|
|
| Re: Air Train question (581405) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:37:22 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 22:15:50 2008. But the yard was put there because they knew they were going to build a branch to Howard Beach. My point is this. Would the long term lot, which obviously wouldn't have connected well with the loop, without making the loop bigger, would that have been worth making a whole seperate branch for if not for the fact that they were also going to go to Howard Beach. I don't think it would have been worth the expense to build an entire third segment there just for that long term lot, had it not been for the fact that Howard beach would also be served. Newark's situation is somewhat similar as that the "loop" (well half loop) would have worked well if it had to loop all the way to the long term lots. They would have had to have built a seperate branch to serve that long term lot, just like they did at JFK for the long term lot. However, if a "subway" or rail station had been near that lot, it would have made much more sense to serve that long term lot with more than just buses if the extension to that hypothetical rail station was there. Thanks!! Posting this Neward AirTrain really helped with my thought on my position! For the third time, yes, they would have built it, since that's where the yard is! Where else would you put the yard?! That is speculation, so I don't know, and can't comment on that. Narrow road around the west and north sides of the airport, squeezing past existing buildings and between a major highway. Contrast that to JFK where they just went through nothingness. My question (before it was turned around) was "how can they charge people for airtrain after already charging them for parking I don't know, you brought it up! My guess is the same way they charge people for AirTrain after they've been charged to ride the (A). I know, it's ridiculous. Both of them. But one of the two actually is in place. Instead, they could simply drop the fare for subway riders, as is done at every other airport system in the country! I don't understand why you'd rather they implement an additional thing not done anywhere else than drop what they are already doing that isn't done anywhere else. |
|
|
|