Chicago/New York city similarities and differences (taxes, economy, tallest)

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Oh, Ok. I mean I guess if NYC doesn't have it, it must be some kind of weird fringe thing that's not really needed.



Wait, hang on, upon further research, looks like in addition to Chicago L- San Francisco BART, Seattle Link, Portland MAX, Atlanta MARTA, Dallas DART, Cleveland RTA (since the 1960's) all have one.

I live in San Diego where people constantly complain about the lack of a light rail airport station to the point where there have to be news articles telling us where SANDAG is on that project all the time.

Wow, some people might look at that and see it as a big failure on basic urban planning for NYC!

The incentive structure is different in New York. In Dallas or Atlanta your highest concentrations of transit dependent people are Universities and Airports. In New York, it’s the densest neighborhoods. Money is better spent improving service within Manhattan/Northern Brooklyn/Eastern queens vs worrying about JFK

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

The incentive structure is different in New York. In Dallas or Atlanta your highest concentrations of transit dependent people are Universities and Airports. In New York, it’s the densest neighborhoods. Money is better spent improving service within Manhattan/Northern Brooklyn/Eastern queens vs worrying about JFK

Maybe if NYC ever becomes a serious tourism destination they can revisit that airport-subway idea then.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Maybe if NYC ever becomes a serious tourism destination they can revisit that airport-subway idea then.

MTA ridership per day is ~9 million the NYC airports, ~250,000.

Marta 400,000. hartsfield-Jackson 250k/day

For Atlanta the hordes of people arriving car free is a huge potential ridership pool. For the NYC MTA it’s really not, considering a lot of those people aren’t going into the city at all, lots of Laguradia folks move in CT or Westchester , they’re not going to take the subway

[brickpatio2018]

What I Loved about Chicago was the part where the buildings start getting lower. You have streets with one to three-story buildings, mixing restaurants, stores, offices, and apartments, and there is maybe one tall building (e.g. 20 stories) every few blocks in each direction.

The combined effect is that it's charming and livable at the street level, with with just enough taller buildings to make it feel kind of exciting. And...there are nice parks dotting the area and at the lake always just a few blocks to the east. Plus they have the trains.

The Chicago that I recalled from say the late 1980s felt more rough around the edges but when I returned a couple of years ago, those same areas now felt polished and sophisticated. I guess the types of stores have changed and they must have cleaned up the buildings themselves and the streetscape.

And then there are those incredible mansions as you move through the suburbs that run north along the lakefront. The one thing I might prefer in a place like London is that not only do they have the convenient subways and mass transit, but also they seem to have created some kind of extra tax for people driving their cars within the central city.

The combination of transit and the tax on cars, plus having all the nice bike lanes, sidewalks, street crossings, and landscaped streetscapes, has made traffic in London relatively calm. As a pedestrian I didn't feel overwhelmed by traffic the way I do in some other major cities. I think that's an area where Chicago can still improve to match the quality of life of places like London or say Stockholm and other Nordic cities.

[dcb175]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Oh, Ok. I mean I guess if NYC doesn't have it, it must be some kind of weird fringe thing that's not really needed.



Wait, hang on, upon further research, looks like in addition to Chicago L- San Francisco BART, Seattle Link, Portland MAX, Atlanta MARTA, Dallas DART, Cleveland RTA (since the 1960's) all have one.

I live in San Diego where people constantly complain about the lack of a light rail airport station to the point where there have to be news articles telling us where SANDAG is on that project all the time.

Wow, some people might look at that and see it as a big failure on basic urban planning for NYC!

I'm not sure why you're taking that aggressive, sarcastic tone (how old are you?) I've basically said in my post that I loved Chicago, I can see the appeal over NYC, etc. And then you latch on to this one detail around a subway line from the airport to downtown to double-down that NYC is some tourist backwater. I don't get it. But carry on...

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by dcb175

I'm not sure why you're taking that aggressive, sarcastic tone (how old are you?) I've basically said in my post that I loved Chicago, I can see the appeal over NYC, etc. And then you latch on to this one detail around a subway line from the airport to downtown to double-down that NYC is some tourist backwater. I don't get it. But carry on...

