I've noticed that some of the zaniest, most mind-bogglingly complex roadway systems out there are the ones that serves airports and their terminals. Double-decker roadways are the norm here, as are huge twisted heaps of concrete spaghetti, and very often there's a light rail or people-mover system blended in with it.
I'll start us off with JFK Airport (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/40.6450/-73.7851) in New York. What are some more interesting examples?
Toronto comes to mind at Pearson Airport, as 401 and 427 intersect as part of the airport interchanges. The famous 18 lane section of 401 lies due south of the airport, there's a mess of stuff to get between the highways and various airport facilities, and even a short numbered highway (409) that exists solely to complete movements between 401, 427, and the airport. While it looks like a big tangle, many of the ramps do happen to be braided. https://goo.gl/maps/PLOQV
DFW Airport's roads are... interesting. I like the general layout, but man it's easy to get lost in the system if you aren't paying attention. Also, lots of left exits and odd engineering choices. Once they finish TRIP, the terminal renovations (which is enough construction as is) they should redesign and resurface the roadways, especially the ones connecting Spur 97/International Parkway (the main freeway through the airport) to the terminals. Those can get confusing. I will say that in my opinion International Parkway is one of the best drives in Dallas/Fort Worth though (the metro not the airport :)), the only thing is, tolls.
Quote from: empirestate on August 04, 2014, 07:07:23 PM
I've noticed that some of the zaniest, most mind-bogglingly complex roadway systems out there are the ones that serves airports and their terminals. Double-decker roadways are the norm here, as are huge twisted heaps of concrete spaghetti, and very often there's a light rail or people-mover system blended in with it.
I'll start us off with JFK Airport (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/40.6450/-73.7851) in New York. What are some more interesting examples?
Logan Airport in Boston, which has separate roadways for departures and arrivals. Not completely double decker any more, but exiting from either level can get very interesting depending upon which airport exit (Boston via Williams Tunnel, Boston via Sumner Tunnel, or MA 1A north to North Shore points) you need to take. And, during the Big Dig construction and the Massport terminal reconstruction projects - which were done at the same time - the traffic patterns would be completely different every time I would go there to pick up relatives.
As a major hub, I can't believe how crazy simple Charlotte/Douglas is
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F08%2F05%2Fupaty4u9.jpg&hash=49658893f320ccfd3c2ad42c5b98dad8e88bcb61)
Newark Airport is complex thanks to the mind-boggling amounts of ramps that lead to and from the New Jersey Turnpike and the highways around it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgEQtszJ.jpg&hash=6e4d5c6a149863d013af2197e008ec923a8499ef)
Philly's kinda crazy too.
O'Hare's got its own Interstate. LAX has a road that branches into parking garages (which is essentially the terminal ;) ), SFO has a direct interchange as does Philly (as Froggie pointed out). Dulles has a toll road to guard its access,
The bigger airports double-deck their ramps to separate departure traffic from arrival traffic to keep flow going in both directions, while smaller airports just put the flows side-by-side.
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 04, 2014, 09:57:29 PM
Dulles has a toll road to guard its access,
Dulles has a
free road for airport patrons only (from the east side of the airport), as well as a toll road (Va. 267) and a "free" expressway (Va. 28) that runs N-S on the east edge of the airport property.
National Airport (DCA) in Arlington County, Va. is on a tiny sliver of land and has a pretty messy landside road network.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=arlington+va&ll=38.852826,-77.04345&spn=0.010494,0.017638&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=np&hnear=Arlington+County,+Virginia&gl=us&t=h&z=16 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=arlington+va&ll=38.852826,-77.04345&spn=0.010494,0.017638&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=np&hnear=Arlington+County,+Virginia&gl=us&t=h&z=16)
In California, airport road systems seem shockingly simple:
- SFO basically has a short freeway spur to the terminals, that connects via "dual freeway" setup to I-380 and US 101.
- San Diego's Lindbergh Field once had direct freeway access via US 101 (now Pacific Highway), but in the 1970s, the terminal was moved to the south side of the property along Harbor Drive. At-grade the whole way
- LAX has the most interesting setup on the property (the dual level World Way)...yet while there is a way to access the airport in a limited-access fashion (105 west to 1 north to World Way) through ramps, much of the traffic takes stoplight-laden Century Boulevard.
- Other than an interchange between 98th Avenue and Doolittle Drive/Route 61, the roadways to Oakland International Airport are ALL surface roads.
- Sacramento's airport road begins with a conventional at-grade interchange with I-5, then continues north through one interchange before splitting into an inner and outer loop with several ramps. Surprisingly this is higher on the complexity list than some of the above examples.
- San Jose's airport has Skyport Drive connect to Route 87/Guadalupe Parkway via SPUI on east end, and to a narrow airport loop road on the west end.
Quote from: 6a on August 04, 2014, 08:53:14 PM
As a major hub, I can't believe how crazy simple Charlotte/Douglas is
I'm thinking the same about Atlanta (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/33.6407/-84.4466).
The new Indy (IND) airport terminal has a very simple layout.
Quote from: -NCX75- on August 04, 2014, 08:05:23 PM
DFW Airport's roads are... interesting. I like the general layout, but man it's easy to get lost in the system if you aren't paying attention. Also, lots of left exits and odd engineering choices. Once they finish TRIP, the terminal renovations (which is enough construction as is) they should redesign and resurface the roadways, especially the ones connecting Spur 97/International Parkway (the main freeway through the airport) to the terminals. Those can get confusing. I will say that in my opinion International Parkway is one of the best drives in Dallas/Fort Worth though (the metro not the airport :)), the only thing is, tolls.
The first thing that shocked/surprised me when I was at DFW is that one has to pay a toll just to get into the airport to pick somebody up/drop someone off w/out parking.
