NY Subway - Express v Local

[me123]

The J train is a great way to get downtown from JFK too - no need for a cab.

The subway in general is good to get to and from JFK. I've used it on all my trips and found it to be the best value option, costing a standard fare + $5 for the air train (compare that to LHR!). But I've never had too much luggage. Going into the city is never a problem, there's always been plenty of room on the A and E trains (never tried the J/Z option). Coming back can be more difficult because you'll probably be boarding in Midtown, the busiest part of the network - you will not be popular if you're taking up multiple seats with big suitcases during the rush hour!

I've been to NYC twice and both times used the subway as almost my sole means of transportation, including airport transfers. I had no problems at all during either of my visits. It is a fantastic system.

 

[button_boxer]

The subway in general is good to get to and from JFK. I've used it on all my trips and found it to be the best value option, costing a standard fare + $5 for the air train (compare that to LHR!).

If you have a MetroCard you can do it for just the standard fare without the $5 AirTrain premium if you get the A train to/from its Lefferts Boulevard terminus and transfer to the Q10 local bus from there to the airport. The bus drops you at terminal 5 and you can get the AirTrain for free from there to any of the other terminals (the premium fare is only charged for entering or exiting the system at Jamaica or Howard Beach).

If you're starting from the airport and don't already have a MetroCard it's still doable but you need to get the AirTrain to Howard Beach, buy a MetroCard from the machine just inside the barrier, then go back one stop to Lefferts Blvd AirTrain and pick up the Q10 bus from there. It's up to you whether the extra time is worth the $5 saving...

 

[142094]

One thing I would recommend is a trip on the R32s, normally used on the C train. They were built in the mid-60s and the oldest stock on the system.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One thing I would recommend is a trip on the R32s, normally used on the C train. They were built in the mid-60s and the oldest stock on the system.

They must be in their last days now - lovely trains - nicely refurbed in the 1980's and they buck and run fast ! (plus you get the classic front / rear view from the passenger accomodation - which you do not get on the newer trains)

 

[142094]

They must be in their last days now - lovely trains - nicely refurbed in the 1980's and they buck and run fast ! (plus you get the classic front / rear view from the passenger accomodation - which you do not get on the newer trains)

Next year I believe, depending on how fast the new stock is commissioned. They underwent a refresh in 2012 at Coney Island, so will still be going until next year.

Depends on if you like the older stock but the ride on them is fantastic IMO! Will probably have to go back over for a few days before they go.

 

[Springs Branch]

Interesting to observe that whenever a thread is started about some aspect of the New York Subway, it always attracts lots of comments, anecdotes & discussion - almost always positive. This thread is over 35 replies now & others have had 25 or more replies.

I think this reflects how interesting & varied the Subway is.

 

[Taunton]

I suspect it's a function of how many visit New York who are rail-knowledgeable.

One of the downsides is however poor overall coverage of the city. There are big areas not covered at all (and it's not like London where non-Underground areas are generally still served by local heavy rail services into the centre), and elsewhere considerable duplication. This is not surprising when one of the three divisions, the IND (called the Independent Division but actually city-planned from the start) was deliberately planned to compete with the existing privately-owned (at the time) IRT and BMT. Thus there is little subway service to most of Queens, but the two routes that do exist across the middle/north of the Borough, the IRT 7-train and the IND E/M/R-train Queens Boulevard line, run close to one another and in fact cross twice. Likewise four lines run north-south down the inner-west side of Manhattan under directly adjacent streets, but leave all the large area to the west of them completely unserved.

This piecemeal approach can be seen elsewhere. In California San Francisco, despite a number of separate agencies, always comes over as well-planned and integrated, whereas Los Angeles, despite now having quite a considerable rail mileage built in recent times at great expense, is an un-coordinated mess.

 

[AM9]

Interesting to observe that whenever a thread is started about some aspect of the New York Subway, it always attracts lots of comments, anecdotes & discussion - almost always positive. This thread is over 35 replies now & others have had 25 or more replies.

I think this reflects how interesting & varied the Subway is.

