Quote:
Originally Posted by roletand
Based on that context, the station connection seems less like an afterthought. If this thing gets built in the proposed location, I'll still use it, don't get me wrong about that. But I'm someone who's already on-board with expanding public transportation.
If more people are to use an expanded system the goal of the operators should be to reduce the barriers of entry, even if that means building two stations within a 1/2 mile of each other at the same airport. On the green line, Santa Fe Depot to Seaport Village is .3 miles, another .3 miles to Convention Center, and another .3 miles to the Gaslamp stop.
If walking distance from the gate isn't a major factor, maybe the airport should move the ridesharing, bus, taxi, & shuttle stops to the new transit connector and leave curbside pickups to individual vehicles.
|
There have been some
me-shaped people who have suggested that very thing. LAX recently announced a similar policy, which has kicked up a stormload of controversy even though it will measurably improve traffic within the terminal loop. Unfortunately, even commonsense approaches to transit can be difficult to push in the USA.
A transit connection with all the bells and whistles can be a tough sell. The airport with the highest amount of passengers arriving via public transit in the US is New York's JFK, at just 10%. Only 7-8% of SFO's passengers arrive via transit, even though they have a free APM with enough stations to ensure you're never more than 1/3rd of a mile from your gate. From that perspective a single station is probably "good enough".
Ikkhara believes that with the Grand Central and a fee on drop-offs at the terminals, transit usage at the airport can reach ~30%, more in line with European airports. I'd like to see him him succeed, but there are plenty of doubts about reaching that figure. When it came time to negotiate and plan out how passengers would reach the airport as part of the approval process of T1, airport management was more focused on getting a new onramp/offramp from the 5 to handle the increase in traffic, instead of assuming a large future increase in transit ridership.
That way even if the transit connection turns out to be less popular than hoped (or even doesn't get built at all), overall connection to the airport won't be effected. The single station option plays well with this idea as well, it's cheaper and doesn't require the airport to expend a lot of effort to integrate the system when/if it's built.
Such is public transit politics in America.