|
|
| Re: Air Train question (567079) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 24 of 29 |
||
|
| (581415) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Mar 5 22:43:50 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 22:26:56 2008. As far as I know, most airports don't charge paid parking drivers a fee for the airtrain/peoplemover to bring them to their terminals.There is no other airport that charges for its on-airport transit, period. The kiss and ride people luck out, I told you, there is no way to collect from them, without requiring all the parking lot people to somehow have a card after parking to access the airtrain. Instituting such a fare collection system there would probably cost more than the loss of revenue they have from the kiss and ride people. So yes, they luck out, but only because there is no other way to handle them. Since everyone driving into the airport is presumably using the airport and not just driving around in circles, a toll could be imposed the Van Wyck and JFK Expressways entering into the property. After all, they are using a service, the airport's roadway system. If imposing fare collection for these people would be cost prohibitive, why, then, would it make sense to charge transit riders extra to ride AirTrain, which required a special station redesign to accommodate three different payment zones? |
|
|
| (581418) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:45:48 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 22:26:56 2008. As far as I know, most airports don't charge paid parking drivers a fee for the airtrain/peoplemover to bring them to their terminals.And ALL airports don't charge a fee for the peoplemover/airtrain if you board it on airport property, except for JFK AirTrain. So yes, they luck out, but only because there is no other way to handle them. They could have not provided the kiss and ride. Obviously they did provide it, for free, as an incentive to keep the cars away from the central terminal roadways. That's super. Awesome. But where's the incentive to keep transit riders off the terminal roadways? There should be no fee for them at HB as this incentive. |
|
|
| (581429) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 22:52:57 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Mar 5 22:43:50 2008. Since everyone driving into the airport is presumably using the airport and not just driving around in circles, a toll could be imposed the Van Wyck and JFK Expressways entering into the property.Yes, it can. I don't know of any other airport that charges for road access (to use the AirTrain basher's favorite phrase), but I don't see any harm in it. That would solve the kiss and ride people problem, again, even if no other airport does that (not that it matters). I think Dallas (not sure) or one of those airports has a case where only toll roads lead to the airport, so by default, you sort of "pay to drive to the airport". So while not really the same thing (as the NY roads leading to the airport are not toll roads. So go ahead, charge a toll on the Van Wyck of it makes the semantics problem go away. why, then, would it make sense to charge transit riders extra to ride AirTrain, which required a special station redesign to accommodate three different payment zones? A station that would not even have been built if not for the A train there. It wasn't needed for the parking lot, it only serves that out of the way corner of the lot by default, just because it is there. It wasn't built for the parking lot. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (581440) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 22:59:19 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Mar 5 22:38:28 2008. That would be fine if a portion of the parking fee went to subsidize AirTrain operations. AFAIK, that is not the case.Well then that should be looked into. I would sooner see that looked into and changed than having it free from Howard Beach. |
|
|
| (581445) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:00:46 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:38:46 2008. Because then the A train would be connecting to free part of the circulator, and Airtrain to Howard Beach would not have been built. |
|
|
| (581449) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:04:32 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:37:22 2008. For the third time, yes, they would have built it, since that's where the yard is! Where else would you put the yard?!The yard could have been built somewhere else on the property along the airtrain. It was only built there because they KNEW that they were building to Howard beach, so that was part of the design, to put the yard there. If there was no Howard beach branch, they wouldn't have put the yard in that particular location. 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. 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. I didn't say they SHOULD be charging parking lot people for airtrain, I said they couldn't after already charging them for parking. The A has nothing to do with the Port Authority. |
|
|
| (581452) | |
Fixed typo Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:06:20 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:37:22 2008. ....my last sentence wound was supposed to be between the to quotes, but accidently wound up at the end.For the third time, yes, they would have built it, since that's where the yard is! Where else would you put the yard?! The yard could have been built somewhere else on the property along the airtrain. It was only built there because they KNEW that they were building to Howard beach, so that was part of the design, to put the yard there. If there was no Howard beach branch, they wouldn't have put the yard in that particular location. 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. The A has nothing to do with the Port Authority. 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. I didn't say they SHOULD be charging parking lot people for airtrain, I said they couldn't after already charging them for parking. |
|
|