Just saying it seems like a pretty big oversight given NYC tourist arrivals and I've never seen it brought up once on this forum (thanks for mentioning it, btw), while pretty much every other city gets its transit system nitpicked to no end.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by raleightransplant

You can usually get direct to/from the Loop to/from either Midway or O'Hare via CTA....which is better than the experiences in 99% of America, and also much better than the experiences I've had flying to LaGuardia where we had to schlep a cab out there to get in to Manhattan...ridiculous. To your point--100% agree, and i'd feel the same tbh. Although honestly, I'd take EVERYTHING in Chicago during 2020-2021-2022 COVID era with something of a grain of salt (not excusing it, mind you). From transit schedules, to crowds, to well EVERYTHING. The city isn't normal even still, although seeing positive signs for sure. Hopefully 2022 brings about some long-lasting positive changes in that regard.

My mistake, apparently it was addressed earlier in this thread.

The idea that people arriving into major NYC airports have to coordinate transport with taxis (or ride share) to go to Manhattan seems bizarre and like a huge deal to me, considering the popular and critical acclaim the NYC subway typically receives.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

My mistake, apparently it was addressed earlier in this thread.

The idea that people arriving into major NYC airports have to coordinate transport with taxis (or ride share) to go to Manhattan seems bizarre and like a huge deal to me, considering the popular and critical acclaim the NYC subway typically receives.

EWR is served by NJ Transit and Amtrak into Manhattan. Yes, there is the monorail from the terminals, but that is 5 extra minutes, and easy to navigate.

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

My mistake, apparently it was addressed earlier in this thread.

The idea that people arriving into major NYC airports have to coordinate transport with taxis (or ride share) to go to Manhattan seems bizarre and like a huge deal to me, considering the popular and critical acclaim the NYC subway typically receives.

I hear you. One problem with NYC, though, is their subways may be too popular for airport rail to really work. I mean, who wants to be schlepping suitcases on jam-packed trains with longitudinal seating -- not to mention, most folks would likely have to transfer to another line in the NYC subway labyrinth meaning lots of stairs, long tunnels, and super hot/sweaty transfers during the summer.

This is why New York's best bet imho is extending LIRR to JFK and Laguardia. Of course, we know MTA half-assed it with their automated AirTrain connecting to LIRR/subway (at Jamaica) and to the A-train, forcing air travelers to both transfer and pay an extra fare. Just extend LIRR directly which would provide spacious trains (with overhead luggage racks) and speedy 1-seat rides into central Manhattan (and even outer suburban stations, too, if the LIRR airport branches provided through service).

NOTE: has the previous poster pointed out, Amtrak/NJT to Newark Int Airport works pretty well with its short shuttle train connection. It's disappointing this positive arrangement didn't provide a model for LIRR connecting to the New York airports.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by TheProf

I hear you. One problem with NYC, though, is their subways may be too popular for airport rail to really work. I mean, who wants to be schlepping suitcases on jam-packed trains with longitudinal seating -- not to mention, most folks would likely have to transfer to another line in the NYC subway labyrinth meaning lots of stairs, long tunnels, and super hot/sweaty transfers during the summer.

This is why New York's best bet imho is extending LIRR to JFK and Laguardia. Of course, we know MTA half-assed it with their automated AirTrain connecting to LIRR/subway (at Jamaica) and to the A-train, forcing air travelers to both transfer and pay an extra fare. Just extend LIRR directly which would provide spacious trains (with overhead luggage racks) and speedy 1-seat rides into central Manhattan (and even outer suburban stations, too, if the LIRR airport branches provided through service).

NOTE: has the previous poster pointed out, Amtrak/NJT to Newark Int Airport works pretty well with its short shuttle train connection. It's disappointing this positive arrangement didn't provide a model for LIRR connecting to the New York airports.

The incentive structure is not there to connect to the airport over other expansions. The IBX for example should be built first. While in most cities the Airport is like #1 of #2 ridership node. In New York the top ridership is dependent on where New Yorkers actually live since transit share is significantly higher

Look around the Loop or River North and look around midtown/Lower Manhattan and it’s really obvious the day to day travel into even the core neighborhoods of Chicago have a much higher car share