If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
Imya Rek wrote:
Michael Voight rogue Cisco employee disguised as mrtravelkay trolled: Peter T. Daniels wrote: 127.0.0.1 wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:39:08 +0100, Tim Kynerd wrote: Sorry, Robert, but there's no logical reason why people who pay to park shouldn't also pay to ride AirTrain to and from the parking lots. Parking is one service; AirTrain is another. they pay for it via the parking fees Yo idiot, By now three people have pointed out that if parking fees didn't go up the day Airtrain opened, then parkers are not paying for Airtrain. But no one has answered whether they did or not. What form of transit did they use to get to the parking lot before Airtrain? Was there a charge for it? **** off asshole! Stop asking so many retarded questions, idiot! LOL............. Yeah man, I'm the retarded one, but you can't make a connection between a question about whether they paid to get to the parking lot before is relative they pay to get to the parking lot after the mode of transport has changed. You might have missed it.... You can't stop me from posting, and the more nonsense you post, the more you lose credibility. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
"Arnold Reinhold" wrote in message om... The point is that both airports are about the same size, buth have connections from Penn Station that are comparible in price, frequency and convienience, but only one (Newark) is publicized there. Just goes to show how pathetic the Port Authority is. Imagine, the Port Authority makes another agency like NJ Transit look good. Wow! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
"127.0.0.1" wrote in message ... the ride to the parking lot is paid for with parking fees And it was for many years. All that while the employees got a completely free ride, thanks to the long-term parkers. But did anybody say anything for 25 years? Not in these parts. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
"Clark F. Morris, Jr." writes:
On the Airtrain, 5 dollars could well be reasonable for the line to Jamaica since it is well outside the boundary of the airport and it could be justified at a higher price per round trip than the implied amount for the parking lot cost (3 dollars or less) because of the greater cost. The same can not be said for the connection to the A train. Apparently the connection point is very close to a normal remote parking lot stop. Very close? It's the same stop! There are two AirTrain stations serving the long term parking lot: Lefferts Boulevard and Howard Beach. That's right, Howard Beach. The same station that connects with the subway. There are two station exits, one to the parking lot and one to the subway and neighborhood. Only the latter has faregates. Even the direct /walking/ route from Howard Beach (the neighborhood or the subway station) to the airport now has a $5 fee in each direction. Thus a round trip price of over 3 dollars is unjustified since that is greater than the feel to park at that location and ride the Air train. The Jamaica connection is clearly off property (at least a mile and probably a lot more) while the A train connection is on property or very close to on property as I understand it. Clarifications from others are welcome. It's about three miles from the terminals to Jamaica. -- David J. Greenberger New York, NY |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
"127.0.0.1" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:55:12 -0500, "Sancho Panza" wrote: "127.0.0.1" wrote in message .. . the ride to the parking lot is paid for with parking fees And it was for many years. All that while the employees got a completely free ride, thanks to the long-term parkers. But did anybody say anything for 25 years? Not in these parts. freeloaders never say anything, and motorists are so used to being ripped off they are desensitized to it Free parking for generally low wage jobs? Count that in as part of the limited compensation package. I'm assuming there are more baggage handlers, food service workers, and mop pushers in that group than airline pilots. It's part of pushing down the price of airport services for travelers. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
"127.0.0.1" wrote:
freeloaders never say anything, and motorists are so used to being ripped off they are desensitized to it The problem with mass transit is that except in a few rare cases, it is a long term society decision as opposed to a short term financial/profit decision. As cities grow, they need greater transport infrastructure. That can be done either by building more highways which cut off parts of a city from each other, take up large amounts of valuable land and generate noise-pollution or by building rapid transit systems. Many governments outside of north america have taken serious steps to curb the use of a personal car. Such governments have no problems fostering use of rapid transit to airport because they also have some contrtol over airport and can dictate that the airport not focus on providing parking spaces. And guess what ? The citizens and visitors have gotten used to that and don't complain. You need a strong central administration to corrdonate airport finances with rapid transit finances as well a highway finances. When you have a decentralised government, then the savings from not building that extra federal highway can't easily be transfered to the city budgets to finance buying extra rolling stock for their mass transit system. JFK is a good example of this. They doN't want to cannabalise the parking revenus, so they charge those who come in by mass transit a parking fee. And because the airport transit system isn't from the same level of government as the other 2 rapid transit systems, they are not integrated. If you go to places such as Amsterdam, Zürich, Hong Kong etc, then you find the transit very well integrated with the airport. Sydney may have the trains on the same track, but the fees charges when you use the Sydney airporty train stations are excessively high because those statiosn aren't quite integrated with the rest of the network and you need to pay a separate fee for the different owners of the station/tunnels. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
"John Mara" wrote in message ... "Arnold Reinhold" wrote in message om... Problems on the AirTrain The AirTrain itself is not as user friendly as it might be. Stops are announced in English inside the cars, but only the airport terminal number is given. There is a smallish card on each car listing the eight terminals and the airlines they serve. Announcements in languages other than English would be a good idea but I'm not sure what languages you would pick. English, French and Spanish might give some good coverage. Far East travelers would generally expect to have to know some English. Better yet, isn't there just a video display inside the cars announcing that? If not, there should be. Displaying numerals and names should give travelers enough time to figure out what matches the printed travel itinerary in their hands. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
"nobody" wrote in message ... That can be done either by building more highways which cut off parts of a city from each other, take up large amounts of valuable land and generate noise-pollution or by building rapid transit systems. Is that saying in other words the rapid mass transit, most likely rail, does not create or add to any of those problems? That is patently not accurate. Such governments have no problems fostering use of rapid transit to airport because they also have some contrtol over airport and can dictate that the airport not focus on providing parking spaces. The States of New York and New Jersey DO have direct control over the Port Authority. They choose not to use it for a wide variety of reasons, including patronage and financial gain. They charge those who come in by mass transit a parking fee. If they did include the parking fee, the charge would be $10, not $5. As it stands, the reverse has been the fact for more than 20 years. the airport transit system isn't from the same level of government as the other 2 rapid transit systems, they are not integrated. The M.T.A., is of course wholly controlled by Albany. In the case of the Port Authority, the governor of New York appoints half the board. In the end the level is fundamentally the same. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News
Sancho Panza wrote:
They charge those who come in by mass transit a parking fee. If they did include the parking fee, the charge would be $10, not $5. As it stands, the reverse has been the fact for more than 20 years. They do charge $10 - for the roundtrip. Presumably, one who takes Airtrain to JFK takes it returning as well. For a ride of 2 or 3 miles each way to Jamaica, that is excessive, particularly for a manless operation. It's really a rip-off for Howard Beach. Still better off taking the Q10 from Kew Gardens however slow. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|