Quote from: roadman on August 04, 2014, 08:20:36 PMLogan Airport in Boston, which has separate roadways for departures and arrivals. Not completely double decker any more, but exiting from either level can get very interesting depending upon which airport exit (Boston via Williams Tunnel, Boston via Sumner Tunnel, or MA 1A north to North Shore points) you need to take. And, during the Big Dig construction and the Massport terminal reconstruction projects - which were done at the same time - the traffic patterns would be completely different every time I would go there to pick up relatives.
Prior to the Big Dig and when the previous Terminal A (where the old Eastern Airlines was) was still there; my mother liked the simple/easy access to that terminal & Terminal E (the international terminal) because no matter what ramp one took, it would ultimately lead one to the same spot. She hates the double-decker ramps for Terminals B & C; despite my explaining to her that the lower level was for arrivals and the upper level was for departures (SOP in double-decker airport/terminal ramp design, and I knew before I would eventually be working on airport projects).
Today,
forgetaboutit; she will very rarely go near that airport; which is ironic because she worked as a stewardess for American Airlines back in the late 50s/early 60s w/Logan (BOS) being her home base. There were a couple times I flew in (got a good airfare deal and it was for a short visit) and she would rather have me take the T's Blue Line to the Wonderland station and pick me up there.
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2014, 09:51:58 PM
Philly's kinda crazy too.
Care to elaborate? I've lived in the Delaware Valley for 24 years w/PHL as my home airport and used it many times over that period.
While the
traffic within the airport itself can be crazy (I will give you that); the roadway system is fairly straight forward. It's essentially a parallel dual-road system that has the departures' roadway closest to the airfield and the arrivals' roadway further from the airfield and on the opposite side of the parking garages.
Midway's is merely a set of long ramps leading to/from Cicero Avenue.
Huntsville, AL has a simple one:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=huntsville+international+airport&ll=34.655204,-86.765385&spn=0.028135,0.066047&t=h&z=15
A few of the municipal airports in the surrounding areas have even simpler ones.
Quote from: empirestate on August 05, 2014, 09:25:43 AM
Quote from: 6a on August 04, 2014, 08:53:14 PM
As a major hub, I can't believe how crazy simple Charlotte/Douglas is
I'm thinking the same about Atlanta (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/33.6407/-84.4466).
These are major hubs for connecting air passengers, with few (well, relatively speaking compared to the total amount of people served by the airport) origin-destination passengers. Both are also "fortress hubs", which further discourages origin-destination air travelers with high prices and a near monopoly on direct flights going to one airline.
ATL is more complex than it used to be, with different landsides for domestic vs. international passengers, though everything connects to the same airside network with the long shuttle train connecting domestic to international and all the satellite terminals in between.
Vancouver (YVR), Seattle (SEA) and Portland (PDX) are all incredibly simple. All use a double-deck system but the roads leading to them are fairly simple expressways.
Seattle is probably the most complex of the three, because the turn-around spot is rather far away and not very obvious, and many of the ramp splits are not marked with exit-only dotted lines.
Vancouver is probably number two because it doesn't have a freeway leading to it (just city streets).
Portland is the least complex of the three, because it's basically a big roundabout.
Montreal-Trudeau (YUL) lies between Auts. 13, 20, 40 and 520. While the 20-520 and 13-520 interchanges seem simple, they are actually a little confusing for motorists, and the whole area around 520 is fairly confusing to navigate.
Montreal-Mirabel (YMX), on the other hand, is a bit in retreat of the A-15/A-50 interchange, with only one access road from A-50. A-13 was supposed to reach it but was cancelled. YMX was supposed to replace the much smaller YUL as Montreal's main international airport, but it was deemed a failure (or sabotaged, depending on whom you ask).
Ottawa-Macdonald-Cartier (YOW) has a fairly simple road layout with Airport Pkwy coming from Bronson and feeding the loop.
Quote from: mtantillo on August 05, 2014, 07:09:53 PM
ATL is more complex than it used to be, with different landsides for domestic vs. international passengers, though everything connects to the same airside network with the long shuttle train connecting domestic to international and all the satellite terminals in between.
ATL's domestic terminal road network is also being rebuilt to add separate arriving and departing levels, much like at the new international terminal. I'm not sure what the road network plan is for the oft-discussed south terminal, to be built with the next parallel E-W runway (at which point Delta will basically take over the existing domestic terminal completely) NE of east end of the I-85/I-285 confluence, although presumably there would be some improved access to/from I-285 as part of it.
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on August 05, 2014, 07:54:46 PM
Montreal-Trudeau (YUL) lies between Auts. 13, 20, 40 and 520. While the 20-520 and 13-520 interchanges seem simple, they are actually a little confusing for motorists, and the whole area around 520 is fairly confusing to navigate.
To elaborate, 20-520 currently is (and even in the future probably will remain) an example of the popular British abortion known as the "signalized roundabout," with the direct ramps from Trudeau to A-20 held up in legal wrangling between the railroads and the Quebec transportation ministry. Once you get on property the layout is actually reasonably sensible, though, and not dissimilar from the new layout in Memphis.
Speaking of Memphis, it's generally pretty decent except for (a) the mess where Memphis decided to tie the airport freeway into I-240 on the cheap and (b) the terrible signage on the route itself. For example, there's absolutely no indication what one of the two southbound exits actually goes to (the short, barely-signed connector to SB Airways Blvd and WB Winchester); you're just supposed to know.
Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) has two different terminals, and those are accessed by two totally different roadways. The main terminal is accessed off MN-5, and has the main airport parking ramps as well as the rental car facilities. The other, once used for the charter terminal and international arrivals, is accessed off I-494 at 34th Avenue and has some parking as well. To go from one to another as a passenger, one can use the light rail that goes under the airport with stations at both terminals. (At one time there was a bus; maybe it's still in use). You can't drive between them without exiting the airport and re-entering at the other entrance road.
