U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
328 posts, read 254,555 times
Reputation: 276

Advertisements

Nashville's MTA has bus service to the airport and from it all day, with direct service as well. I imagine many cities do. If ridership is a problem, why don't transit planners schedule service to and from the airport at peak times? Imagine some deals with downtown hotels and convention center folks could be made to drum up business. Seems like a good opportunity not to miss.

I do love the Chicago's CTA direct line to downtown from O'Hare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:57 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,198,382 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Agreed. It's funny, we were just talking about this at work the other day. Denver is just now building a line to the airport. You'd think, especially with the airport practically in western Kansas (!) that one of the first priorities would have been to connect the city to the airport with rail. (There is good bus service from the airport to town.) It's the same with Pittsburgh, and probably many other cities. Does anyone know why?
Recall it being discussed during planning for DIA, but it being low priority because it would mostly be used for tourists and less so by the local taxpayers, Also recall the arguement that if you put in rail to the airport, the parking garages would never payoff their bond debt.

Seems everyone on the Front Range was amazed how far away the airport was when they actually started driving there. Although it will be nice when the train does get to DIA (2015?), but it really will not help anyone in either the north or south metro area.

I have used airport/rail at Portland, Vancouver and Chicago and it really makes the trip to and from the airport much less stressful. I think the new rail to DIA will be great for airport employees. At least the ones that live within a mile +/- of a station.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,580,362 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
My guess is that while airport lines are useful, they don't get a whole of everyday usage so they may not have the ridership to support it. So, it only makes sense if there's stuff right by the airport.

Boston has lots of rail, but only BRT to the airport. Works fine as it's a short distance (goes in a tunnel for a mile or two downtown, too). LaGuardia Airport has no rail connection, though recently they added a non-stop bus to subway or LIRR, the previous local bus was painfully slow.
Oh I didn't know they added that, I have done the local bus from LaGuardia before and it was always such a pain, much easier to just pay the price and take a cab.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,580,362 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccdscott View Post
Nashville's MTA has bus service to the airport and from it all day, with direct service as well. I imagine many cities do. If ridership is a problem, why don't transit planners schedule service to and from the airport at peak times? Imagine some deals with downtown hotels and convention center folks could be made to drum up business. Seems like a good opportunity not to miss.

I do love the Chicago's CTA direct line to downtown from O'Hare.
I wish Chicago would be able to turn the O'Hare Blue Line into an express line which would make it so much nicer getting to and from the Loop and the Airport.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:37 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Oh I didn't know they added that, I have done the local bus from LaGuardia before and it was always such a pain, much easier to just pay the price and take a cab.
here ya go:

http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/New...e_brochure.htm

Connects to the Jackson Heights and Woodside stations. Still sounds like a pain from Bayonne. It goes on the BQE for most of its route rather than local streets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,091 posts, read 16,121,723 times
Reputation: 12683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Agreed. It's funny, we were just talking about this at work the other day. Denver is just now building a line to the airport. You'd think, especially with the airport practically in western Kansas (!) that one of the first priorities would have been to connect the city to the airport with rail. (There is good bus service from the airport to town.) It's the same with Pittsburgh, and probably many other cities. Does anyone know why?
Sacramento has been planning to run rail out to Natomas and the airport for years, decades at this point. There's already perfectly good bus service that runs from the airport to downtown in the same amount of time, but there's that perception of people not wanting to take a bus. I don't understand it.

Seattle and San Francisco are both connected, Oakland's airport is easily accessible by bus (easier than Sacramento). AC Transit provides 24-hour service from several BART stations to the airport, but so many people won't use buses that BART also has to provide a shuttle bus. It's odd. The AC Transit bus is cheaper and faster since it takes so damn long for infrequent travelers to get on the shuttle with their luggage.

Then there is Las Vegas which seems determined to protect the limo/shuttle business by not offering any transportation of any kind to the strip. You can catch public transit and then switch to a tourist bus operated by a separate transit agency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
328 posts, read 254,555 times
Reputation: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I wish Chicago would be able to turn the O'Hare Blue Line into an express line which would make it so much nicer getting to and from the Loop and the Airport.
That would be great. You could even do a Amtrak - Airline connection if you could somehow get the travel times under 30 min each way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,726,427 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Seattle and San Francisco are both connected, Oakland's airport is easily accessible by bus (easier than Sacramento). AC Transit provides 24-hour service from several BART stations to the airport, but so many people won't use buses that BART also has to provide a shuttle bus. It's odd. The AC Transit bus is cheaper and faster since it takes so damn long for infrequent travelers to get on the shuttle with their luggage.
And now they are finishing up the over priced monorail project, the Oakland Airport Connector, that isn't remotely the same project they put on the ballot and voters approved, at 5x the price.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,091 posts, read 16,121,723 times
Reputation: 12683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
And now they are finishing up the over priced monorail project, the Oakland Airport Connector, that isn't remotely the same project they put on the ballot and voters approved, at 5x the price.
True, forgot about that completely. I thought it died years ago when the federal government pulled its money off the table.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 03:41 PM
 
Location: The City
22,343 posts, read 32,215,169 times
Reputation: 7749
I have traveled to the following cities without a car

NYC
Boston
Chicago
SF
Miami (though really needed cabs at times but once in say S Beach wlaking is pretty easy)
Orlando (well Disney) but can be done with transit options with no real issues
DC
Atlanta (Yes staying DT, Midtown, or Buckhead is pretty easy on MARTA)


LA not yet - maybe never though transit is getting better (too spread for me)


All places have driveable placs that may require a car (example exploring Napa from SF is worth the rental IMHO)

Imagine my hometown is pretty easy on transit as well

Europe while I have rented cars most cities have no reason in fact a deterant to have a car as a visitor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top