3 ms·

One advantage of rail is you can put a station in the middle of a metro area, removing travel time to the airport.

jzwinck 10y ago
You can sometimes put an airport in the middle of a metro area as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_City_Airport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_City_Airport London presently needs more runways and one of the serious proposals (now declined) was to build them in the Thames like the above.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Is there any reason Heathrow couldn't be moved out to the suburbs where expansion could take place to allow London to continue to be a worldwide travel hub, but then use high speed rail to connect with London proper?
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Not sure what you're saying. Heathrow is sorta in the suburbs already--about an hour tube ride--but you can get from Heathrow to Paddington in about 15 minutes by Heathrow Express (which may or may not be a good value) with another rail project underway. Certainly Heathrow isn't going to be picked up and moved.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      I must've remembered it being closer to London than it really is, sorry about that!
- stuaxo 10y ago
  London city airport is a tiny airport, it would be terrible if this was a decent size. It's bad enough having Heathrow where it is, with all the planes over London. One good thing about the "Boris" island idea was that planes wouldn't have had to fly over London itself, which would have probably helped noise and pollution.
  - youngtaff 10y ago
    But Boris Island has plenty of downsides too: * more days when it would be fog bound * interfere's with existing flight paths for AMS and BRU * wrong side of London for most people * ship full of high explosive not too far away * higher likelihood of bird strikes as it's in the middle of area that's key for migratory birds If Heathrow was to move somewhere along the M40 corridor is probably the best bet (and attach it to HS2)
- mikeash 10y ago
  For an American example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Washington_National_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Washington_Natio... It currently serves as many passengers each year as the vastly larger Washington Dulles airport. It's quite the anomaly due to being in the capital. Despite many security and noise concerns, it all the Congress-folk love using it to get home, so it enjoys a great deal of political protection. I don't think there's any hope of building new airports anywhere near city centers now. Some that already exist may hang on, but the security and noise concerns would easily NIMBY any new construction, not to mention the absurd expense of buying the land.
k_sh 10y ago
One major problem the HSR faces is the land acquisition to get into central LA... last I read, the plan was to terminate in Bakersfield.
- ghaff 10y ago
  From what I've read, they've decided to focus on Bakersfield to points north first (whereas they were originally focused on the southern part of the route). Presumably the project pretty much has to complete the entire Phase 1 route (at minimum) at some point to avoid being a complete disaster. (There are doubtless benefits to connecting Fresno to SF but they almost certainly don't justify the project.)
djrogers 10y ago
Los Angeles and the Bay Area don't have a single metro area to put one in the middle of - that's why there are 5 airports in SoCal and 3 up north that all have frequent flights between them.
ktRolster 10y ago
The California High Speed Rail will end farther from San Francisco city than the airport currently is.
- mateo411 10y ago
  Maybe. It will first arrive at San Jose's Diridon station, but the longer term plan is for the trains to go to the Transbay Terminal, which is in Downtown San Francisco. However, a lot of things could happen, which would derail these plans.

You can sometimes put an airport in the middle of a metro area as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_City_Airport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_City_Airport London presently needs more runways and one of the serious proposals (now declined) was to build them in the Thames like the above.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Is there any reason Heathrow couldn't be moved out to the suburbs where expansion could take place to allow London to continue to be a worldwide travel hub, but then use high speed rail to connect with London proper?
- ghaff 10y ago
  Not sure what you're saying. Heathrow is sorta in the suburbs already--about an hour tube ride--but you can get from Heathrow to Paddington in about 15 minutes by Heathrow Express (which may or may not be a good value) with another rail project underway. Certainly Heathrow isn't going to be picked up and moved.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    I must've remembered it being closer to London than it really is, sorry about that!
stuaxo 10y ago
London city airport is a tiny airport, it would be terrible if this was a decent size. It's bad enough having Heathrow where it is, with all the planes over London. One good thing about the "Boris" island idea was that planes wouldn't have had to fly over London itself, which would have probably helped noise and pollution.
- youngtaff 10y ago
  But Boris Island has plenty of downsides too: * more days when it would be fog bound * interfere's with existing flight paths for AMS and BRU * wrong side of London for most people * ship full of high explosive not too far away * higher likelihood of bird strikes as it's in the middle of area that's key for migratory birds If Heathrow was to move somewhere along the M40 corridor is probably the best bet (and attach it to HS2)
mikeash 10y ago
For an American example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Washington_National_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Washington_Natio... It currently serves as many passengers each year as the vastly larger Washington Dulles airport. It's quite the anomaly due to being in the capital. Despite many security and noise concerns, it all the Congress-folk love using it to get home, so it enjoys a great deal of political protection. I don't think there's any hope of building new airports anywhere near city centers now. Some that already exist may hang on, but the security and noise concerns would easily NIMBY any new construction, not to mention the absurd expense of buying the land.

k_sh 10y ago

One major problem the HSR faces is the land acquisition to get into central LA... last I read, the plan was to terminate in Bakersfield.

ghaff 10y ago
From what I've read, they've decided to focus on Bakersfield to points north first (whereas they were originally focused on the southern part of the route). Presumably the project pretty much has to complete the entire Phase 1 route (at minimum) at some point to avoid being a complete disaster. (There are doubtless benefits to connecting Fresno to SF but they almost certainly don't justify the project.)

djrogers 10y ago

Los Angeles and the Bay Area don't have a single metro area to put one in the middle of - that's why there are 5 airports in SoCal and 3 up north that all have frequent flights between them.

ktRolster 10y ago

The California High Speed Rail will end farther from San Francisco city than the airport currently is.

mateo411 10y ago
Maybe. It will first arrive at San Jose's Diridon station, but the longer term plan is for the trains to go to the Transbay Terminal, which is in Downtown San Francisco. However, a lot of things could happen, which would derail these plans.