The main airport in Columbus, Ohio was somewhat simple until pretty recently, being connected to I-670 and every parking lot by an at-grade divided highway. Within the past 5 or so years, the access road was reconstructed into a semi-limited-access expressway that provides access to all intersecting local roads, parking lots, and businesses on airport property. At the west (I-670) end, a tangle of braided ramps provides access between the access road, I-670, Stelzer Road, and Cassady Avenue. On airport property, there's a slew of access roads and the WB side was shifted ~800 feet to the north for a short distance, creating a sharp S curve just west of the terminal. Not as crazy as JFK, O'Hare, Pearson, or Newark, but a bit stranger than the typical airport. https://goo.gl/maps/ocoq6
Quote from: PHLBOSCare to elaborate? I've lived in the Delaware Valley for 24 years w/PHL as my home airport and used it many times over that period.
Always seemed to me like a bit of a jumble, especially when PA 291 used to thread through as well. Regarding the airport itself, PHL and CLT are the two airports where I've seen my longest taxiway wait times (upwards of an hour), even in good weather.
Your guys don't know Gibraltar. The only way out of that rock is... crossing the airport runway.
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2014, 07:18:30 PMPearson
Damnit.
Ah, Gibraltar...the occasional runway which serves as both a sidewalk and thoroughfare. I don't think you can find an airport which puts you any closer to heart of the city than that!
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 06, 2014, 08:24:44 AM
Your guys don't know Gibraltar. The only way out of that rock is... crossing the airport runway.
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2014, 07:18:30 PMPearson
Damnit.
Oh, yes. The famous highway-runway grade crossing. Might be the strangest thing out there.
They are building a tunnel underneath the runway - a dual carriageway and a separate foot (and cycle?) tunnel.
What's really strange is why (despite not really de facto recognising the border's existence - even if de jure they have to) the Spanish love to generate huge queues at the border with draconian checks. Sure, Gibraltar isn't in Schengen, but most of those crossing the border are Spanish nationals commuting across. But Gibraltar is in the EU, so free movement of people is a fundamental law and really they can't justify more than a passport check, but queues can be hours long. The British guys mostly just wave you through (unless you are a Spanish boat performing an illegal survey of British waters).
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2014, 08:09:46 AMAlways seemed to me like a bit of a jumble, especially when PA 291 used to thread through as well.
All PA 291 did prior to its relocation (to make way for an extended Runway 17-35 at the eastern end of the airport) was run parallel to the arrivals/departures roadways; it acted as a through-traffic highway with access ramps to the airport located at the western end (the ramp from now-former-291 West is a jughandle).
Prior to I-95 fully opening in 1985;
this was the only route to PHL. Way back when (1960s), there used to be a circle roadway that serviced the terminals. Originally, I-695/Cobbs Creek Expressway was supposed to interchange w/I-95, PA 291 & the airport roadway system. One can still see traces of ghost ramps and corridors (for 695) at the current I-95/PA 291/Airport interchange.
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2014, 08:09:46 AMRegarding the airport itself, PHL and CLT are the two airports where I've seen my longest taxiway wait times (upwards of an hour), even in good weather.
That's got more to do with those two airports being hubs for US Airways (now American), the layout of the airfield and the congested airspace (between NYC & DC in particular) than the roadway systems themselves; note: the latter two points are more acute/applicable to PHL.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2014, 06:11:10 PM
Prior to I-95 fully opening in 1985; this was the only route to PHL. Way back when (1960s), there used to be a circle roadway that serviced the terminals. Originally, I-695/Cobbs Creek Expressway was supposed to interchange w/I-95, PA 291 & the airport roadway system. One can still see traces of ghost ramps and corridors (for 695) at the current I-95/PA 291/Airport interchange.
Just curious about what ghost ramps remain of the planned 695 interchange. I remember when 95 had the gap by the airport, when the Girard Point Bridge abruptly dumped you off on Enterprise Avenue by the old overseas terminal with 95 starting up again just south of the airport. The area where I would think 695 would have tied in would be in a relatively new (late 80s?) section of 95 where the airport access ramps are. The only thing that stands out are the ramps to and from Bartram Ave. which look like they would have been aiming right for what appears to be the old 695 right-of-way, but I would think they were part of the 1980s construction.
I noticed that Philly's Airport does not have its Departures and Arrival drop offs on top of each other. The Arrival Roadway is beneath the parking structure with the bag claim building between the two roads.
Also I tried peeking on GSV of the new arrivals roadway and drop off at Newark Liberty and the images are literally blacked out. I am guessing that the PANYNJ is afraid that the Taliban is going to use it to blow up the terminal or something that its forbidden to look at just like the Verazzano Bridge is not shown at street view because of the politics at the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority or whatever agency runs it now.
Old PA 291 lives on at the airport as the cell phone lot. After you cross thru a small opening to access the former 291 East roadway, you drive westward and the parking spots are angled/parallel on the roadway. Unlike all the things people don't like about the airport, this lot was perfectly designed: Well signed, easy to get to, and easy to access the airport when you get the call.
As critical inter-modal facilities, I am of the opinion that access highways for major airports should be developed as full access control facilities, connect directly to established freeways and given interstate spurs whenever possible.
Just as an example, someone brought up Charlotte-Douglas earlier; that access road should go straight to I-85 instead of the current situation of surface arterials and service interchanges that lay between the terminal and the city's freeway system.
