Airport Connections

How important is it that a city have a rail link to the airport?

Well, frankly, it's not that important, in the sense that there are lots of cities that don't, and the world has not ended.

But how important is it that a city have a high quality transit link to the airport? 

Well, that's a different question. I'd suggest that it's very important--for equity for those who don't have cars, for the reduction of traffic, exhaust, and other factors associated with cars going to the airport, and to reduce the amount of space that has to be given to cars around airports.

1. Rail and Transit Aren't the Same Thing

While transit advocates may sometimes be guilty of acting like a rail link to the airport is the only kind of transit that can work, it obviously isn't. To be clear: if you have a direct, regular stop on an already-useful rail line that stops at the airport, that's basically the gold standard here. 

Denver does this pretty well from Union Station, for instance. 

And I'm a big fan of Chicago's Blue Line El connecting directly to O'Hare.

But a good, consistent bus that has clear signage, lengthy operating hours, a relatively express trip, and frequent service can do plenty, like in Montréal, where the REM will eventually go to the airport but the 747 bus isn't bad right now.

Not bad timing at all.

Is it perfect? No. But it's good transit to the airport, and it's not hard at all to use or to then connect in to the rest of Montréal's transit. In fact, the ticket on the 747 is a daypass on the rest of the system within Montréal Zone A automatically, encouraging that transfer.

Then there are cities that do have a rail transit link to the airport but it's not well-implemented: e.g. Boston Logan.

I love the T, but "take a bus to the train to downtown and transfer again" is not the highest recommendation I could give to a "rail" link to the airport. Yes, the Silver Line exists, and it's not that bad, like the 747, but the implementation of the rail connection is mediocre at best. An airport subway station is not itself evidence of good transit to the airport.

2. Where Is the Terminal, Anyway?

Add to the above: where does the transit actually serve in and around the airport? A lot of airports rely on people movers to actually get people to and from the terminals where the planes are even if they've been dropped off by transit.

This example is Chicago, which is not the worst. Perhaps the worst is Seattle, where the transit connection to Link light rail requires a) a long walk from the terminal through the parking garage, with little assistance for the disabled, followed by b) using a people mover to actually get to some of the more distant terminals anyway. Neither the benefit of a close rail connection nor the speed of a people mover: the worst of both worlds somehow.

Look, I'll admit sometimes it's a function of size: O'Hare is huge, hence the need for the people mover. But there are other options. Heck, Heathrow has multiple Tube stations for its various terminals, which means that you don't have to switch transit modes, unlike the people mover model. More generally, it's worth considering: when you say you have transit to the airport, which part of the airport do you mean?

3. Foot Traffic

Now, I'll admit most airports don't do great at this. But you know what's better than just having a transit connection?

Allowing people to safely, easily, and efficiently walk to the airport.

And no, Boston, I don't mean the above giant roadway with a courtesy inclusion of a sidewalk.

I mean people actually wanting to walk in the space you provide. Technically the above photo is of the ferry to Billy Bishop in Toronto, but rest assured you can also walk through a tunnel underneath the lake, and it's very easy and drops you off in a nice enough neighborhood!

Obviously that's difficult for airports that are far from the city center and surrounded by hotels and parking lots. But hey--if you could minimize all that land used for car access, maybe you could make a few more of those airports walkable as well.

More generally: the better you do at making an airport approachable by other means than a car, the better the airport experience--train or not.

Get Your Kicks (Off Route 66)

 Since I do a fair amount of travel in the US, and as much as I can get away with outside of it, I wanted to talk today about the roadtrip, and how it compares to two other modes of long-distance travel: the plane and the train, probably unsurprisingly.

Specifically, I want to focus on the freedom and pleasure aspects that so frequently get attached to the idea of the roadtrip in American literature and culture. Which forms of transportation allow you the greatest freedom? Which provide the greatest chances for random discovery? And which will allow you relaxation and pleasure if this is your vacation (whether frequent as in Europe or rarely taken as in the USA)?

1. Freedom depends on flexibility

I would argue that the plane is the great loser in the question of which form of transit gives you the greatest freedom. You cannot easily change where you are going on a plane, and they are pretty much inherently point-to-point travel: you can't get off the plane early unless you're skiplagging, and even that is just skipping a connection, not getting off midflight (hi, DB Cooper, if you're still out there). 

Not an exit point.

It might seem like the car wins here, and it is true that if I'm driving I can take the car wherever the road will let me. 

Burnin' rubber in the Mustang can indeed be flexible.

But while this is true, I have a lot less flexibility in what I do while I'm driving the car. If I'm inattentive, let alone watching Harry Potter while driving, bad things are going to happen. "I am the captain of my soul," but also I am captaining a vehicle that will run into things if I don't stop it.

A train seems less free: it runs on literal rails. I have to go where it goes, just like a plane.

But that's a very US-Amtrak-small network approach. If the train network is like the Dutch NS (complaints from the Dutch aside) or the London Overground (same point about local objections), it works much more flexibly. 