| (581457) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:09:10 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:41:55 2008. Uh, yes they certainly can. On the DC metro, you pay to park and then you pay to ride, just the same as if you walked to the station.Okay good! So not all airports have to run things the same. Great, now we know that JFK is not unique in charging things differently than other airports. No it doesn't. It is a per car fee. Not a per person fare. Right, I know. I made that clear a few times. Why shouldn't they ride for free? They are already at airport property. Because they still have to get to the terminals, and they are paying for that service. There used to be a $2 bus that took them to the terminals from the same location years back. |
|
|
| (581460) | |
Re: Fixed typo Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 5 23:11:17 2008, in response to Fixed typo Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:06:20 2008. The A has nothing to do with the Port Authority.And therein lies the problem with AIRTrain |
|
|
| (581463) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:12:56 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 22:52:57 2008. No other airport charges for on-property transit like JFK AirTRain does. So why should that stop them from charging people to drive in, or charging people for airtrain after charging them for paring? |
|
|
| (581464) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:13:02 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 22:52:57 2008. No other airport charges for on-property transit like JFK AirTRain does. So why should that stop them from charging people to drive in, or charging people for airtrain after charging them for parking? |
|
|
| (581467) | |
Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 5 23:14:05 2008, in response to Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Wed Mar 5 20:27:02 2008. Priggism is alive and well in this trhread! He will never surrender. He will never let it go as long as there is one person who resists his opinion. HE must prevail. Such is the mark of the true prig. |
|
|
| (581470) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:18:35 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 22:59:19 2008. Well then that should be looked into.Why bother? The long term lots at at LGA, EWR, and JFK all charge the same rates (at LGA, it's only after 48 hours that the rate drops down to the same as the others, and that's due to high demand). But only the JFK lot is served by an aitrain. So it's clear that the long term lots are all priced the same, and thus, no extra is being charged for parking at JFK to cover the cost of the unknown number of riders in each parked car. I would sooner see that looked into and changed than having it free from Howard Beach. Why? How do you personally get hurt by making it free? How does the public at large get hurt by making it free? |
|
|
| (581471) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:19:09 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:45:48 2008. And ALL airports don't charge a fee for the peoplemover/airtrain if you board it on airport property, except for JFK AirTrain.Apparently in DC they even charge drivers for their people mover after they already paid for parking. That is quite out of the ordinary. So JFK is not alone in charging things differently than other airports. They could have not provided the kiss and ride. Obviously they did provide it, for free, as an incentive to keep the cars away from the central terminal roadways. That's super. Awesome. Yes, I agree, it made LOADS of sense to do. But where's the incentive to keep transit riders off the terminal roadways? There should be no fee for them at HB as this incentive. There are many reasons not to drive to the airport. I NEVER leave my car at the airport, I just don't want it there for days on end. Not to mention, I don't want to pay the parking. I have much less worry if either dropped off, or taking the LIRR or Airtrain. I can't even count how many times I have used the AirTrain. The $5 cost was not even a though. Some people either will use transit, or they will not. The $5 is not going to stop them, especially considering the already costs in airline tickets and travel in general. The $5 is a drop in the bucket. It's also way cheaper than other methods such as private car service, taxi, and others. I used to use the Q10 when I still lived in Queens, as I also didn't want to leave my car there. It sucked, but I didn't want to trek on the subway and then have to deal with the shuttle bus afterwards, so just took the Q10. I lived only about 3 or 4 stations away from Broadway Junction, so taking the J or the A to AirTrain would have been a godsent back then, and either line was only 3 or 4 stations away from me, and either line afforded a 10 minute AirTrain ride had it been there when I still lived there. So NO, I don't see anyone driving (and the costs that involves) stopping someone from taking AirTrain if they were planning to take transit anyway. It probably also makes the idea more attractive for those that were the neutral ones, as an all rail connection is superior over one that involves a bus. |
|
|
| (581474) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:20:46 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:00:46 2008. It still would have been built to the parking lot, since it is right near the best spot for the yard.But regardless, why is it ok to not charge people if the A came onto the property, but it's ok to charge them if it doesn't? |
|
|
| (581476) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:23:18 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:04:32 2008. The yard could have been built somewhere else on the property along the airtrain. It was only built there because they KNEW that they were building to Howard beach, so that was part of the design, to put the yard there. If there was no Howard beach branch, they wouldn't have put the yard in that particular location.Where else? And how do you know the decision process??? I didn't say they SHOULD be charging parking lot people for airtrain You basically have, many times, where you listed it as a way to solve the problem of the inequity at the HB station. The A has nothing to do with the Port Authority. And neither does the walk out of the A station. |