And speaking of Charlotte, what's up with that railroad spur between the western and middle runways? That looks like some sort of inter-modal freight terminal. Wow. Truck, train and plane can all converge on this one spot. Impressive. Well done, Charlotte.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
And speaking of Charlotte, what's up with that railroad spur between the western and middle runways? That looks like some sort of inter-modal freight terminal. Wow. Truck, train and plane can all converge on this one spot. Impressive. Well done, Charlotte.
Is that new? (Or old?) I'm not seeing where it is.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 06, 2014, 08:33:30 PMJust curious about what ghost ramps remain of the planned 695 interchange.
Stub at Access Ramp to I-95 from Airport Arrivals & Departures Roadway (http://goo.gl/maps/f3kWM)
Ghost Corridor (to the right of I-95 South) for I-695 branch-off (http://goo.gl/maps/LJVYG)
Side bar: Much of the space/corridor used for the Airport Exit Ramp (Exit 12) from I-95 North was originally planned for the I-695 Exit ramp.
Prior to 2000/2001 when the ramp to the Departures Roadway was reconfigured (to accomodate Terminal A-West), there were a few more traces of I-695 ghost ramps/corridors but such were obliterated during that construction.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 06, 2014, 08:33:30 PMI remember when 95 had the gap by the airport, when the Girard Point Bridge abruptly dumped you off on Enterprise Avenue by the old overseas terminal with 95 starting up again just south of the airport. The area where I would think 695 would have tied in would be in a relatively new (late 80s?) section of 95 where the airport access ramps are.
Correct, that interchange was designed (in the 70s) with the I-695 connection in mind and built (in the 80s) with small stubs & spaces for a possible future connection.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 06, 2014, 08:33:30 PM
The only thing that stands out are the ramps to and from Bartram Ave. which look like they would have been aiming right for what appears to be the old 695 right-of-way, but I would think they were part of the 1980s construction.
The entire I-95 corridor from Exit 10 (northbound) to Enterprise Ave. was constructed in the 1980s and opened in 1985. At the latter interchange, one can see the transition from all-concrete barrier (newer) to twin-rail/concrete barrier (older) along the sides.
One old plan originally called for the Bartram Ave. interchange to be a full-diamond interchange. One empty overhead gantry along I-95 North (http://goo.gl/maps/w25i4) in the area gives hint of a possible exit sign for such (note the light brackets at the bottom of the gantry).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 05, 2014, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: -NCX75- on August 04, 2014, 08:05:23 PM
DFW Airport's roads are... interesting. I like the general layout, but man it's easy to get lost in the system if you aren't paying attention. Also, lots of left exits and odd engineering choices. Once they finish TRIP, the terminal renovations (which is enough construction as is) they should redesign and resurface the roadways, especially the ones connecting Spur 97/International Parkway (the main freeway through the airport) to the terminals. Those can get confusing. I will say that in my opinion International Parkway is one of the best drives in Dallas/Fort Worth though (the metro not the airport :)), the only thing is, tolls.
The first thing that shocked/surprised me when I was at DFW is that one has to pay a toll just to get into the airport to pick somebody up/drop someone off w/out parking.
O'Hare can be similar to that. If you use Mannheim, River Road, or go in/out via the Kennedy, it's free. If you do as most people do, you pay a toll to the ISTHA for using the Northwest or Tri-State Tollways. Should the west access ever be completed, you'll have the Elgin-O'Hare Tollway and O'Hare Bypass on the west side as toll as well.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 07, 2014, 09:27:57 AM
Stub at Access Ramp to I-95 from Airport Arrivals & Departures Roadway (http://goo.gl/maps/f3kWM)
I noticed this one, but I wasn't sure what that would have served with respect to 695. It almost seemed as if this was meant for a tighter radius for the ramp to merge into 95 SB with the right side of the ramp maybe to allow a loop back to the airport entrance ramps from 95 NB.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 06, 2014, 10:04:06 PM
Old PA 291 lives on at the airport as the cell phone lot. After you cross thru a small opening to access the former 291 East roadway, you drive westward and the parking spots are angled/parallel on the roadway. Unlike all the things people don't like about the airport, this lot was perfectly designed: Well signed, easy to get to, and easy to access the airport when you get the call.
Great idea with the cell phone lot on their part. Looks like from aerial, however, that you're forced to recirculate, rather than have another exit on the right to the old 291 southbound for when you get the call that the plane accidentally overshot PHL and landed in Omaha, and you have a lot longer wait....
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 07, 2014, 01:22:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 07, 2014, 09:27:57 AM
Stub at Access Ramp to I-95 from Airport Arrivals & Departures Roadway (http://goo.gl/maps/f3kWM)
I noticed this one, but I wasn't sure what that would have served with respect to 695. It almost seemed as if this was meant for a tighter radius for the ramp to merge into 95 SB with the right side of the ramp maybe to allow a loop back to the airport entrance ramps from 95 NB.
I used to have an old 70s overhead transparanecy that showed the interchange with all the I-695 ramps in it. I made a paper copy of such and have it buried somewhere. IIRC (going by memory here) that the would-be ramp from that stub would've went straight for a bit and then eventually swung right (to the north).
I miss the old configuration of Sea-Tac Airport. You used to be able to drive in circles for hours to kill time. Then they had to be stupid where they placed the light rail station, and destroy the loop.
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 07, 2014, 07:01:32 PM
I miss the old configuration of Sea-Tac Airport. You used to be able to drive in circles for hours to kill time. Then they had to be stupid where they placed the light rail station, and destroy the loop.
I could not possibly agree more. I understand the reason for the change, but the current u-turn location is ridiculous . . . they probably could have found a better location than Tukwila for a turnaround.
Also, for people coming from the south, the current access from International Blvd is very annoying. The left turn phase near the Raddison is not long enough.
