6 ms·

> One of the interesting ideas [...] is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. While reading this article, I

> One of the interesting ideas [...] is to run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport in Central Washington and just expand there. While reading this article, I thought about something like that too. Build an airport quite a while away from the big city, and provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. Make it free for customers. Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again.

Dalewyn 3y ago
The aforementioned setup nearly always means the closer airport ends up getting upgraded later to meet convenience demands, leaving the newer-but-inconvenient airport out to dry. See: Haneda (HND) vs. Narita (NRT) in Tokyo, Itami (ITM) vs. Kansai (KIX) in Osaka, etc.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Didn't happen with Denver or Hong Kong.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    Or Paris.
- dwater 3y ago
  In Washington DC, Washington National Airport (WAS) is just across a river from downtown and connected by subway, and Dulles International Airport (IAD) was way out past the exurbs when it was constructed and only just got a subway connection several decades later. IAD gets way more traffic and has as long as I can remember. I'd guess that's because it's not possible to add many more flights to WAS.
  - massysett 3y ago
    This is wrong. Reagan National is DCA, not WAS. Also, DCA handles more passengers than IAD. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/national-airport-passenger-traffic-2022/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/nat...
    - dwater 3y ago
      Sorry, I take the train 10x more than I fly, I mixed up the airport with Union Station.
  - tyoma 3y ago
    Flights to/from WAS are artificially restricted by congress: https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter
  - jaimie 3y ago
    DCA and IAD have their work-load shared due to regulatory action: > The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles (49 U.S. Code § 49109). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport. > Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore. https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-information/dca-reagan-national-slot-perimeter-rules https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-infor...
- sofixa 3y ago
  Not if the old airport gets closed - like Tegel and Tempelhof were in Berlin, even though the new one next to Schonefeld wasn't ready yet due to it being a fiasco of colossal proportions.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Sure, like in the case of Hiroshima Airport (HIJ) and its predecessor (HIW), but even then most people (not necessarily including the politicians) end up longing for the one that was more convenient.
- vel0city 3y ago
  When DFW was built Congress passed the Wright Amendment which kneecapped Dallas Love Field (DAL) to only serve domestic and immediately adjacent state travel. Personally I prefer DAL but I can see how DFW would have potentially withered on the vine if it hadn't been passed. I'm happy its finally expired though and now DAL can offer international flights. Although now that there's a Whataburger at DFW one big argument for me for DAL is a bit less strong. When the Silver Line finally gets built, I imagine almost all my air travel will go to DFW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid...
  - avarun 3y ago
    Jesus. I just read the Wright Amendment article and it’s absolutely disgusting the level of regulatory capture and corporate cronyism enmeshed in our government in this country. There is no reason the federal government should be involving itself in these petty airline disputes, and certainly shouldn’t be helping maintain monopolies for reasons as bad as “American Airlines is the largest employer in North Texas”.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I largely agree with these opinions and dislike the cronyism that is a part of this deal. Looking at it a bit more holistically and seeing the growth of the DFW metroplex from 1980-now though, I think it makes sense for DFW airport to have succeeded. Having the very centralized airport with (theoretically) good rail service to both major cities makes a heck of a lot of sense and have been a good thing for the DFW economy. It would be nearly impossible to build the airport as it is now post that growth, but there's a good chance it wouldn't have survived in the early days given how far out there it was in 1979. So short answer, I hate the cronyism, but many of the positive end goals marketed here ultimately did come true here. And it didn't fully kill DAL or Southwest in the end.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  The issue for Seatac is that it's on a relatively small piece of land and can't really expand. They would definitely just go that route if they could.
lobochrome 3y ago
I live in Tokyo where we have both Narita, far out but well-ish connected by train with NEX and Haneda, with direct access to the city. Haneda is vastly more convenient.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
- rayiner 3y ago
  I fly into Haneda whenever I can, because even though the train is super convenient, for a train, it’s nicer to just throw your bags in a taxi and head straight to your hotel after 13 hours on a plane.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I tend to travel pretty light but trains get inconvenient with any amount of luggage. I'm coming into NY by ship after a longish trip, continuing on home by train at the end of May. I came to the conclusion I should take advantage of a not too expensive luggage shipping service because dealing with the luggage was going to be just too big of a hassle.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      That's a key if you want a "rail to plane" setup - if you do it right (read-nobody will do it) you check in for the train with your baggage and your flight at the same time, and give the bags over to a dedicated baggage car that handles everything for you.
