Pretty much. It is incredibly costly to have terminal platforms in central locations, hence why cities these days opt for through-running as you not only ease congestion pressures on terminals (and transfers to other lines), but distribute terminating trains to quieter parts of the network to be turned around. Paris has its highly impressive (and still expanding) RER network, and London is getting in on the act with Thameslink, Crossrail 1 + 2.

A second Hudson tunnel is certainly several decades overdue, but you can introduce digital signalling to the present line to boost frequencies. As for platform capacity at Penn; if you forced LIRR and NJT trains to through-run (not necessarily taking over other lines) then you’d drastically increase capacity because you could turn around the trains outside of Manhattan.

New tunnels were built to connect London Stansted and London Heathrow to the mainline network. There are also proposals for further tunnels at Heathrow to connect to the Great Western Main Line and South West Main Line to improve nationwide access to the airport.

I can’t think of a project in either Paris or London which involves building vastly expensive multi-platform subterranean terminal stations; unless you’re thinking of Euston’s nine new HSR platforms, but they’re in a trench and 400m intercity trains are different animals.

New York should be building simple two-platform high-capacity stations to facilitate cross-city commuter services. That would solve innumerable capacity issues at a far lower cost. It’s almost like New York’s city officials ignore what’s working elsewhere in the world and opt for incredibly expensive cul-de-sacs.

Real estate interests love that Grand Central and Penn are terminal stations because no other part of Manhattan or the region can compete for premier Class A office space. All parts of the NYC region can reach Midtown with equal ease whereas its difficult for Long Islanders to reach Jersey City, for example. Meanwhile it's equally tedious for anyone in New Jersey to commute to Long Island City or DT Brooklyn.

That's how everyone with property in Midtown wants it, and they will fight tirelessly to maintain the status quo.

Route the lirr over the air-train's tracks.. could it be done?

Imagine if they put a flyover from the LIRR at Jamaica, then the train could continue to JFK. I hope they find a solution to the issue and get it to work. I believe the tracks are the same gauge.

If not, perhaps a special vehicle could be built especially for this. It could potentially operate on both lines, no?

I think that probably overstates the sector's sway, especially these days. NJ/NY politics and their various parochial transit orgs never wanting to share or change is more to blame.

You'r on to something.

There was a proposal at one point to do a Hybrid train solution to bridge the gap of both guideways. The thing would travel on LIRR tracks and then Air-Train tracks into Kennedy airport, without much building required. It's sounds like your idea is very similar to the original proposal. I would think that this is probably the only way you're ever going to see a one-seat-ride to Kennedy in our lifetimes. :cheers:

And, again, that isn't a one-seat ride, it's a marginal improvment over the current situation, to the tune of megabillions.

As part of the JFK rebuilding, they're planning a main transit hub called JFK Central. You would still have to walk or take an Airtrain to JFK Central. And on the Manhattan end, you would end up at WTC, when the vast majority of tourists and business travelers are headed further north.

Again, airport train links aren't the highest priority. In an era of Uber/Lyft, and with existing transit, it isn't a big deal. The biggest issues are finishing the major commuter links like ESA, SAS, East Bronx MNRR, ARC, LIRR Main Line etc.

Transit construction costs in NYC are multiples higher than in Paris or London, but this is a separate issue, and this probably won't be fixed in our lifetimes.

The point is that both Paris and London have massive, complex, very expensive transit builds not terribly unlike ESA, ARC, SAS, etc.

And most of the NYC-area expansion projects are surface projects, too, and not that outrageously expensive. The new East Bronx MNR line isn't horrifically expensive, as it's just using the existing Amtrak line. The LIRR Main Line expansion is more complex, but mostly just an additional track, station expansions and elimination of all grade crossings. The HBLR expansion to Englewood is just using existing freight track.

No, I'm talking about linking up the LIRR with the air-train at Jamaica with a fly-over and then using a special hybrid vehicle to go from GCT-JFK non-stop. The vehicle could potentially ride on both lines. It was talked about as a possible solution years ago (2000s).

I disagree with the airport lines not being important.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The JFK Airtrain was engineered to LIRR standards.

But, again, it would go to WTC, not Penn or GCT. There is no connection to Midtown that isn't at capacity, and it makes no sense to displace commuter traffic with airport trains.

Maybe you're talking about 25-30 years ago, when there was a plan to build a separate link from JFK and LGA to Midtown (to 59th & 3rd). That project, which would have been incredibly expensive, was to use totally new track, and would be totally separate from existing systems. If they proposed that today, it would probably have an insane price tag (like $25 billion or so). Not gonna happen.

And 59th & 3rd was a controversial terminal, because that would have put added pressure on the busiest subway lines (The 4-5-6). Again, you're displacing commuters. And if you brought that line all the way to Grand Central, probably add another $10 billion, and you'd be digging through solid rock at least 200 feet below the surface.

You think it's a higher regional priority to spend $30 billion to move a few thousand airport passengers in a slightly more convenient route as opposed to building cheaper new transit routes for hundreds of thousands of daily commuters?

This is really the core of the issue. An airport express line just isn't a good use of transit dollars for the ridership. If you can expand service to underserved parts of the community while connecting airports then great. This is why I support extending the N/W instead of the PA wasting 3 billion dollars on LGA Airtrain.