Then there's New York's LaGuardia Airport (LGA), specifically the "main" terminal (B). Lots of sharp, tight curves, complete with a parking garage in the middle. This is because the airport practically abuts the Grand Central Parkway, so there's not a lot of room to build out. Two newer terminals, C and D, have simpler road layouts. There's a ghost ramp in front of C that will presumably connect to the new road network when Terminal B is completely reconstructed, as is currently in the planning stages. All three terminals have arrival and departure roadways on 2 levels. There's also a Terminal A -- the Marine Air Terminal, which just uses local roads and has a separate exit off the GCP. They used to host those seaplane flights, and I think it's now a national historical site.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 07, 2014, 01:22:15 PM
Great idea with the cell phone lot on their part. Looks like from aerial, however, that you're forced to recirculate, rather than have another exit on the right to the old 291 southbound for when you get the call that the plane accidentally overshot PHL and landed in Omaha, and you have a lot longer wait....
Personally, that's a good thing that there's only one exit. Fewer ways to get confused about where to go. Since the exits for the highways are directly after the arrival pick up area, it's actually very convenient just to go thru the arrival area then pick up the ramp for the road you need.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 06, 2014, 08:24:44 AM
Your guys don't know Gibraltar. The only way out of that rock is... crossing the airport runway.
In Midway Lake in Canada's Northwest Territories, part of the Dempster Highway (NT 8)
is the town airport's runway. About a half-mile of the highway was specially widened and straightened for runway use. The only obvious provision to minimize conflicts between road and air traffic is signs at both ends telling motorists not to stop on the runway. I guess pilots, operating under visual flight rules (no control tower there), are warned to watch for cars and trucks passing through.
You can drive out of Midway Lake south toward the Yukon without driving on its airport's runway, but the Yukon's part of the Dempster (YT 5) also has a few runways sharing the roadway.
Fortunately, not a lot of air traffic using those runways, and the through-traffic ADT of the Dempster is pretty low too (at least in the Yukon, breaks 100 on a good day, IIRC).
YHZ — Halifax International
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-kXw52CIlfqY/UAHrzG_4dwI/AAAAAAAAIxg/oeJ7hnEqlxc/s800/IMG_0775.JPG)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0eroCdp6q6A/UAHr1YV69LI/AAAAAAAAIxo/6ZGkmQQ4EkM/s800/IMG_0781.JPG)
An new access road project has just started......
http://hiaa.ca/airport-authority/airport-improvement/roadway-improvement-project/
Quote from: empirestate on August 07, 2014, 09:07:46 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
And speaking of Charlotte, what's up with that railroad spur between the western and middle runways? That looks like some sort of inter-modal freight terminal. Wow. Truck, train and plane can all converge on this one spot. Impressive. Well done, Charlotte.
Is that new? (Or old?) I'm not seeing where it is.
Down here by West Blvd & I-485.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=35.19975,-80.96192&z=15&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=35.19975,-80.96192&z=15&t=S)
Quote from: Brandon on August 07, 2014, 10:51:59 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 05, 2014, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: -NCX75- on August 04, 2014, 08:05:23 PM
DFW Airport's roads are... interesting. I like the general layout, but man it's easy to get lost in the system if you aren't paying attention. Also, lots of left exits and odd engineering choices. Once they finish TRIP, the terminal renovations (which is enough construction as is) they should redesign and resurface the roadways, especially the ones connecting Spur 97/International Parkway (the main freeway through the airport) to the terminals. Those can get confusing. I will say that in my opinion International Parkway is one of the best drives in Dallas/Fort Worth though (the metro not the airport :)), the only thing is, tolls.
The first thing that shocked/surprised me when I was at DFW is that one has to pay a toll just to get into the airport to pick somebody up/drop someone off w/out parking.
O'Hare can be similar to that. If you use Mannheim, River Road, or go in/out via the Kennedy, it's free. If you do as most people do, you pay a toll to the ISTHA for using the Northwest or Tri-State Tollways. Should the west access ever be completed, you'll have the Elgin-O'Hare Tollway and O'Hare Bypass on the west side as toll as well.
At least a few years ago the toll from one of the turnpikes (don't remember which one) at the O'Hare exit was something like 80 cents, was unattended, and took coins/exact change only. That's fine for a local exit frequented by mostly local traffic but it seemed incredibly hostile to do that at the entrance to the biggest airport at one of our country's biggest cities where there are a very large number of out-of-town drivers like myself. How the hell was I supposed to know I needed exactly 80 cents in coins to get to the airport? I'm hoping they fixed that by now. They should either go all electronic like most of the country or at least add a cash/credit machine to one of the lanes instead of the coin basket.
they where manned and they took that out after I-pass was in place for a few years.
Quote from: cl94 on August 05, 2014, 11:24:55 PM
The main airport in Columbus, Ohio was somewhat simple until pretty recently, being connected to I-670 and every parking lot by an at-grade divided highway. Within the past 5 or so years, the access road was reconstructed into a semi-limited-access expressway that provides access to all intersecting local roads, parking lots, and businesses on airport property.
IIRC that was finished November 2011.
I remembered wrong. A map I drew of the project for my mom states "Completion: 2009".
San Diego's airport is pretty simple. Basically just two loops going back to Harbor Blvd with large lots in the center of each.
http://tinyurl.com/nyeatfe
Orange County John Wayne Airport is fairly simple as well, basically a turn off MacArthur Blvd. But there is the nice connector from the 55 right to the terminal. :D
As for complicated, I'd say (based on an earlier post) Newark looks insane. Glad I've never had to rent a car there and drive that area!
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 12, 2014, 05:44:12 PM
As for complicated, I'd say (based on an earlier post) Newark looks insane. Glad I've never had to rent a car there and drive that area!
EWR is a beguilwildering one to return a car at, but I figured it out on the third try.