I think that its interest is down to its age and unplanned development, as it is with the London Underground and the Paris Metro.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.... Likewise four lines run north-south down the inner-west side of Manhattan under directly adjacent streets, but leave all the large area to the west of them completely unserved.

Similarly, on the Eastside (particularly Upper Eastside), the whole of the area is covered by just the ex. IRT 4,5,6 line. Since the overhead metro lines were removed between the '40s and '80s to make way for more cars, the Lexington Avenue line has become the most crowded line in all the USA. Although the 2nd Avenue line is nearing it's 1st stage's completion, it will only cover a small part of the whole Eastside.

 

[AndrewP]

Now I know why some of the connections are disjointed.

Some Underground style directional signage would be good.

I could so easily live in New York!!!!!

 

[AM9]

Interesting to observe that whenever a thread is started about some aspect of the New York Subway, it always attracts lots of comments, anecdotes & discussion - almost always positive. This thread is over 35 replies now & others have had 25 or more replies.

I think this reflects how interesting & varied the Subway is.

I agree with what you say in the context of a rail interest forum. Looking at the NY MTA through a lay traveller's eye would probably attract more criticism partiularly of industrial appearance of it's infrastructue and rolling stock.

Compared to LU, most of the stations look like afterthoughts where platforms have been built in tunnels amid stanchions that support the streets above. There is little attention to noise control of trains, both to riders and to passengers waiting on slow platforms where there are adjacent through tracks. Even the staions currently being built on the 2nd ave line will be very basic and spartan compared to Victoria Line stations, (not to mention the JLE).
Many of the surface lines are on quite hideous and noisy steel structures that overshadow local communities and have very sharp curves with all the squealing flanges that result.
The trains themselves are all steel with very little aesthetic trim. Seats are without any upholstery, - just imagine the wailing on this forum from those who think that the 387's seating is bad!
None of that is a complaint, but then I look beneath its surface and find the historical impact on its operation and style of equipment quite interesting.

 

[tripleseis]

Similarly, on the Eastside (particularly Upper Eastside), the whole of the area is covered by just the ex. IRT 4,5,6 line. Since the overhead metro lines were removed between the '40s and '80s to make way for more cars, the Lexington Avenue line has become the most crowded line in all the USA. Although the 2nd Avenue line is nearing it's 1st stage's completion, it will only cover a small part of the whole Eastside.

I think it'll only alleviate the Lexington Avenue line somewhat. Commuters still pile off Metro North trains at Grand Central and some will need to head downtown and their only option is the 4/5/6. I really think the MTA need to consider some sort of Crossrail scheme linking up Metro North with the LIRR at Atlantic Terminal with a stop at Union Square and downtown Manhattan (probably Fulton Center) before heading under the East River to Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn. A branch to JFK would be great too. The East Side Access is a good idea but it'll just add more passengers to the Lexington Line. Perhaps this could be the line to be extended down to Brooklyn.

 

[Taunton]

I really think the MTA need to consider some sort of Crossrail scheme linking up Metro North with the LIRR at Atlantic Terminal with a stop at Union Square and downtown Manhattan (probably Fulton Center) before heading under the East River to Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn. A branch to JFK would be great too. The East Side Access is a good idea but it'll just add more passengers to the Lexington Line. Perhaps this could be the line to be extended down to Brooklyn.

I did a Crayonista Crossrail-type suggestion for our US office which went from JFK airport, La Guardia airport, 125th Street, Grand Central, Wall Street, Newark central, and Newark airport, linked beyond both ends into the commuter lines of Long Island and New Jersey. They were quite intrigued.

I believe the 2nd Avenue East Side line was first proposed as an IND line around 1930. If it's not finished in 15 years time (possible) that will make it 100 years since the first detailed drawings were produced for it. But then in London the Metropolitan Line at Euston Square was first proposed to be re-sited in front of, and connected to, Euston main line station shortly after it opened in 1863, 150 years on that still hasn't happened ...

It would be good to understand why US passenger rolling stock of all sorts has, ever since Budd came up with the concept in the late 1930s, generally gone for unpainted stainless steel exterior instead of a conventional finish, even that designed and built nowadays for them in Asia.