I got off here randomly, just to take a picture of the sign for my London blogs about transit. I then walked across the neighborhood/town and got back on another train to go to another place.

So in a decent and well-designed (even if not perfect!) system, the train gives me a significant degree of flexibility and freedom as well.

And lest someone complain that the Overground is not intercity (it kinda is, depending on your definition of what a city is), I think the same applies to National Rail, for all its flaws.

And on the train, I can read, watch Harry Potter, or zone out to my heart's content. I am free to just be, not to direct the vehicle.

A view I would not be able to stare at if I drove from Paris to Amsterdam, but which I spent quite a bit of time watching while taking the train.

2. Random activities are also about flexibility

Surprise! The plane loses here too! While I love the little Blues Brother display in Midway Airport in Chicago, otherwise I'm not doing a lot of serendipitous discovery while flying from place to place.

This plane is going to Toronto Billy Bishop Airport, and good luck stopping.

There's a Bluey episode about a roadtrip, and they spend some time stuck behind the so-called Grey Nomads, RVing seniors, and then take a detour (along with said Nomads) to a roadside attraction. It's cute! It's true! You can detour off your route for random informational signs or to see what everyone else is visiting.

But beware! Sometimes those random places are actually pretty far from the interstate or equivalent. Sometimes the best thing you're seeing is the gas station you needed to stop at for fuel. And sometimes it's really cool. 

The same applies to a train, at least if the train schedule means you won't lose all your time if you get off at a stop. If you're on the once-daily California Zephyr, it's more like a plane. If you're on the 147 train-daily Amsterdam to Haarlem route you're pretty good to stop if you want. Or if that's too close (they are much closer than any 2 California Zephyr stations), consider the 10 daily high-speed Paris to Amsterdam trains. 

Random park? Cool. Got there on a train.

3. Relaxation can't require focus

Look, maybe you're someone who feels like they're most relaxed behind the wheel of a car. I'm just going to suggest that maybe you could let someone else do some of the work? 

Only 2 people on these trains need to be paying attention (give or take).

It's two per on these planes, too. Well, and the flight attendants.

I hope to God all these people are paying attention (sorry for the crowded street--for related reasons I don't have many photos of cars on the interstate).

Driving a car can be fun, and certainly people do do it for fun! But driving as transportation is not the same as driving for fun. It's a method of long-distance transport that requires your attention, your focus, and your dedication (or your life). And yes, you can play your own music in the car--but can I recommend a pair of headphones?

Driving also produces lock-in that actually can reduce your likelihood of stopping for all the random things that otherwise might be the advantage of a car: when I'm behind the wheel, I'm focused on driving safely and getting myself to my destination, so I don't really have time or focus to pay attention to what might come up. On a train I can flip through my phone to think of whether I want to get off at another station; unless I'm a passenger I better not be doing that in a car!

In summary: yes, cars can and do provide noticeable advantages over trains and planes in terms of your ability to simply pull over and do something. But they provide noticeable disadvantages in terms of attention and stress, and the need for focus detracts from some of the other feelings of freedom. There's nothing wrong with taking a long roadtrip, but it would be a real blessing if we in the US would provide some greater opportunities to take a traintrip--and of course, there's a reason really long trips are usually by plane.

Why I (Almost) Always Prefer a Train

Merry Christmas! I just drove hours to get to my Christmas destination and it made me think about why, all things considered, I would pretty much always prefer a train over driving or flying, if all 3 are possible (so I'm not talking across the Atlantic).

1. The Need to Focus and the Ability to Relax

Both planes and trains win this over cars. As a driver, I have to actually pay attention to the road (yes, even on flatter-than-flat empty sections of I-80). As a passenger, I can relax; even compared to being a passenger in a car, both a train and a plane win, because the space associated with my relaxation is much more flexible. And of course plane loses to train here because of the tightness of seats and the existence of turbulence.

Oh yeah, and you can walk around in a train. No turbulence warnings and seatbelt indicators, no "don't stand up! You're driving the car!" screams from passengers, just the plain old ability to move. Sure, depending on the train there may not be much of a much in terms of places to go, but the simple ability to move, as a normal part of transportation, is good. 

Oh yeah, and there's a bathroom, on intercity trains anyway, and that's a win.

2. Weather

Look, trains get delayed by weather too. I acknowledge this. Amtrak is particularly bad at this. But I have friends who still haven't made it to New England by plane today, and I hate driving myself in bad conditions, so the train wins here too. Keep the tracks clear, and the train can go on, because there isn't traffic. 

God I hate plane travel in bad weather.

3. Sights 

Nothing against aerial views, but clouds eliminate or reduce a lot of them (plus there's this thing called "not having a window seat"). And cars on highways tend to be baffled away from some views for sound reasons, plus the driver really ought to keep an eye on the road.

But on a train? See whatever you want. There might even be an observation car! 

There are other considerations of course (cost is a big one; the actual absence of trains from much of the US is another). But wow, I wish I could have done this on a train.