3 ms·
The point of doing it this way is that the secure perimeter would extended all the way to the central station. That's the whole idea. Essentially, this urban hu
by TylerE 3y ago
The point of doing it this way is that the secure perimeter would extended all the way to the central station. That's the whole idea. Essentially, this urban hub is "the airport" in terms of traveling to it. Think of the actual hub -> board gates/runway connections as like a really long people mover, not just extending a subway line and drawing a new dot.
Trains could travel on a totally grade separated route with strict access controls. Having the last mile part of the train journey controlled by the airport instead of some civic transit authority would allow for a much more reliable system, since they would be insulated from disruption to the larger system, and could also make situation specific choices for optimization.
For instance: Compared to standard transit, many people will be bringing carry on luggage... so probably best to scale everything up maybe 25%...physically make the car wider. Wider doors, wider aisles. Luggage racks everywhere... maybe to a standard width but only have two seats on one side, and luggage rack on the other.
- 8organicbits 3y agoHow do you exit? Do you take a train back to city center, or do you have an option to exit near the runways? I wonder if you'd end up with multiple entry points with this model.
- bombcar 3y agoYou likely would. The simplest example would be a high-speed train that connected two airports (either two existing, or an old and new). You could imagine a high-speed subway that connected JFK to EWR that was about 30 minutes or less. Now you don't have to work out how to get to a specific airport, you get to the closest one. For people without luggage, the difference is minor; but if you are checking bags it would be a huge advantage to dump your bags as soon as possible.
- brewdad 3y agoThe trouble with this plan is that downtown land is more expensive than rural land. The land area you need to efficiently build the check-in facilities will be similar whether you put it on site or away from the airport. So you'd spend more for the off-site and then still have to build a people mover that provides zero benefit to anyone not going to and from the airport. It makes far more sense to build the airport far away and add a public rail service to it that can also serve non-airport passengers.
- TylerE 3y agoIn an urban environment you can build UP. Airports avoid structure over 40 or 50ft to avoid interfering with the controllers visibility. Instead of having one giant check in hall you could have one floor per airline, for instance.
- bluGill 3y agoAirports because of noise have plenty of space nobody else wants so building out isn't an issue.
- TylerE 3y agoThe exact issue under discussion is "We can't build airports where people can get to them because of how big loud and annoying they are". I am proposing a mitigation aka problem solving.
- bluGill 3y agoThat isn't a mitigation as making them smaller is not an option. They need to be large becouse of noise.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago> The point of doing it this way is that the secure perimeter would extended all the way to the central station. That's the whole idea. You forgot to describe any benefit of this idea.