metro-Rail.html" target="_blank">http://www.la-electric-travel....ail.html</a>
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 Theres way in California to get to places with the rail and it's not that bad price wise. I'm up here in Palmdale and I can get to Disneyland for 14.00, 18.00 round trip. I'm on the train for two hours which isn't too bad, depending on the day, it can take that long to drive (normally only hour 15 or so, fast drivers in my family). Anyways my point is, California can't really do rail traffic anyways, between environmental hoops to jump, no empty land (except out here in Palmdale which is probally why the picked it, we actually have a really efficient metrolink station out here and a number of busses that already go from here to downtown LA, so all it would be is increasing the number of trains up here.) and competing with cars then it is really hard for them to accomplish it. We used to have one of the best subway systems in the country way back in the 20-30's till California got the idea of, lets be a driving state! Then all that land went to freeways. The other reason why I think in California people take the car over trains is simply because we don't like to stop. I don't know about you but I get frustrated with just one lay-over on an airplane. For instance if I was to take the metrolink to Disneyland I stop 7 times and have to change trains at the Downtown LA station. To me its just not worth it. (Even though it is considerably cheaper)
Originally Posted By leemac <<no empty land >> And that is the rub - there isn't the political will to push through with what is necessary - compulsory purchase orders for property along the route. It happens everywhere outside the US all the time - and in most of Europe property prices are significantly higher than in CA. There just is no appetite. LA needs a solution - a grand plan but there is no political will to even attempt to find a practical solution. So it is Band-aids all the time. One of my colleagues has commuted from Anaheim to Glendale for decades but he is roundly laughed at for sticking with public transport.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip High Speed Rail between Los Angeles and Vegas would make PLENTY of money if they included a bar car. Not only would they make big money on the drinks, it would get drivers out of their cars!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I can't imagine anything worse than being trapped aboard a train with a bunch of hyped up "Hangover" wannabes drinking and screaming "Vegas, Baby!" every three minutes. Except perhaps when they start vomiting.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You're not imagining the possibilities... you could also have a show car with the "Trashy Train Girls". You could rent Roomettes in 30 minute intervals. I can just imagine the ad campaign... "What happens on train, stays on train..." It's a WINNER I tell ya!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan "What happens on train, stays on train..." or.... "Going to Vegas? We'll cover your tracks." ; )
Originally Posted By karlg It is not a question of land costs. It is an issue of travel density. There are not enough people going being LA and SF or LA and Las Vegas for it to make and technical/economic sense. Even in Japan the only high speed rail that makes money is the one between Tokyo and Osaka and that one has incredible focuses of populations, and a transit route that is limited by the mountain on one side and the ocean on the other to funnel all the population into a narrow corridor. To make high speed rail work, you need very high population densities at either end and lots of people going between the two cities every day. Oh, and VERY few stops so no stopping in every town along the way or why bother with high speed. Passenger rail in the U.S. is done for political purposes and just gets in the way of freight rail which DOES make sense. Freight works because it can form long, relatively slow moving (thus low air resistance) trains and sit cars on sidings waiting for a train that is going in the right direction (which is very energy efficient). People don't want to travel like freight. They want to travel fast which included not making a lot of stops or waiting for a connection or waiting to get more people onto the vehicle. To make trains "work" in the U.S. would require that the government in addition to confiscating land (not against eminent domain for this purpose), force people to work in specific places and live in specific places. Also that they eliminate other forms of transportation and force people to take long slow moving commutes that stop a lot. Trains simply don't work well for moving people except in Urban areas with high rise buildings for both offices and living (ala Tokyo, London). And between major metropolitan areas that are not too far apart (even Washington to New York is marginal at best and heavily subsidized).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think the LA to Vegas train would work, but apparently it is not going to be High Speed and will have limited service. Also looks like they plan to use the RoadTrip train concept: <<Let’s Take the Train to Vegas ... Maybe The X Train proposal calls for an Amtrak crew aboard a 576-passenger train that runs at standard speeds on traditional tracks. It would start in Fullerton, Calif. — already home to an Amtrak station and part of Southern California's Metrolink commuter train network — and end in downtown Las Vegas. Tickets for the adults-only train would cost $99 each way and include a meal and beverage, with alcohol available for purchase. To keep ticket prices low, the company plans to make money booking Las Vegas hotels and entertainment for passengers. Initial plans call for a one trip a day on Thursday, Friday, Sunday, and Monday some time in 2013. The train ride will be designed to make you feel like you are already in Vegas as soon as you step aboard. Stay tuned.>> Source: <a href="http://www.lasvegasdirect.com/la-to-vegas.html" target="_blank">http://www.lasvegasdirect.com/...gas.html</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Tickets for the adults-only train would cost $99 each way and include a meal and beverage<< EACH WAY? Direct flights from LAX start at about half that!
