Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I be pretty surprised if Logan isn’t quicker to get downtown than Ohare just because it’s like 1/3rd the distance.
Also seems irrelevant. Cleveland has a metro stop in its airport and Paris does not.
What in the world are you talking about? CDG has really, really rapid transit to its airports. RER B has two stations within CDG, and then on top of that, they have a TGV station as well (actual high-speed rail unlike whatever Acela is in New England, and then on top of that, at much lower prices). Did you really think Paris is going to have the garbage transit system that US cities has? Have you never flown into Paris before?
Cleveland does get a feather in its cap for having rapid transit service. However, if you're comparing the cites / metros as a whole, then you probably want to factor in more things than just rapid transit service to the airport even though that is a good thing to have. This to me is a ridiculous way to couch this argument as no one is saying there is any one singular thing that trumps absolutely everything else, but pretending that's the case appears either stupid or malicious.
Oh yea, Philadelphia has an even lower hanging fruit and it's much lower hanging. A few grade separations, a shift to EMUs and possibly BEMUs, more rolling stock for higher frequencies, a different fare system and verification system, installation of high level platforms in some parts, and all of this can be gradually done and all within the same transit agency. Philadelphia bar none among US transit systems has the lowest hanging fruit towards massive transit enhancements for rather low costs. After that are Chicago and LA. Then NYC. Then Boston and DC. Then kinda SF, Seattle, and Miami.
I guess saying Boston eats it is a bit harsh since most US airports are really bad. Boston is good in that respect for the US and only awful in comparison to cities in peer developed countries while Chicago is about par to good.
SEPTA just issued a request for proposals for the next "Silverliner" EMU fleet. (SEPTA does have some ALP44 locomotives and Comet passenger coaches that operate limited peak service, but otherwise, the entire fleet is EMUs). However, I think these will only replace the vintage-1971 Silverliner IVs rather than provide additional capacity. I hope I'm partly wrong.
Battery EMUs make sense, though SEPTA had a disastrous experience with battery-electric buses. That would make reviving service in non-electrififed territory easier. The main challenge IMO is replacing low-platform stations with high-platform ones, and the agency seems to be steadily plugging away there.
SEPTA Key now works with any payment card, and the agency is about to replace the entire system.
I'd still put Boston ahead of NYC and DC simply because, like Chicago and Philadephia, all of the regional rail service is operated by a single agency. Like with SEPTA in New Castle County, Del., the Rhode Island Public Transporation Authority contracts with the MBTA to run service in Rhode Island, and I suspect that NHDOT could do the same once again for Nashua, Manchester and maybe Portsmouth or even Concord. So there you don't have the multiple-agency problem either.
Besides Chicago and Philadelphia, the only other US cities with rail transit stations inside or adjacent to the airport terminal that I know of are Atlanta, Cleveland and Seattle. I think LA's working on it.
Logan airport having Ferry service doesn’t make Boston a better or worse city
Yeah some others on here have this awkward obsession with NYC's lack of AirTran or whatever you want to call it and how it diminishes its world class city status which is amusing. I agree that it's a nonsensical metric.
What in the world are you talking about? CDG has really, really rapid transit to its airports. RER B has two stations in CDG and then on top of that, they have a TGV station as well (actual high-speed rail to the goddamn terminals). Are you out of your gourd? Did you really think Paris is going to have the garbage transit system that US cities has?
Cleveland does get a feather in its cap for having rapid transit service. However, if you're comparing the cites / metros as a whole, then you probably want to factor in more things than just rapid transit service to the airport even though that is a good thing to have.
RER is a commuter rail not a metro. If The AirTrain nor PATH for EWR doesn’t count RER doesn’t either
In fairness, at least Boston attempts at rail with an airport station. New York cant even get close, and misses more than the Giants’ last 11 seasons. (To the boosters.. no im not counting AirTrain. Thats not rapid transit, nor is it public transportation at all).
But lets be clear, both cities do have rapid transit to their airports. NYC has two SBS routes and Boston has the Silver Line terminalside. SBS/Silver Line=BRT=Rapid Transit. They just don’t have the rail service that Chicago, Philadelphia and others have.
Unless the PANYNJ requires riders to show an airline ticket to board it, I think AirTrain does qualify as public transportation. The reason it was built like that was because it was built with FAA money, which legally can be used only to build transit facilities on the airport property itself or those that only serve the airport and nothing else on their way to the other public transit.
RER is a commuter rail not a metro. If The AirTrain nor PATH for EWR doesn’t count RER doesn’t either
PATH terminates at Newark Penn Station. I don't think there are any plans to extend it to the airport. To get there from Penn Station NYC, you have to take the NJ Transit Northeast Corridor Line to the airport station and catch the circulator train to the airport terminals.
