Please sign in to post.

On the taxi-or-train conundrum to get from an airport in Europe

I see many people, over different threads, confused or even agonizing between an expensive cab fare or the last-mile of a trip from the airport using the train services available there.

It seems simple, but many miss a reasonable compromise: if you are not confident about using public transportation all the way to your hotel/AirBnB/whatever accommodation, but still wary of the costs or reputation of taxi services from the airport, take a train between the airport and the main train station of said city, and then complete the journey by taxi, Uber or other hailing-app car.

For airports located quite far from the city center (Milano Malpensa, for instance), this allows some savings in the costs of using a cab from the airport, while also helping you to complete the last short ride to your accommodation (assuming it is central), instead of having you to walk long distances or negotiate city buses or trams with luggage - if that is an issue for you.

There is no bespoke rule that you cannot "cheat" your way into your accommodation mixing public transportation and hired car rides.

Posted by
8859 posts

Don't forget airport express buses. These are often a great deal and easy to find and board at the airport.

Posted by
6713 posts

Quite right, Andre. Paris is a great example, where the RER can get you quickly and cheaply into the center and a taxi can get you that "last mile" to your hotel. It also works vice versa, allowing plenty of time. The major airports I've used all have good rail service to and from the city, and a short taxi ride within the city costs a lot less than a long one to or from the airport.

Posted by
12313 posts

I think the deciding question is how many are you and what are you carrying?

I'm alone and carrying only a small shoulder bag. It's easy for me to hop on the RER into Paris. I wouldn't waste money on a taxi that has to drive in traffic.

If I had four people with luggage, however, a taxi is not only more convenient but almost the same price per person. Probably a better value. I wouldn't want to be jet lagged on the metro, if I also had to keep track of multiple bags.

Posted by
2349 posts

Andre, I was in Las Vegas this last summer. Did you know that they have a Monorail that does not go to the airport? That's right, their big public transportation project stops a few miles short of the airport. So if you want to use it you'd need to take a taxi to get to it. I could not believe it.

Posted by
16188 posts

The monorail in Las Vegas was never meant to be airport transportation. It was built to help alleviate traffic along "The Strip."

Posted by
11613 posts

Frank II is correct about the monorail in Las Vegas. I have also lived in Miami, where the raised rail didn't go to the airport, either. Who makes these decisions?

Thankfully, I have never seen this problem in Europe.

Posted by
23604 posts

I don't know if that is so unusual. Denver has been in the process of building a light-rail system for the past 15 years. And only last year was the line to the airport completed. The airport was well served with buses so the priority to get the train to the airport was not high. It was a part of the total plan but on the back half of the construction schedule.

Posted by
19261 posts

Frank, I'm sure lobbying by the shuttle companies and taxi companies had a lot to do with the delay getting a train to the airport. The fare from DIA to downtown was around $50, and cab drivers would wait for hours at the airport just to get a fare into town. For $9 (Sr. fare) we (2) went from DIA to Union Station and then to within a short distance of home by light rail.

Posted by
23604 posts

The big delay was obtaining right-of-way next to the existing train tracks/right-of-way because the US DOT changed the rules for using right-of-ways after the Southwest line was constructed. Question of mixing light and heavy rail.

Posted by
19261 posts

And, of course, the train to DIA is made up of much heavier rail cars compared to the light rail cars on the SW line and elsewhere.

Posted by
3642 posts

Just to elaborate on the wackiness of American politics and public transport . . . The extension of the Bay Area metro system, BART, to SFO, is newer than the system as a whole, by decades. Initially, each county had to vote to become part of the system.. The county in which the airport is located opted out. As years passed, and traffic became worse and worse, the extension to the airport gained favor. However, a delay of a few more years resulted from a debate over whether the extension should go into the airport or go near the airport, with the last segment covered by some sort of shuttle. One would think it would have been a no-brainer; however, business interests kept the obvious decision from being made for a long time.

We now enjoy the convenience of taking BART directly to SFO. We live near enough to a station to be able to walk or to get a friend to drop us off. One swipe of our senior discount cards ($2.00/pp?) and we’re on our way , straight into the terminal, vs around $60 for the private shuttles we used to take.

Posted by
6713 posts

Reagan National Airport is very close to downtown Washington, D.C. but for many years the Metro system stopped short of reaching it, supposedly due to taxi-industry lobbying. Now you can easily walk between the terminal and a Metro line that will take you anywhere.

Seattle had no rail connection to the airport until a few years ago -- no rail anywhere really. In recent years a light-rail line has reached SeaTac, a short walk from the terminal, taking about half an hour to get downtown.

American cities are slowly and tenuously evolving their transit systems to reach the speed and efficiency big European cities achieved many decades ago. Some day we may evolve to their advanced state!