|
|
| (581478) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:23:48 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:12:56 2008. Apparently DC charges people for their peoplemover after they already paid for parking. No other airport does that, so obviously it "doesn't matter" what other airports do. Every situation is different. |
|
|
| (581480) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:26:50 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:09:10 2008. Okay good! So not all airports have to run things the same. Great, now we know that JFK is not unique in charging things differently than other airports.Huh? I just showed you an example of where you pay for parking and pay for transit. How does that prove your point? Right, I know. I made that clear a few times. So...parkers are not being charged to ride airtrain, yet the people coming from the subway and boarding at the same station ARE being charged. That's an inequity. How should it be solved? Because they still have to get to the terminals, and they are paying for that service. No, if anything, they are only paying for the service to ride from HB to Lefferts since other non-parkers can ride for free from Lefferts. |
|
|
| (581482) | |
Unwarranted Personal Attack alert!!!!! Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:27:34 2008, in response to Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question, posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 5 23:14:05 2008. see above |
|
|
| (581484) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:28:17 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:18:35 2008. Why bother?I didn't mean that "it should be looked into if they DO take money out for airtrain", I meant it as "It should be looked into to perhaps raise the parking fare." Why? How do you personally get hurt by making it free? How does the public at large get hurt by making it free? Because I don't see it as the big deal you make it out to be. It's not some "conspiracy". It probably doesn't hurt you either by having them charge there. How many times have YOU been hurt by this fare there? Take the E then if you can't stand the idea at Howard Beach. Take the Q10. Use the kiss and ride. There are other options if it bothers you so much. |
|
|
| (581488) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:32:28 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:23:18 2008. No, I used that as a reason that why "some people ride free", I said that they can't charge the parking lot people after already charging them for parking. "It's not done at any other airport" except apparently DC. And I also said that it doesn't matter what happens at other airports, as every situation is different. For whatever reason, they chose to handle it this way. it's not a "conspiracy". People just love drama. |
|
|
| (581489) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:32:40 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:23:18 2008. No, I used that as a reason that why "some people ride free", I said that they can't charge the parking lot people after already charging them for parking. "It's not done at any other airport" except apparently DC. And I also said that it doesn't matter what happens at other airports, as every situation is different. For whatever reason, they chose to handle it this way. it's not a "conspiracy". People just love drama. |
|
|
| (581490) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:32:53 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:23:18 2008. You basically have, many times, where you listed it as a way to solve the problem of the inequity at the HB station.No, I used that as a reason that why "some people ride free", I said that they can't charge the parking lot people after already charging them for parking. "It's not done at any other airport" except apparently DC. And I also said that it doesn't matter what happens at other airports, as every situation is different. For whatever reason, they chose to handle it this way. it's not a "conspiracy". People just love drama. |
|
|
| (581491) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:32:58 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:19:09 2008. Apparently in DC they even charge drivers for their people mover after they already paid for parking. That is quite out of the ordinary. So JFK is not alone in charging things differently than other airports.What are you talking about!? Every transit station in the world that I know of that charges for parking also charges those parkers the same fare as it charges people who walk in. And my example was the DC Metro. But it's true with every single transit system in the world. HB is the only transit station in the world that I know of where the fare is waved for parkers, while people who walk up have to still pay the fare. The $5 cost was not even a though. Then why is the kiss and ride free? If it isn't even a thought, why not charge them? It would be quite simple to have a separate entrance to the Lefferts station that would ensure that kiss and riders get charged the fare. Much simpler even then the elaborate setup at HB. |
|
|
| (581492) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:33:28 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:23:48 2008. no, they don't. i don't know where you are getting this from. |
|
|
| (581494) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:35:22 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:26:50 2008. Huh? I just showed you an example of where you pay for parking and pay for transit. How does that prove your point?It beautifully proves the point I made that "It doesn't matter what every other airport does. You love to say the "No where else do they charge for a circulator". And now you can't use that anymore. Well there are exceptions to payment methods. DC is a great example that "not all airports have to charge the same". I said umpteen times that Every airport has it's own unique circumstances. What one does, is meaningless on the other. |
|
|