SEPTA just issued a request for proposals for the next "Silverliner" EMU fleet. (SEPTA does have some ALP44 locomotives and Comet passenger coaches that operate limited peak service, but otherwise, the entire fleet is EMUs). However, I think these will only replace the vintage-1971 Silverliner IVs rather than provide additional capacity. I hope I'm partly wrong.
Battery EMUs make sense, though SEPTA had a disastrous experience with battery-electric buses. That would make reviving service in non-electrififed territory easier. The main challenge IMO is replacing low-platform stations with high-platform ones, and the agency seems to be steadily plugging away there.
SEPTA Key now works with any payment card, and the agency is about to replace the entire system.
I'd still put Boston ahead of NYC and DC simply because, like Chicago and Philadephia, all of the regional rail service is operated by a single agency. Like with SEPTA in New Castle County, Del., the Rhode Island Public Transporation Authority contracts with the MBTA to run service in Rhode Island, and I suspect that NHDOT could do the same once again for Nashua, Manchester and maybe Portsmouth or even Concord. So there you don't have the multiple-agency problem either.
Besides Chicago and Philadelphia, the only other US cities with rail transit stations inside or adjacent to the airport terminal that I know of are Atlanta, Cleveland and Seattle. I think LA's working on it.
I believe SEPTA Regional Rail also still has some grade crossings, right? Still, it's a lot already in place!
I wouldn't put Boston ahead. MBTA seems a bit of a mess lately. Moreover, they don't have the key infrastructure of through-running tunnel between North and South station in place today which would be incredibly expensive due to US infrastructure costs. It's not just that the tunnel will be expensive, but because of how close to North and South Station respectively many of the lines start merging, they'll need to have multiple portals to merge the branch lines underground. MBTA has electrification only along a single line which they can't even get their **** together to use now despite that having been in place or decades.
RER is a commuter rail not a metro. If The AirTrain nor PATH for EWR doesn’t count RER doesn’t either
Uh, maybe in the sense that it brings in commuters. You don't understand how RER works. It's in a way, akin to the express service that NYC Subway has, but run under a different agency than the "local" services of the Paris Metro, and it is absolutely rapid mass transit. Trying to say that's equivalent to AirTrain is loony and then implying AirTrain and PATH are equivalent to each other is even more ridiculous. PATH is rapid transit but it does *not* go into the terminals. You need to transfer from PATH to either a bus, or if you really want to get wild, PATH to NJT commuter rail (which is actually commuter rail service and not rapid transit service) and then to the Airtrain to get to the terminals. I do not believe you have ever tried taking transit from EWR or CDG. You do not need to continue this conversation, because on this matter you very obviously don't know what you're talking about and it is silly for you to pretend. You make a lot of good points on other matters, so I don't understand why you're doing this.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-15-2023 at 10:31 AM..
SEPTA just issued a request for proposals for the next "Silverliner" EMU fleet. (SEPTA does have some ALP44 locomotives and Comet passenger coaches that operate limited peak service, but otherwise, the entire fleet is EMUs). However, I think these will only replace the vintage-1971 Silverliner IVs rather than provide additional capacity. I hope I'm partly wrong.
Battery EMUs make sense, though SEPTA had a disastrous experience with battery-electric buses. That would make reviving service in non-electrififed territory easier. The main challenge IMO is replacing low-platform stations with high-platform ones, and the agency seems to be steadily plugging away there.
SEPTA Key now works with any payment card, and the agency is about to replace the entire system.
I'd still put Boston ahead of NYC and DC simply because, like Chicago and Philadephia, all of the regional rail service is operated by a single agency. Like with SEPTA in New Castle County, Del., the Rhode Island Public Transporation Authority contracts with the MBTA to run service in Rhode Island, and I suspect that NHDOT could do the same once again for Nashua, Manchester and maybe Portsmouth or even Concord. So there you don't have the multiple-agency problem either.
Besides Chicago and Philadelphia, the only other US cities with rail transit stations inside or adjacent to the airport terminal that I know of are Atlanta, Cleveland and Seattle. I think LA's working on it.
Not following your thinking why having all regional service under one agency is some kind of good idea. What if that one agency is grossly inefficient, corrupt or mismanaged?
In the New York area, Metro North (former NY Central and New Haven railroads) concentrate on the Hudson Valley and Connecticut, NJ transit concentrates in New Jersey (and helps Metro North on the west side of the Hudson) and the LIRR concentrates on Long Island, including Brooklyn and Queens.
Given the size and complexity of the New York metro area, having 3 separate agencies specializing in their own area might very well be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