The best way to improve service to JFK is for the MTA to finish the East Side Access, Third Main Track, buy more rolling stock and punch up the main line service and Atlantic Terminal schedules to clock face. This would also drastically benefit Queens and Long Island residents. Also clean up the fare control situation at Jamaica with OMNI right now and get the Airtrain back to the 5 minute (or less ideally) headway it's supposed to run.

Infrastructure upgrades aside, what would also help improve transit service is a more user-friendly experience which can be created by simply redesigning visual graphics. The official subway map is just downright ugly and way too visually cluttered, dated. Even Vignelli's vaunted design is a bit too clunky and hard to read. Some of you guys may have seen this before, and if so, it's worth a second look (click on link for high-resolution PDF):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cfd6e8ea_c.jpg
http://tommimoilanen.com/subway_map_dec2016.pdf

That map depicts NYC Subway services as they actually are, and it was only after I saw it that I realized there was a distinction between an express line (i.e. 4, 5) and express service (i.e. <7>). If a first-time visitor to NYC is looking at the subway map for the first time, how are they supposed to know that the quickest way to get from The Met to Union Square is the 4/5 train and not the 6 train?

New York really needs to just go all in on a complete Subway overhaul. Come up with a grand master plan, and then figure out how to finance it. The costs would be astronomical, but worth it in the long-run.

A JFK Airtrain express could use the Inner Abandoned tracks of the Rockaway Branch which also opens up direct service to Atlantic Terminal. The Outer tracks could carry an Extension of the M or R trains down to the Rockaways. The capacity at Penn Station is about to be freed up when the LIRR moves half of its trains over to GCT. The LIRR also has its own section and approach to Penn Station so the real issue is the Hudson River side. None of the through running proposals at least the ones that have been floated around due to nice looking graphics rather then actual research address the trans-manhattan commuter shed which is bigger then most people think and most of those people drive.

But MNRR is moving into Penn and will take up some of those LIRR slots with already overloaded New Haven Service which is adding stations in the Bronx. They are out of space to increase rush hour capacity in GCT without buying bilevel trains so Penn will be increasingly important. Amtrak probably isn't looking to give up any space either since they want to grow Acela schedules as soon as their new rolling stock arrives in 2021.

When it comes to terminal capacity I doubt either railroad puts a high priority on airport express service. LIRR is going to have to do something (either a shuttle or increase the line schedule) already out to Willets Point if the LGA Airtrain is to not be totally useless so that's going to eat capacity also.

The LIRR GCT section is separate from the MNRR section so it will have plenty of capacity.

The MNRR is only going to run 2 trains per hour on the Hell Gate & West Side lines which is not going to impact anyone. Bilevels increase dwell time at busy stations and will run into clearance issues in and out of GCT which is under used its just the Park Ave approach that is at capacity but that could be fixed with better signals. The LIRR has its own tunnels and section of Penn Station which is somewhat separated from the Amtrak and NJT section and the MNRR is going into that section which is attached to the West Side Yard.

The LGA train should really just be a branch off the Port Washington Branch with a frequent shuttle portion between the terminals and a train every 20mins to GCT. The JFK train could also run to GCT or Penn.

The real capacity issues that no one talks about is the jct in New Rochelle between the New Haven Line & Hell Gate Lines which needs to be grade separated. The JCTs between the Hempstead & Oyster Bay Branches and the main line need to be grade separated otherwise those will be congestion points during rush hour.

This is not my understanding. MNRR supposedly plans 8 trains peak hour from Phase 1 over the Hell Gate Line AFAIK. The West Side Line schedule has not been discussed much since its phase 2.

It's possible that MNRR can increase GCT peak capacity by replacing the signal system however since they are actively entertaining bilevels my suspicion is that the options aren't good or are very expensive. Some increased dwell is inevitable but can be alleviated by using two platforms to cover the same track like Stamford has. There aren't a lot of places that would require this off the top of my head except White Plains where you'd just need to add one side platform.

Agree on using East Side Access for an LGA spur, maybe go every 15 instead. Penn can't afford 3-4 peak hour slots just for JFK service. Especially not with MNRR/Amtrak plans.

As both MNRR and Amtrak ramp schedules issues at New Rochelle may have to be addressed but that's a little while off. Also they're going to have to fight over who pays for what.

Without going too far down the rabbit hole, whilst both Paris and London are committed to substantial projects, neither city has anything like ESA or Penn South in the pipeline because the future isn’t in generating more commuter rail terminal platforms, but to force commuter trains through and out the other end whilst also providing relief across the wider network.

Forget the new terminal platforms for ESA and Penn South. New York ought to be (aligned with a new Hudson tunnel) merging some of the NJT and LIRR services going via Penn to have them run-through in a similar fashion to Thameslink.

If you really want to have a sizable transformative project, you would build a new tunnel from just north of GCT to Atlantic Terminal thereby merging several MNR and LIRR services with stops at GCT, Penn and somewhere in Downtown. A massive Subway relief across the network.

It's politics between regional governments.

For example, why would NY want a through running train so that someone could bypass Manhattan? The real estate lobbying machine in NYC wouldn't' be too pleased if someone could easily live in Jersey and work in Nassau using fast and efficient trains, would they? No, it's in their self interest to not have through running trains so that people will live or work in Manhattan (or inner NYC).

Car traffic in Manhattan moving at slowest pace in decades: report

===============
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...tuy-story.html