      - _delirium 3y ago
        Hong Kong recently added this, called In-town Check-in [1]. You can check in and drop your bags at the MTR Hong Kong station when taking the Airport Express. Can even drop off the bags up to a day in advance. Currently only open to Cathay Pacific customers though. [1] https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin.html https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin....
kiba 3y ago
Only allow cargo delivery via rail as well. This way this deincentivize road traffic as much as possible.
- Bene592 3y ago
  Allow only short distance deliveries by truck
- bombcar 3y ago
  This guy simcities. Original game you could build rail everywhere instead of roads at all :)
pif 3y ago
> make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means Absolutely not! High-speed train have many advantages, but serving stations with large, long-term parking lots is not one of them. After all, you don't need to disincentivize the approach: you just need to make it clear that the airport is there to stay, and maybe to grow three-fold, and that noise complaints will never be receivable.
- kaashif 3y ago
  > noise complaints will never be receivable. But they are always receivable. Complainers will vote, will take control of local government, will lobby state and national government... "Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.
  - lukan 3y ago
    '"Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.' Oh depends, you can always build some gulags and get rid of those annoying elections. It's crazy how quick you are into dictatorship realm, with some harmles sounding ideas taken one step further.
  - pif 3y ago
    > Complainers will vote, will take control of local government And you won't care, because you have surrendered the zone surrounding the airport to a national authority, whose mandate is clearly linked to the mobility and who is not to report to local council.
newhotelowner 3y ago
I don't think you ever traveled international or your plane got delayed or cancelled. I don't want to carry 4 big bags in the train when I travel international I don't want to travel 30 miles if my plane get cancelled.
- throwway120385 3y ago
  My understanding is that in Japan you can have your luggage portered to your hotel separately.
- dynm 3y ago
  One option would be to have people check in, drop off their luggage, and even go through security in some convenient location in the city center and then take a high-speed train "inside security" to the gate. (Maybe you could even have trains to two different fields.)
  - eitally 3y ago
    That would be fantastic. I'm almost salivating thinking about how appealing that would be in Manhattan (or DC, or even SF).
    - colatkinson 3y ago
      God yeah it's like a hypothetical version of the AirTrain that isn't a huge pain. Last time I flew out of JFK from Manhattan IIRC the easiest way was to do the E or LIRR from Penn to the AirTrain anyway, so might as well streamline the whole shebang.
  - ihaveajob 3y ago
    The Madrid airport offered this service, but it wasn't very popular, nor widely known. You checked in your luggage downtown and hopped on the subway to get to the airport with just your carry-on. I can't find any reference now, so it must have been discontinued.
    - 3y ago
mst 3y ago
-I- would be entirely fine with an airport with those transit restrictions. mdk (Shadowcat's resident responsible adult / business person) however has three kids, and two adults trying to wrangle three children as well as luggage makes trains much, much less attractive as an option. So I think "fantastic to imagine, DOA as an idea in practice" applies, I'm afraid.
- egorfine 3y ago
  Taxi infrastructure is entirely plausible in a project with heavy restriction for private cars. I.e. build all the roads you want but don't make long-term parkings available.
  - mst 3y ago
    Fair point, I was thinking about "cargo traffic only" as in the original though experiment. Coaches with a dedicated luggage section would quite possibly help as well, and it occurs to me that you could have a train with baggage cars ... but having never had to travel with more than one small child I can't say how acceptable those options would be to parents in general.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again. Or go one step further and just put on barriers to block the trains too. Don't let anyone near the airport unless they walk/bike the few miles. That will drive up servicing costs but will dramatically lower congestion. If don't correctly, virtually nobody will ever get to the airport. It can then be closed altogether, thereby eliminating any and all future noise complaints.
- Reubachi 3y ago
  Seeing thought process is interesting. This would face even greater backlash fro locals/local economy. -No way for business around the development to organically grow. - a built in tourism-choke IE; no reason to use the airport save cargo or business -Jobs funneled to and from the city, not the local area. -millions spent by local taxpayers on two high tech infra projects they see little benefit to.
Arrath 3y ago
> run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport Woah, that's a good ways out there
7952 3y ago
That is often the experience already when using a big hub airport. Because by their very nature they draw people in from across a region. And that naturally leeds to congestion and inconvenience. Rail is a help but may not be fast if you don't live close to the right stations. I think hubs are often setup to serve airlines running lots of connecting flight rather than the regional population. They would be happier flying out of a small local airport on a narrowbody and flying direct or connecting elsewhere.
dboreham 3y ago
See: DIA
user_of_the_wek 3y ago
> provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. They wanted to do that in Munich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU

