Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Airports No Longer Have to Build Their Own Terrible Trains

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: U.S. Airports No Longer Have to Build Their Own Terrible Trains

#71

Post by m4rtink »

throwaheyy wrote: post #69
bobthepanda wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the lessons learned by Japan at Narita was that a flat land parcel big enough for an airport is extremely difficult to assemble, extremely unpopular to assemble, and will probably be located way too far out to be convenient. After all, Haneda is still the busier airport today. So now new airports tend to get built as artificial islands, since you are probably not trampling on anyone’s centuries-long family fa…

There’s still a taxiway at Narita which has a kink in the middle of it that blocks use of the adjacent runway when any plane is travelling on it. The kink is there because of a parcel of private land that the owner refuses to sell. Link: https://goo.gl/maps/G83NUkot4i7JwwWBA

Well, there is that whole farm enveloped by the airport:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7828401,140.3896393,403m/dat...

BBC article/video: https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p08kz96l/the-man-living-at-an...

Re: U.S. Airports No Longer Have to Build Their Own Terrible Trains

#72

Post by labcomputer »

treis wrote: post #24

I'm pretty sure this guy has no idea what he's talking about. Every airport in the US in a city with a subway (or equivalent) has a station at the airport. Off the top of my head ATL, ORD, JFK, SLC, OAK all do. And the point of the plane trains is to move people between different terminals. I have less international airport experience but the only way they don't have them is if they use buses instead.

LAX doesn’t have an airport station (well, there is an Aviation/LAX station on the green line, but it requires a 10 minute bus connection to the terminal).

SJC (San Jose is the biggest city in the Bay Area) has no airport station for either VTA (light rail) or CalTrain (heavy rail). Both pass within a quarter mile of the airport.

SAN has two light rail stations nearby, but not really at the airport.

Re: U.S. Airports No Longer Have to Build Their Own Terrible Trains

#73

Post by em-bee »

jcranmer wrote: post #22
anticensor wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a single-point bottleneck security line (sadly) required at modern airports. Why could you not replicate the security procedure across all lobbies?

There's effectively two main schools of designing multiple-terminal airports. One school is to design each terminal as a separate island in a vast sea of tarmac, so that all of the inter-terminal transportation has to be done post-security. This is the model of, say, ATL or IAD. The other school is to put all of your terminals around a central cluster such that every terminal can have independent pre-security access.…

i have seen airports where the security check is per gate. you don't get spikes on those because only the passengers for that particular flight will be in the queue

Re: U.S. Airports No Longer Have to Build Their Own Terrible Trains

#74

Post by jfengel »

jcranmer wrote: post #11

> This unique type of U.S. transportation has no commonly-recognized name, and I will soon arbitrarily assign a term for them just to make everything easier. They're a kind of tram. I suspect the author is from New York, because the train-to-the-train of which he speaks largely doesn't exist in any other city in the US, and the concept of a two-car light rail-esque system seems astonishingly foreign to him. Especiall…

A couple of points:

* DC's Metro connection to Dulles isn't complete yet. It's slated for Fall 2021 (pushed back due to COVID).

* BWI is accessible via light rail from Baltimore, but not DC. (The WAS metropolitan airport code does include BWI.)

Re: U.S. Airports No Longer Have to Build Their Own Terrible Trains

#75

Post by ADent »

jcranmer wrote: post #11

> This unique type of U.S. transportation has no commonly-recognized name, and I will soon arbitrarily assign a term for them just to make everything easier. They're a kind of tram. I suspect the author is from New York, because the train-to-the-train of which he speaks largely doesn't exist in any other city in the US, and the concept of a two-car light rail-esque system seems astonishingly foreign to him. Especiall…

Denver: Commuter rail right to the single terminal.
Post reply on HN