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2014, 12:21:12 PM
Midway's is merely a set of long ramps leading to/from Cicero Avenue.
Midway > O'Hare
So much faster, easier to access, less headaches.
QuoteMidway > O'Hare
So much faster, easier to access, less headaches.
Agreed! Any time I need to go to Chicago, I usually try to find a flight into Midway.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 26, 2014, 11:47:27 AM
QuoteMidway > O'Hare
So much faster, easier to access, less headaches.
Agreed! Any time I need to go to Chicago, I usually try to find a flight into Midway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F53%2FSouthwest_Airlines_Flight_1248_-1.jpg&hash=d6bcb3e8761fd8dac3557fdad19612e14abdd664)
If you're offended by me posting this, well, sorry.
Quote from: jake on August 26, 2014, 01:12:51 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 26, 2014, 11:47:27 AM
QuoteMidway > O'Hare
So much faster, easier to access, less headaches.
Agreed! Any time I need to go to Chicago, I usually try to find a flight into Midway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F53%2FSouthwest_Airlines_Flight_1248_-1.jpg&hash=d6bcb3e8761fd8dac3557fdad19612e14abdd664)
If you're offended by me posting this, well, sorry.
I remember flying out of Midway, and while we were taxiing out to the runway thinking "I can't believe we're this close to city streets..."
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 26, 2014, 11:47:27 AM
QuoteMidway > O'Hare
So much faster, easier to access, less headaches.
Agreed! Any time I need to go to Chicago, I usually try to find a flight into Midway.
I am starting to really like Manchester airport (MHT), whether in its own right or as an alternative to Boston.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 26, 2014, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: jake on August 26, 2014, 01:12:51 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 26, 2014, 11:47:27 AM
QuoteMidway > O'Hare
So much faster, easier to access, less headaches.
Agreed! Any time I need to go to Chicago, I usually try to find a flight into Midway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F53%2FSouthwest_Airlines_Flight_1248_-1.jpg&hash=d6bcb3e8761fd8dac3557fdad19612e14abdd664)
If you're offended by me posting this, well, sorry.
I remember flying out of Midway, and while we were taxiing out to the runway thinking "I can't believe we're this close to city streets..."
Pretty close. Only a few yards short of the runway.
QuoteI remember flying out of Midway, and while we were taxiing out to the runway thinking "I can't believe we're this close to city streets..."
Landing too. "Um....are we going to hit those buildin.....bump, bump, screech!!" Reminds me a lot of landing in San Diego. You just drop pretty suddenly.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 27, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
QuoteI remember flying out of Midway, and while we were taxiing out to the runway thinking "I can't believe we're this close to city streets..."
Landing too. "Um....are we going to hit those buildin.....bump, bump, screech!!" Reminds me a lot of landing in San Diego. You just drop pretty suddenly.
San Diego, and Bob Hope Airport in Burbank. The distance between the end of the runway and the jetway is so short, you have to sit at the end of the runway for a few minutes to let the engines cool down. At most airports, the distance between the runway and the jetway does this anyway. Oh, and did I mention the runway is really short? My father is a pilot at Alaska Airlines, and he told me that new pilots aren't allowed to fly to Burbank because of the unique design of the airport.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 27, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Landing too. "Um....are we going to hit those buildin.....bump, bump, screech!!" Reminds me a lot of landing in San Diego. You just drop pretty suddenly.
I can't remember what the reason is for planes not approaching from the ocean for landing. I'm guessing it's so that the runway remains unidirectional and there is no risk of head-on collisions. at the price of the Banker's Hill approach being a really sharp one.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2014, 02:23:56 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 27, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Landing too. "Um....are we going to hit those buildin.....bump, bump, screech!!" Reminds me a lot of landing in San Diego. You just drop pretty suddenly.
I can't remember what the reason is for planes not approaching from the ocean for landing. I'm guessing it's so that the runway remains unidirectional and there is no risk of head-on collisions. at the price of the Banker's Hill approach being a really sharp one.
Prevailing winds. Landing with the direction of the wind would increase the overall landing distance. That said, planes do sometimes land from the direction of the ocean, though it's rare.
Quote from: jake on August 27, 2014, 02:35:17 PM
Prevailing winds. Landing with the direction of the wind would increase the overall landing distance. That said, planes do sometimes land from the direction of the ocean, though it's rare.
got it.
how rare is rare? I had thought the provision was only if a plane was coming in late (11pm curfew agreement with the city of San Diego, IIRC, with no scheduled landings past then) or in case of emergency.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2014, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: jake on August 27, 2014, 02:35:17 PM
Prevailing winds. Landing with the direction of the wind would increase the overall landing distance. That said, planes do sometimes land from the direction of the ocean, though it's rare.
got it.
how rare is rare? I had thought the provision was only if a plane was coming in late (11pm curfew agreement with the city of San Diego, IIRC, with no scheduled landings past then) or in case of emergency.
About 1 in 150 landings, according to my dad (a guess btw), are from the direction of the water. The curfew is midnight, and they only land from the direction of the water when absolutely necessary. The 737s have a tailwind max component of 10 knots. I guess when that limit is reached they change the direction.
Quote from: jake on August 27, 2014, 01:55:39 PM
My father is a pilot at Alaska Airlines
I wonder if he knows my father-in-law. his name is Chris O*, and he works cargo at SeaTac for Alaska Airlines.
* I won't give out his full last name; I believe he is the only Chris O with that workplace and job description.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2014, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: jake on August 27, 2014, 01:55:39 PM
My father is a pilot at Alaska Airlines
I wonder if he knows my father-in-law. his name is Chris O*, and he works cargo at SeaTac for Alaska Airlines.
* I won't give out his full last name; I believe he is the only Chris O with that workplace and job description.
