3 ms·

The stupid thing is that those business travelers won't use the rail line, they'll happily chug along in their self-driving Teslas and ultra comfy Audis/Mercede

by jbob2000 9y ago

The stupid thing is that those business travelers won't use the rail line, they'll happily chug along in their self-driving Teslas and ultra comfy Audis/Mercedes/BMWs. Toronto just dealt with this. We built a rail line that goes from our international airport right into the heart of the downtown. The plan was that business travelers could get off the plane, get on the train, and go right into the city without a car. Nobody uses it. They forgot about the comfort of the taxi and limo - you don't have to carry your luggage and you don't have to share the car and listen to screaming children.

kijeda 9y ago
Or not. That seems like an awfully large generalization based on one city whose airport rail service hasn't had much time to establish itself. Counter examples: In London I'll take the Heathrow Express over the alternatives because it is a much more compelling option to get to downtown London. Recently in Johannesburg the airport rail took me to the airport in 14 minutes where as a car would take 90 minutes in commuter traffic. In Germany, I've seen people commute half way across the country every day on high-speed rail because it opened up opportunities to work that didn't exist before.
dbloom 9y ago
The Toronto line failed because it basically only catered to rich business travelers. By only having two stops — downtown and airport — it significantly constrained its TAM just to shave a few minutes off of its travel time. There is a great write up of why it failed here: http://humantransit.org/2016/03/keys-to-great-airport-transit.html http://humantransit.org/2016/03/keys-to-great-airport-transi...
gtirloni 9y ago
> Nobody uses it The few times I've used it, the train was pretty full (with people standing). Maybe I got seriously lucky.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  I think they meant the only people that use it are the screaming children.

kijeda 9y ago

Or not. That seems like an awfully large generalization based on one city whose airport rail service hasn't had much time to establish itself. Counter examples: In London I'll take the Heathrow Express over the alternatives because it is a much more compelling option to get to downtown London. Recently in Johannesburg the airport rail took me to the airport in 14 minutes where as a car would take 90 minutes in commuter traffic. In Germany, I've seen people commute half way across the country every day on high-speed rail because it opened up opportunities to work that didn't exist before.

dbloom 9y ago

The Toronto line failed because it basically only catered to rich business travelers. By only having two stops — downtown and airport — it significantly constrained its TAM just to shave a few minutes off of its travel time. There is a great write up of why it failed here: http://humantransit.org/2016/03/keys-to-great-airport-transit.html http://humantransit.org/2016/03/keys-to-great-airport-transi...

gtirloni 9y ago

> Nobody uses it The few times I've used it, the train was pretty full (with people standing). Maybe I got seriously lucky.

maxerickson 9y ago
I think they meant the only people that use it are the screaming children.