| (581496) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:37:08 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:28:17 2008. Because I don't see it as the big deal you make it out to be. It's not some "conspiracy".That's not a reason. I asked how either you and/or the public would be hurt by dropping the fare. I didn't ask if you mind it. Please answer that question. It should be looked into to perhaps raise the parking fare Why should the parking fare be raised instead of the transit fare lowered? And you don't think the people parking would have an opinion on that? And even if the parking fee were raised, it still wouldn't be a per person airtrain fare. |
|
|
| (581502) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:40:24 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:32:40 2008. No, I used that as a reason that why "some people ride free", I said that they can't charge the parking lot people after already charging them for parking. "It's not done at any other airport" except apparently DC.It's not done at any airport anywhere. Just like no airport in the country charges for people coming from transit. So you can't use that jusification. You can't have it both ways. way 1: JFK doesn't have to conform. therefore, to solve the inequity, they can charge parkers a per person airtrain fare on top of the parking fee. way 2: JFK should have to conform. therefore, to solve the inequity, subway riders at HB should not be charged a fare to ride the on-property circulator. Pick ONE. |
|
|
| (581503) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:40:30 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:32:58 2008. What are you talking about!?You always say that "no other airport charges for an on airport circulator". I always said, "It doesn't matter what other airport does, every airport has it's own unique set of circumstances". DC is an exception - it charges it's parking people for the peoplemover. (an on property peoplemover besides??). JFK charges from Howard Beach. What one airport does has no impact on what another airport does or doesn't do. Each one has it's own set of circumstances. Much simpler even then the elaborate setup at HB. Yes, a station that wouldn't have even been built had it not been for the HB A Train station. |
|
|
| (581504) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:41:36 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:35:22 2008. the DC airport does no such thing! |
|
|
| (581507) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:43:39 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:40:30 2008. DC is an exception - it charges it's parking people for the peoplemover. (an on property peoplemover besides??).The DC airport does no such thing. Every airport in the country conforms except for JFK. Yes, a station that wouldn't have even been built had it not been for the HB A Train station. Address the point. |
|
|
| (581511) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:48:04 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:37:08 2008. That's not a reason. I asked how either you and/or the public would be hurt by dropping the fare. I didn't ask if you mind it. Please answer that question.The wouldn't, but people wouldn't be hurt if they dropped the subway fare either. In fact they would love it. What difference does this make? It's irrelevant. What else can we make free? Whether they would NOT be hurt has no impact on whether or not they should charge a fare there to begin with. Why should the parking fare be raised instead of the transit fare lowered? Why should the transit fee be lowered? If you feel the HB people are paying more than they should, and the parking people aren't covering their ride, then why shouldn't the opposite be true, and the fare for parking be raised? that the parking fee should not be raised by leaving the transit fee as it is? And you don't think the people parking would have an opinion on that? Of course they would, but you are the one saying their ride isn't covered, so then obviously their fee should be raised. And even if the parking fee were raised, it still wouldn't be a per person airtrain fare. So? I never said it should be. |
|
|
| (581517) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:53:41 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:40:24 2008. "It's not done at any other airport" except apparently DC.You can't have it both ways Ahhhh, but you see....I had that in quotes. I was quoting YOU!! I never said it mattered what happened at other airports, in fact, I said quite the contrary. I have alsways said that what happens at one airport is meaningless on what happens at other airports, as each has it's own set of circumstances. Look back in the thread. I said that many times. I used "" on purpose in that statement to quote YOU. Pick ONE. No, because I never said JFK "had to conform". I said it "doesn't matter" what other airports do, even before I found out about DC and it's parking fee + pay for an on airport circulator. DC only strengthened that argument that "all airports don't have to do what other airports do". |
|
|
| (581518) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:54:46 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:48:04 2008. The wouldn'tThank you. but people wouldn't be hurt if they dropped the subway fare either. In fact they would love it. What difference does this make? Irrelevant. There is no inequity issue in the subway that calls for a resolution of dropping the fare. Everyone pays the fare in the subway. Whether they would NOT be hurt has no impact on whether or not they should charge a fare there to begin with. Yes it does. The point of the PANYNJ is to best serve the public, not to maximize revenue. The inequity at HB is not best serving the public. Of course they would, but you are the one saying their ride isn't covered, so then obviously their fee should be raised. Why is that obvious, but it's not obvious that the fare for subway riders at HB should be dropped? You can't have it both ways. So? I never said it should be. But it would have to be in order to solve the inequity. |
|
|
| (581519) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:56:13 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:53:41 2008. DC does not have a "parking fee + pay for an on airport circulator" |
|
|