According to him, he doesn't even know half the pilots. Lol. He's only flown the Cargo jet a few times and it was a long time ago.
QuoteSan Diego, and Bob Hope Airport in Burbank. The distance between the end of the runway and the jetway is so short, you have to sit at the end of the runway for a few minutes to let the engines cool down. At most airports, the distance between the runway and the jetway does this anyway. Oh, and did I mention the runway is really short? My father is a pilot at Alaska Airlines, and he told me that new pilots aren't allowed to fly to Burbank because of the unique design of the airport.
I've lived in southern California for most of my life, and have never flown in/out of Burbank. Isn't that one of the few commercial airports left where you get out on the tarmac when you leave the plane?
I'm curious if your dad knows whether or not there are similar rules with Orange County/John Wayne airport for new pilots. Takeoff from SNA is always a bit freaky if you're not used to it. After climbing a few hundred feet, you hear the power get reduced so the noise ordinances over Newport Beach are adhered to. Once out over the water, you hear the noise kick back in. Sounds like difficult takeoff for newbies.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 27, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
QuoteI remember flying out of Midway, and while we were taxiing out to the runway thinking "I can't believe we're this close to city streets..."
Landing too. "Um....are we going to hit those buildin.....bump, bump, screech!!" Reminds me a lot of landing in San Diego. You just drop pretty suddenly.
Yep. Those houses get pretty close, then you see Cicero Avenue, and then you bump to a landing. A quick landing at that. I fly in and out of there far, far more often than I do O'Hare.
The photo is from December 8, 2005, when a plane skidded to a stop just beyond the end of the runway at Central Avenue and 55th Street during a snow storm that dumped 8-10 inches on Midway in very short order. It hit a car stopped at the intersection.
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2014, 05:47:17 PMThe photo is from December 8, 2005, when a plane skidded to a stop just beyond the end of the runway at Central Avenue and 55th Street during a snow storm that dumped 8-10 inches on Midway in very short order. It hit a car stopped at the intersection.
IIRC, that's the only time there was a fatality related
to (as opposed to
on) a Southwest Airlines flight; a ground fatality involving a 6-year-old passenger in the car that the plane hit.
On a more amusing note, from Burbank circa 2000. (http://donhud.blogspot.com/2008/07/you-may-remember-this.html)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2014, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: jake on August 27, 2014, 02:35:17 PM
Prevailing winds. Landing with the direction of the wind would increase the overall landing distance. That said, planes do sometimes land from the direction of the ocean, though it's rare.
got it.
how rare is rare? I had thought the provision was only if a plane was coming in late (11pm curfew agreement with the city of San Diego, IIRC, with no scheduled landings past then) or in case of emergency.
I've never once, ever, had a flight land or take off heading east in SAN. And I've only had it happen once at LAX which has similar issues, and that was at 3AM.
Landings to the east only really happen at SAN when they have the santa anna winds going on, and it has to be good and clear because that end of the runway doesn't have the same instrument landing equipment that the normal west-bound end of the runway has. I don't know if take offs heading east happen ever because of the steep ascent needed to clear that parking garage and the other buildings.
Quote from: realjd on August 27, 2014, 08:42:22 PM
Landings to the east only really happen at SAN when they have the santa anna winds going on, and it has to be good and clear because that end of the runway doesn't have the same instrument landing equipment that the normal west-bound end of the runway has.
IIRC, occasional wide-bodies landing at SAN (like, in that era. DC-10s, which American flew into San Diego after cross-country flights to LAX) had to land from the west, because they needed the entire runway to safely land and couldn't give away any of the east end of the runway from having to swoop down after clearing structures at that end. Those planes took off to the west, for the same reason.
Quote from: jake on August 27, 2014, 01:55:39 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 27, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
QuoteI remember flying out of Midway, and while we were taxiing out to the runway thinking "I can't believe we're this close to city streets..."
Landing too. "Um....are we going to hit those buildin.....bump, bump, screech!!" Reminds me a lot of landing in San Diego. You just drop pretty suddenly.
San Diego, and Bob Hope Airport in Burbank.
And LGA, depending on the approach.
For that matter, pretty much every approach into LGA is dramatic in some way or another.
I heard that flying into Mexico City is scary as the pilot has to drop the plane as the entire city is located between mountain ranges where there is not much space between the nearby ranges and the runways to descend at a shallow angle. All planes have to come in steep after clearing the hills and to make the end of the runways.
This is from my mom who flew as a stewardess for the now defunct Eastern Airlines who remembers that unusual landing all too well.
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2014, 10:18:06 PM
Quote from: jake on August 27, 2014, 01:55:39 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 27, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
QuoteI remember flying out of Midway, and while we were taxiing out to the runway thinking "I can't believe we're this close to city streets..."
Landing too. "Um....are we going to hit those buildin.....bump, bump, screech!!" Reminds me a lot of landing in San Diego. You just drop pretty suddenly.
San Diego, and Bob Hope Airport in Burbank.
And LGA, depending on the approach.
For that matter, pretty much every approach into LGA is dramatic in some way or another.
I wouldn't know. Lol. The only airport in the NE that I've flown to is Newark, which is rather unspectacular. If I had to take a guess, landing at LGA is pretty similar to SFO? I'm more familiar with the latter.
Quote from: jake on September 02, 2014, 11:59:21 PM
I wouldn't know. Lol. The only airport in the NE that I've flown to is Newark, which is rather unspectacular. If I had to take a guess, landing at LGA is pretty similar to SFO? I'm more familiar with the latter.
If you're flying out south of LGA, you can get a nice view of Manhattan. Problem is that it gets very backed up at times, and you'll wait on the tarmac for 30 minutes just to take off on a Friday afternoon. I don't recommend flying out of LaGuardia if you have a tight connection at whatever hub airport you have to fly into. I've also had some long tie-ups at SFO; 20-25 minutes being the worst.