Dalewyn 3y ago

The aforementioned setup nearly always means the closer airport ends up getting upgraded later to meet convenience demands, leaving the newer-but-inconvenient airport out to dry. See: Haneda (HND) vs. Narita (NRT) in Tokyo, Itami (ITM) vs. Kansai (KIX) in Osaka, etc.

ghaff 3y ago
Didn't happen with Denver or Hong Kong.
- masklinn 3y ago
  Or Paris.
dwater 3y ago
In Washington DC, Washington National Airport (WAS) is just across a river from downtown and connected by subway, and Dulles International Airport (IAD) was way out past the exurbs when it was constructed and only just got a subway connection several decades later. IAD gets way more traffic and has as long as I can remember. I'd guess that's because it's not possible to add many more flights to WAS.
- massysett 3y ago
  This is wrong. Reagan National is DCA, not WAS. Also, DCA handles more passengers than IAD. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/national-airport-passenger-traffic-2022/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/nat...
  - dwater 3y ago
    Sorry, I take the train 10x more than I fly, I mixed up the airport with Union Station.
- tyoma 3y ago
  Flights to/from WAS are artificially restricted by congress: https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter https://www.mwaa.com/protecting-dca-perimeter
- jaimie 3y ago
  DCA and IAD have their work-load shared due to regulatory action: > The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles (49 U.S. Code § 49109). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport. > Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore. https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-information/dca-reagan-national-slot-perimeter-rules https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-infor...
sofixa 3y ago
Not if the old airport gets closed - like Tegel and Tempelhof were in Berlin, even though the new one next to Schonefeld wasn't ready yet due to it being a fiasco of colossal proportions.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Sure, like in the case of Hiroshima Airport (HIJ) and its predecessor (HIW), but even then most people (not necessarily including the politicians) end up longing for the one that was more convenient.
vel0city 3y ago
When DFW was built Congress passed the Wright Amendment which kneecapped Dallas Love Field (DAL) to only serve domestic and immediately adjacent state travel. Personally I prefer DAL but I can see how DFW would have potentially withered on the vine if it hadn't been passed. I'm happy its finally expired though and now DAL can offer international flights. Although now that there's a Whataburger at DFW one big argument for me for DAL is a bit less strong. When the Silver Line finally gets built, I imagine almost all my air travel will go to DFW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Dallas_Area_Rapid...
- avarun 3y ago
  Jesus. I just read the Wright Amendment article and it’s absolutely disgusting the level of regulatory capture and corporate cronyism enmeshed in our government in this country. There is no reason the federal government should be involving itself in these petty airline disputes, and certainly shouldn’t be helping maintain monopolies for reasons as bad as “American Airlines is the largest employer in North Texas”.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I largely agree with these opinions and dislike the cronyism that is a part of this deal. Looking at it a bit more holistically and seeing the growth of the DFW metroplex from 1980-now though, I think it makes sense for DFW airport to have succeeded. Having the very centralized airport with (theoretically) good rail service to both major cities makes a heck of a lot of sense and have been a good thing for the DFW economy. It would be nearly impossible to build the airport as it is now post that growth, but there's a good chance it wouldn't have survived in the early days given how far out there it was in 1979. So short answer, I hate the cronyism, but many of the positive end goals marketed here ultimately did come true here. And it didn't fully kill DAL or Southwest in the end.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
The issue for Seatac is that it's on a relatively small piece of land and can't really expand. They would definitely just go that route if they could.

lobochrome 3y ago

I live in Tokyo where we have both Narita, far out but well-ish connected by train with NEX and Haneda, with direct access to the city. Haneda is vastly more convenient.

AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]
rayiner 3y ago
I fly into Haneda whenever I can, because even though the train is super convenient, for a train, it’s nicer to just throw your bags in a taxi and head straight to your hotel after 13 hours on a plane.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I tend to travel pretty light but trains get inconvenient with any amount of luggage. I'm coming into NY by ship after a longish trip, continuing on home by train at the end of May. I came to the conclusion I should take advantage of a not too expensive luggage shipping service because dealing with the luggage was going to be just too big of a hassle.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    That's a key if you want a "rail to plane" setup - if you do it right (read-nobody will do it) you check in for the train with your baggage and your flight at the same time, and give the bags over to a dedicated baggage car that handles everything for you.
    - _delirium 3y ago
      Hong Kong recently added this, called In-town Check-in [1]. You can check in and drop your bags at the MTR Hong Kong station when taking the Airport Express. Can even drop off the bags up to a day in advance. Currently only open to Cathay Pacific customers though. [1] https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin.html https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin....

kiba 3y ago

Only allow cargo delivery via rail as well. This way this deincentivize road traffic as much as possible.