 

[AM9]

I think it'll only alleviate the Lexington Avenue line somewhat. Commuters still pile off Metro North trains at Grand Central and some will need to head downtown and their only option is the 4/5/6. I really think the MTA need to consider some sort of Crossrail scheme linking up Metro North with the LIRR at Atlantic Terminal with a stop at Union Square and downtown Manhattan (probably Fulton Center) before heading under the East River to Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn. A branch to JFK would be great too. The East Side Access is a good idea but it'll just add more passengers to the Lexington Line. Perhaps this could be the line to be extended down to Brooklyn.

Assuming the third and fourth phases are completed sometime this century , the line will provide quite a lot of relief. Many of those from the Bronx and the Upper East Side who currently stay on the 4,5 & 6 lines and want the southern end of Broadway and Lower Manhattan will change at 125th St and use the (more modern) 2nd Ave. 'T' line. Those who want Broadway, Times Square, Herald Square etc. will change to the Q line. This will lighten the load on the Lex lines below 96th, giving more space for both Metro North and East Side Access pax who alight at Grand Central. That's not to say that something akin to a Crossrail line wouldn't be a valuable contribution to travel into and out of the city.

 

[Taunton]

The bizarre thing is that both 2nd and 3rd Avenues had an elevated line over them right down through Manhattan, the 2nd was closed and dismantled during WW2 and the 3rd in 1955. There was no replacing subway, although they were both part of the overall New York system, originally being IRT lines, and they were only replaced by buses. In New York politics they were part of the Get-Rid-Of-It attitude to the IRT around its 1940 takeover by the city, and it was always said they would "soon" be replaced by an (IND Division) Subway once they were dismantled. Which of course has never happened. The elevated lines even had express tracks of their own, sometimes in the middle, sometimes as a second higher-still level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRT_Second_Avenue_Line

The "El's" did predate the Subway lines, they were of course suited to steam locomotives in the years before electric traction became practical, although they electrified pretty quickly, in fact before the subways were built, once this was possible. Their lightweight structures required wooden-bodied cars to the end; the remaining elevated lines in the outer boroughs were all reinforced to handle modern cars.

 

[142094]

It would be good to understand why US passenger rolling stock of all sorts has, ever since Budd came up with the concept in the late 1930s, generally gone for unpainted stainless steel exterior instead of a conventional finish, even that designed and built nowadays for them in Asia.

The stainless steel, when new, looks very good. IIRC the original reason for its use on the Pioneer Zephyr was due to the fact it is a lot lighter and stronger than the typical steel-bodied cars (carriages) used at the time.

The R32s were introduced as 'Brightliners' and different to the rest of the stock. Unfortunately these days they aren't as bright but still look more interesting than some of the newer cars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Many of the surface lines are on quite hideous and noisy steel structures that overshadow local communities and have very sharp curves with all the squealing flanges that result.

Interesting fact I learned when I visited Chicago and rode on the L - one of the original constructors of the elevated tracks used to take money from shopkeepers on one side of the road and then build the tracks on the opposite side to keep the lines from affecting their businesses.

Some of the curves in the Loop are fantastic as well.

 

[Taunton]

The R32s were introduced as 'Brightliners' and different to the rest of the stock. Unfortunately these days they aren't as bright but still look more interesting than some of the newer cars.

The R32s, built mid-1960s, were the only New York batch of cars built by Budd in Philadelphia, who devised the stainless steel finish, which uses a patented welding process (stainless steel is a nightmare to weld), and for long kept the manufacture to themselves and those they licensed overseas, such as in France. They are getting on for 50 years old now, and although many have been scrapped there are still enough around on the C train to warrant looking out for them. They always seem to sound heavy and ponderous as they crash into the station.

Interesting fact I learned when I visited Chicago and rode on the L .

The three remaining cities that have "El's" are New York, Chicago and Philadelphia. Others, such as in Boston, have been replaced. Philadelphia is an interesting side-trip if you have a spare day visiting New York, little more than an hour south on Amtrak, it seems to have one of every transit type - elevated and subway, standard and broad gauge, electric commuter lines, a range of streetcar lines of different types, including some classic PCCs, and the Norristown line which is an odd combination of standard and light rail.