 |
Re: Gold Line being challenged on possible terminus at Ontario Airport
Author: mook
Date: 04-22-2014 - 20:44
The problem you're talking about exists with nearly all airport transit connections. Light Rail isn't worthwhile connection in most cases, for all the reasons you discuss. It's just too expensive for the level of service provided, and serves mainly those who work at the airport, not travelers. For all but the biggest airport it's usually more cost-effective to improve bus service or do some kind of shuttle to a nearby heavy rail station.
JFK for instance has a shuttle line that makes only a few stops, at major connections (subway, LIRR); it's not Light Rail. BWI has an Amtrak station, but it's a 10-minute shuttle bus ride - despite having light rail in the terminal for local service. DCA has Metro in the terminal, practically, but it's a special case being nearly in downtown DC. BART to SFO cost so much that the fares for the SFO station have to be high - but it still gets traffic because of airport workers and short-trippers without luggage. PDX has light rail in the terminal, but it doesn't look like a high-volume line (most people still drive). We'll have to see whether the OAK cable car works. BUR happens to be right next to a Metrolink/Amtrak ride (not actually designed that way, though) - too bad the train schedules are so sparse. Others ... including LAX ... if you have to build something serious it's probably not cost-effective unless you have reason to believe in huge traffic (say, Washington Metro to Dulles, for extra fare of course), and then you're looking at more than just light rail.
Ideal airport connection, of course, is to have a HSR stop at the airport, as is done in several European cities. That's the equivalent of a regional airline connection - very effective, especially if you can somehow arrange to check baggage through.
Then there's the fact that airports make a LOT of money from the parking. They might say "security" when trying to avoid easy access from off-airport transit to the terminal, but the real reason is that they don't want to lose parking and taxi revenue. At ONT, with the limited traffic these days, they are probably willing to fight for every extra car so you're not going to get any help with transit from that quarter.
JFK for instance has a shuttle line that makes only a few stops, at major connections (subway, LIRR); it's not Light Rail. BWI has an Amtrak station, but it's a 10-minute shuttle bus ride - despite having light rail in the terminal for local service. DCA has Metro in the terminal, practically, but it's a special case being nearly in downtown DC. BART to SFO cost so much that the fares for the SFO station have to be high - but it still gets traffic because of airport workers and short-trippers without luggage. PDX has light rail in the terminal, but it doesn't look like a high-volume line (most people still drive). We'll have to see whether the OAK cable car works. BUR happens to be right next to a Metrolink/Amtrak ride (not actually designed that way, though) - too bad the train schedules are so sparse. Others ... including LAX ... if you have to build something serious it's probably not cost-effective unless you have reason to believe in huge traffic (say, Washington Metro to Dulles, for extra fare of course), and then you're looking at more than just light rail.
Ideal airport connection, of course, is to have a HSR stop at the airport, as is done in several European cities. That's the equivalent of a regional airline connection - very effective, especially if you can somehow arrange to check baggage through.
Then there's the fact that airports make a LOT of money from the parking. They might say "security" when trying to avoid easy access from off-airport transit to the terminal, but the real reason is that they don't want to lose parking and taxi revenue. At ONT, with the limited traffic these days, they are probably willing to fight for every extra car so you're not going to get any help with transit from that quarter.
