Quote:
from today's Georgia Straight
...
“What I do know is that no airport transit line—either in Chicago or Melbourne or Sydney, or wherever they have these things—has ever come close to meeting its projected ridership,” Rees told the Straight. “So I don’t know why TransLink thinks this line is going to be any different. Perhaps it will be, but you know, most travellers who carry two or three bags aren’t going to use the damn thing.”
|
Where's the bullsh*t meter when you need it? Where does this guy get these "facts"?
So let me see - London Heathrow's subway (underground) connection was so well underused, they built an express line. That was so well under used, they added a stopping service. So London Heathrow has a subway line, an express line and a stopping line, with around 20 trains a hour providing service to five stations at the airport. Sounds like it's not well used to me. It's so badly used, that they've decided to include Heathrow in the $13 billion pound (about CDN $30 billion) crossrail project so, providing a second deep tube link from London to Heathrow running under central London.
Also - Rees' statements are surprising. So what do you want Bill? Everybody to drive? Isn't the train a way of reducing our ecological footprint? So why are you reported as so negative to this?
Please - if you make wild statements like this - back them up with data.