Bene592 3y ago
Allow only short distance deliveries by truck
bombcar 3y ago
This guy simcities. Original game you could build rail everywhere instead of roads at all :)

pif 3y ago

> make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means Absolutely not! High-speed train have many advantages, but serving stations with large, long-term parking lots is not one of them. After all, you don't need to disincentivize the approach: you just need to make it clear that the airport is there to stay, and maybe to grow three-fold, and that noise complaints will never be receivable.

kaashif 3y ago
> noise complaints will never be receivable. But they are always receivable. Complainers will vote, will take control of local government, will lobby state and national government... "Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.
- lukan 3y ago
  '"Complaints aren't receivable" policies never last.' Oh depends, you can always build some gulags and get rid of those annoying elections. It's crazy how quick you are into dictatorship realm, with some harmles sounding ideas taken one step further.
- pif 3y ago
  > Complainers will vote, will take control of local government And you won't care, because you have surrendered the zone surrounding the airport to a national authority, whose mandate is clearly linked to the mobility and who is not to report to local council.

newhotelowner 3y ago

I don't think you ever traveled international or your plane got delayed or cancelled. I don't want to carry 4 big bags in the train when I travel international I don't want to travel 30 miles if my plane get cancelled.

throwway120385 3y ago
My understanding is that in Japan you can have your luggage portered to your hotel separately.
dynm 3y ago
One option would be to have people check in, drop off their luggage, and even go through security in some convenient location in the city center and then take a high-speed train "inside security" to the gate. (Maybe you could even have trains to two different fields.)
- eitally 3y ago
  That would be fantastic. I'm almost salivating thinking about how appealing that would be in Manhattan (or DC, or even SF).
  - colatkinson 3y ago
    God yeah it's like a hypothetical version of the AirTrain that isn't a huge pain. Last time I flew out of JFK from Manhattan IIRC the easiest way was to do the E or LIRR from Penn to the AirTrain anyway, so might as well streamline the whole shebang.
- ihaveajob 3y ago
  The Madrid airport offered this service, but it wasn't very popular, nor widely known. You checked in your luggage downtown and hopped on the subway to get to the airport with just your carry-on. I can't find any reference now, so it must have been discontinued.
  - 3y ago

mst 3y ago

-I- would be entirely fine with an airport with those transit restrictions. mdk (Shadowcat's resident responsible adult / business person) however has three kids, and two adults trying to wrangle three children as well as luggage makes trains much, much less attractive as an option. So I think "fantastic to imagine, DOA as an idea in practice" applies, I'm afraid.

egorfine 3y ago
Taxi infrastructure is entirely plausible in a project with heavy restriction for private cars. I.e. build all the roads you want but don't make long-term parkings available.
- mst 3y ago
  Fair point, I was thinking about "cargo traffic only" as in the original though experiment. Coaches with a dedicated luggage section would quite possibly help as well, and it occurs to me that you could have a train with baggage cars ... but having never had to travel with more than one small child I can't say how acceptable those options would be to parents in general.

sandworm101 3y ago

>> Also, make it very inconvenient for passengers and staff to approach the airport by other means, only allow cargo delivery there through the road network. This disincentives people from e.g. building hotels close to the airport, which would then attract further settlement, which would ultimately lead to noise complaints again. Or go one step further and just put on barriers to block the trains too. Don't let anyone near the airport unless they walk/bike the few miles. That will drive up servicing costs but will dramatically lower congestion. If don't correctly, virtually nobody will ever get to the airport. It can then be closed altogether, thereby eliminating any and all future noise complaints.

Reubachi 3y ago
Seeing thought process is interesting. This would face even greater backlash fro locals/local economy. -No way for business around the development to organically grow. - a built in tourism-choke IE; no reason to use the airport save cargo or business -Jobs funneled to and from the city, not the local area. -millions spent by local taxpayers on two high tech infra projects they see little benefit to.

Arrath 3y ago

> run high-speed rail to Moses Lake Airport Woah, that's a good ways out there

7952 3y ago

That is often the experience already when using a big hub airport. Because by their very nature they draw people in from across a region. And that naturally leeds to congestion and inconvenience. Rail is a help but may not be fast if you don't live close to the right stations. I think hubs are often setup to serve airlines running lots of connecting flight rather than the regional population. They would be happier flying out of a small local airport on a narrowbody and flying direct or connecting elsewhere.

dboreham 3y ago

See: DIA

user_of_the_wek 3y ago

> provide a high-speed, maybe even maglev train there. They wanted to do that in Munich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TboWvVERU