| (581521) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:57:49 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:53:41 2008. Ahhhh, but you see....I had that in quotes. I was quoting YOU!! I never said it mattered what happened at other airports, in fact, I said quite the contrary. I have alsways said that what happens at one airport is meaningless on what happens at other airports, as each has it's own set of circumstances. Look back in the thread. I said that many times. I used "" on purpose in that statement to quote YOU.You've made like 6 posts now based on faulty premises. DC does not have a "parking fee + pay for an on airport circulator" No, because I never said JFK "had to conform". So then you are choosing "way 1" ? |
|
|
| (581523) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:58:59 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:54:46 2008. Irrelevant.It's not irrelevant. Just because they "wouldn't be hurt if they take away the fare" doesn't mean that they are hurt just because there is a fare. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. The inequity at HB is not best serving the public. There is no inequity. That's opinion. But it would have to be in order to solve the inequity. Same as above. Can we stop this, or do we keep having to post in this thread until one of us dies and is buried some decades from now? |
|
|
| (581526) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Mar 6 00:05:13 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:58:59 2008. Just because they "wouldn't be hurt if they take away the fare" doesn't mean that they are hurt just because there is a fareHuh? Of course they are hurt! They end up with less money! There is no inequity. That's opinion. No, it is a fact. Some people pay and some people don't, all for the same service. That's an inequity. And that's a fact. |
|
|
| (581527) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 6 00:06:02 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:57:49 2008. You've made like 6 posts now based on faulty premises.OKay then, so it has an unorthodox pay for parking and then pay for a peoplep-mover. Same thing. It something that doesn't happen at other airports, so it shows what one airport does is irrelevant on what other airports do. So then you are choosing "way 1" ? No, because there is no inequity to solve. |
|
|
| (581528) | |
Re: Unwarranted Personal Attack alert!!!!! Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 6 00:06:28 2008, in response to Unwarranted Personal Attack alert!!!!! Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:27:34 2008. Where is the personal attack? The behavior is being criticized, not the person. |
|
|
| (581530) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 6 00:07:00 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 6 00:06:02 2008. Oh I forgot to add:Can we stop this, or do we keep having to post in this thread until one of us dies and is buried some decades from now? |
|
|
| (581533) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Mar 6 00:10:45 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 6 00:06:02 2008. OKay then, so it has an unorthodox pay for parking and then pay for a peoplep-mover.Dude. i told you so many times now. DC has no such thing!!!!! |
|
|
| (581534) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Mar 6 00:11:49 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 6 00:06:02 2008. No, because there is no inequity to solve.Yes there is. Some people pay and some don't. Where else does that happen? You wouldn't like it if some people got to ride the LIRR for free. |
|
|
| (581541) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 6 00:20:15 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:41:36 2008. Fine, so you just meant the DC Metro itself? Then why did you bring that even up? It has nothing to do with the airport? The LIRR charges you to park at many stations. That statement was completely irrelevant then.So fine... Go back to what I said. They can't charge the parking lot people if they already charged them for parking. No other airport does that (not that it matters). Fine, back where we stared. Can we stop this now, do we keep having to post until one of us dies? I am not changing my view. I said all I have to say. I can't do this topic anymore. I am done. I am not copping out. I am not resigning. I am not conceading. I am just done. I can't do this topic anymore, and have to get to other topics. Good bye Airtrain. |
|
|
| (581589) | |
Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Mar 6 02:10:11 2008, in response to Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question, posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 5 23:14:05 2008. Well..no matter What he says...nothing will change. |
|
|
| (581609) | |
Re: Warranted Personal Attack alert!!!!! Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Mar 6 04:55:20 2008, in response to Unwarranted Personal Attack alert!!!!! Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 23:27:34 2008. It's warranted. Also quite an accurate description of your behavior. |
|
|
| (581617) | |
Re: Air Train question THE FOAM IS GETTING DEEP |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Mar 6 05:13:54 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:01:46 2008. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!! THE DAM IS ABOUT TO BURST!!!!  |
|
|
| (581621) | |
Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Mar 6 05:20:08 2008, in response to Re: Air Train question, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 5 23:35:22 2008. UMM, COULD YOU 2 PUT IT ON PAUSE I HAVE TO GO WEE WEE |
|
|
| (581669) | |
Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Mar 6 06:47:08 2008, in response to Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question, posted by Edwards! on Thu Mar 6 02:10:11 2008. hey, at least it seems they finally forced you to stop driving. |
|
|
| (581715) | |
Unwarranted Personal Attack Alert (WAS: Never ending airtrain thread) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Mar 6 08:20:31 2008, in response to Re: Diagrams Re: Air Train question, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Mar 6 06:47:08 2008. |
|
|
|
Page 24 of 29 |
||
