An airport bus appears to be coming after all. Mention of the
airport bus was left off the Five-Year Transit Plan delivered to
council a few weeks ago, but a separate staff report submitted to
council this week says the airport bus is in the works.
Sort of.
Metro Transit hopes to incorporate the bus into its MetroX service,
which began in August with a Tantallon to Scotia Square commuter run.
But MetroX buses are built atop a GMC chasis, and the disarray in the
auto industry presents procurement problems; the report says that
“realistically” the airport service can’t be implemented until spring
of 2011.
Six buses, and two spare buses, are needed for the airport service.
The Tantallon MetroX buses cost $140,000 each, but with the procurement
problems that price will likely increase. Costs will be somewhat offset
by a $450,000 grant from the airport. As far as operational costs go,
council will only have to find a relatively modest $1.27 million
annually for the service.
But as it’s designed, the “airport bus” is really more of a “airport
worker” and Fall River commuter bus. The new route will start at Scotia
Square, make stops in Burnside and Fall River, then exit the 102 at Old
Guysborough Road and swing through the Aero Tech Park businesses before
finally arriving at the terminal. The bus will then make the circuit in
reverse.
The bus will not have luggage racks, and the route will take perhaps
an hour to complete. Buses will run hourly from 6am to midnight, except
during rush hour, when it will run every 30 minutes.
While not exactly convenient, those travellers who can venture it
will pay just $3.25 in fares, a considerable savings from the $21
Airporter bus or $53 taxi fare.
This article appears in Nov 26 – Dec 2, 2009.
I imagined if MT went to the airport that it would be more suited for commuters than travellers. While there are a cluster of hotels downtown, some aren’t anywhere near downtown and the airporter would still be best for that. Also, the inside of the MetroX buses we have now aren’t exactly the most spacious. Considering the sheer number of people who work in that area, I think it’s better that way. If it’s to be traveller oriented, then I hope the new MetroX order takes that into consideration.
Also, driver opinion on the MetroX buses themselves isn’t great from what I hear so hopefully a better design comes from it.
While it’s great that there’s potential airport service on the works, expect to see the Airporter service go bye bye, especially considering that the airport funds the Airporter service. Maybe the city should look at opening up the taxi market a bit and creating a flat fee and dedicated taxi service to/from the airport that could pick up the slack. $40 is about the norm for most cities offering the service. The trade off for the lower cost would be almost guaranteed fares for companies and drivers and It would be a great trade-off to customers who would want quicker service and more comfort.
Dr. Fever – I know it’s an old post but the airport doesn’t fund the Airporter service – it collects a flat rate minimum commission from the operator as a base rate then gets a percentage of any additional revenues over the contract life. If the operator promises $50,000 a year to HIA as the base then he’s on the hook for that even if breakdowns and cost overruns eat into his bottom line.