I think you are right about the cost of the monorail, especially for frequent travelers. It costs $5.50 per person with children under 11 free. I think that is pretty steep. Up until recently I was commuting between Newark Penn Station and Trenton. Coming home from Trenton in the evening we would always pick up several passengers at the Airport terminal. Only rarely did they get off at Newark; it was easy to tell because they all had baggage. I suspect almost all of them went on to New York Penn Station.
Frugal travelers can take the Number 62 bus at Newark Penn Station. The one way adult fare is only $1.50. You are allowed two bags on the bus and there is some restriction on size. The bus stops at Terminals A, B and C.
The more services available, the more connections available, the more usefull and accessable the airport is for anyone. There is a lot of perception there, but perceived services and values mean more to Americans than actual benefits. But I also think the monorail connection is a problem for many...it is an extra cost. PATH would probably, or should, have a direct connection to the airport terminal and avoid the monorail. This would help NJT especially, by elminitaing the stop if not entirely but for many trains, helping them move trains faster. Amtrak probably has to most to gain with keeping the EWR stop and the monorail connection. But if PATH can provide a one seat ride (always a mantra in NJ and NYC area), even at an extra fare from Newark, it sure would relieve a lot of road (auto and bus) traffic in and around the terminal area. One of the major markeing adjustments a lot of us have to make is that most travel, air travel in particular, is not for the wealthy or for business people on expense accounts,, that it is as common as a commuter bus or train for many, and therefore a rapid transit connection, like PATH, instead of luxury buses or taxis, can be a well used service in addtion to being useful in alleviating traffic and congestin, environmental impacts, etc.. And if it can be done without having to make too many transfers, all the better.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I just don't see how a PATH-Newark Liberty Airport connection would make the airport more competitive, Dave. Right now Amtrak stops at the airport so there is a connection from every Amtrak station from Boston to Richmond, Va. From mid town Manhattan New Jersey Transit serves the airport. It would be more convenient for airport bound people from Hoboken, Jersey City and lower Manhattan who live near a PATH station but they only need to make one change at Newark Penn Station to get to the airport. At this point where is the competitive advantage of a direct PATH-EWR connection?
To make Newark Airport, which has capacity for added flights, more competitive with other Eastcoast airports.
Do you have any idea of what prompted the Port Authority to reopen this question? As I recall the idea of extending the PATH train was considered at the time the monorail was planned. The PA rejected the idea and built the monorail instead. The issues raised now seem to be exactly the same. There is no suggestion that the monorail is overcrowded or inadequate. The costs of operating the monorail are still with us unless the bonds have been paid off and extending current PATH trains would both be expensive and compete with the monorail.
When the monorail was built it seemed to me that extending the PATH train would have been wiser for all of the reasons that are cited now but the transportation planners, who presumably are experts, thought a monorail was better. So why the current change of position?
Yes, Dave...there is plenty of room at Newark Penn at this moment...the concern is west (south) toward the airport. There actually is a lot of room to build a pair of tracks to the airpor both on the ground and on trestles as needed. The question I have is whether PATH would go to the airport or to the monorail/EWR station on NJT/Amtrak. I would think it should go to the airport eliminating a change of modes otherwise it would not be as attractive.
Running trains through to Newark Airport will not require any more track space at Newark Penn Station, and the platforms are large enough and long enough to handle additional traffic easily.
First-hand knowledge from my 1995 PA-Acoustics analysis.
Less sure about this one, but I think the flyovers are in place now, because the two pocket tracks south-west of the station are on the east side of the right-of-way (or that is what my memory says), and the line to the Airport could just be an extension of those two tracks unless some trains were to continue to terminate at Newark Penn. I think the business might be sufficient to extend all trains to the Airport. Also there is the possibility of restoring service to Edison and other local stations that were dropped by NJT for insufficient ridership. Mybe not, though since passibly a non-stop Newark Penn - Newark Airport ride would be preferred.
Yeah, this is another round of the same ole same ole. However, I like the idea in some respects because at present NJT trains stopping at EWR have to add a couple of minutes to their schedule which can back up traffic if there are delays, etc. So that might be good. Amtrak is OK with the EWR connection which can be a boon to airl and Amtrak if properly marketed and executed..
As for space. There is actually more space today for PATH than there was years ago since the PRR freight stuff is gone for the most part and a lot of the storage and lay up track space is unused. Slipping a pair of PATH tracks would be much less of a problem. I wonder, too, if Newark Penn even enters the picture, in fact. There is room to make a path off the PATH main somewhere east old Hudson Tower, perhaps even as far east as Journal Square, and cut across to the airport without even touching Newark city limits. But extending from the station by flyover west of the CNJ bridge, and going west (south) along the eastbound side of the Corridor is possible. The question is should PATH terminate with the monorail or go right to the EWR terminal building and the monorail dissappear? Money has been announced for the mono's improvements.
well, that's nice ... though taking the PATH to Newark Penn Station, and catching a train from there to EWR isn't terribly bad (though, honestly, I'd have rather gone to Penn Station and taken AMTRAK home... )
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Port authority is going to do another study of running PATH trains to the airport.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/New-Yorkarea-port-authority-to-study-direct-rail-extension-to-Newark-airport--32570
first study I heard of was in 1966 in conjunction with the ALDENE plan. Now 46 years later still another study. (number unknown )
1. Original plan was stopped by a colition of the then powerful taxicab and private bus companys.
2. would think that AMTRAK would not want to give up any ROW as the PATH train tracks and storage yard now split the NEC tracks south of Newark Penn station and north of Hunter CP.
3. building PATH extension on an elevated track also seems to not be in AMTRAK'S favor as AMTRAK'S long range plans may be for an elevated track for the future HSR vision plan with a second level station at Newark Penn ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.