BTS (http://apps.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/dstat/OntimeSummaryDepaturesData.xml) shows from 10 minutes at 6am in the morning to 25-30 during peak times (I can't link directly to a query).
That said, summer thunderstorms at ATL or even at FLL has made me wait for an hour on the tarmac. Things happen.
Landing at National Airport (DCA) across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. is fun, especially if arriving from the north, which means most must follow the twisting path of the Potomac River and the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
It's not an issue if the approach is from the south, because the Potomac River estuary is relatively wide and straight.
I came into DCA via the south and it was nice seeing Old Towne Alexandria as well as flying over the Wilson Bridge.
I like the view that you get coming into MSY (New Orleans) from the east. You can see the Superdome, the Crescent City Connector, and even the US 90 Business Westbank Expressway before you fly over residential areas that are not as glamorous as before you hit that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DURlTYVDBGc&list=UUNxUjVe6NDGz5pe-2k6GfGQ If you want to see it. The Westbank Expressway Bridge is at first along with the Harvey Canal.
We were supposed to come in from the south, but somebody was flying a model airplane in the flight path and our flight had to be diverted to come in from the east as you will hear our captain explain it. In a way I am happy as I got to see more.
I spotted one of my cars parked on the side of the street in my neighborhood out the window of a plane en route to Reagan Airport (DCA) as it headed south to turn into position for the southern approach. I found that pretty neat.
Landing at LGA always feels like you're going to "land" in the East River.
Quote from: jake on September 02, 2014, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2014, 10:18:06 PM
For that matter, pretty much every approach into LGA is dramatic in some way or another.
I wouldn't know. Lol. The only airport in the NE that I've flown to is Newark, which is rather unspectacular. If I had to take a guess, landing at LGA is pretty similar to SFO? I'm more familiar with the latter.
Well, for one thing, approaches into LGA tend to come very low over the city and have
very last-minute turns. You'll think you're descending headlong into a neighborhood, or at least the water, before banking sharply at the last second, at which point the verge of the airport grounds appears.
I believe this has mostly to do with the proximity of JFK's approach and departure patterns.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 03, 2014, 07:02:05 PMLanding at LGA always feels like you're going to "land" in the East River.
Logan is like this. You are just over the water of Boston Harbor until a few seconds before landing.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 10:38:44 PM
I heard that flying into Mexico City is scary as the pilot has to drop the plane as the entire city is located between mountain ranges where there is not much space between the nearby ranges and the runways to descend at a shallow angle. All planes have to come in steep after clearing the hills and to make the end of the runways.
San Jose, Costa Rica, is like this as well. Flights from the north must make an unsettling drop just before approach. Depending on the weather and time of day, there can be turbulence from currents coming up those mountain faces as well. Sort of an introduction to the very unpredictable circumstances a traveler to the country has ahead of them.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 04, 2014, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 03, 2014, 07:02:05 PMLanding at LGA always feels like you're going to "land" in the East River.
Logan is like this. You are just over the water of Boston Harbor until a few seconds before landing.
It seems to me a lot of major metro airports are like this, since a lot of major cities are located on the water, and often the most available space for an airport is located along the waterfront–or indeed,
in what was formerly the water.
In the case of NYC, JFK airport is located both at the margin of the city and along/in the water, but LGA is a bit unusual in that it's on the water but also located pretty well inside of the city.
QuoteIt seems to me a lot of major metro airports are like this, since a lot of major cities are located on the water, and often the most available space for an airport is located along the waterfront–or indeed, in what was formerly the water.
Yep. Same with San Diego as well. There has been a lot of proposals over the years to move the airport from the crowded area it's in to out in north county. I think they'd even talked with the military about leasing some land, though that fell through as well.
It's needed. It's currently the largest city served by a single runway airport, and a new SD airport, in turn, would help alleviate a lot of LA area air traffic.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on September 04, 2014, 07:11:07 PM
QuoteIt seems to me a lot of major metro airports are like this, since a lot of major cities are located on the water, and often the most available space for an airport is located along the waterfront–or indeed, in what was formerly the water.
Yep. Same with San Diego as well. There has been a lot of proposals over the years to move the airport from the crowded area it's in to out in north county. I think they'd even talked with the military about leasing some land, though that fell through as well.
It's needed. It's currently the largest city served by a single runway airport, and a new SD airport, in turn, would help alleviate a lot of LA area air traffic.
Especially if it's in the north county. It would see a lot of use from Orange County residents on routes not served by John Wayne; already, Orange County is more convenient to Long Beach, San Diego and even Ontario airports than to LAX.
Quote from: empirestate on September 05, 2014, 08:45:26 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on September 04, 2014, 07:11:07 PM
QuoteIt seems to me a lot of major metro airports are like this, since a lot of major cities are located on the water, and often the most available space for an airport is located along the waterfront–or indeed, in what was formerly the water.
Yep. Same with San Diego as well. There has been a lot of proposals over the years to move the airport from the crowded area it's in to out in north county. I think they'd even talked with the military about leasing some land, though that fell through as well.
It's needed. It's currently the largest city served by a single runway airport, and a new SD airport, in turn, would help alleviate a lot of LA area air traffic.
Especially if it's in the north county. It would see a lot of use from Orange County residents on routes not served by John Wayne; already, Orange County is more convenient to Long Beach, San Diego and even Ontario airports than to LAX.
I would agree that San Diego could use a new airport, but to justify it by saying it would alleviate LA-area air traffic is ridiculous. I mean, literally yes it would, but not to any measurable amount that would mean anything to those who funded the airport in the first place. LA has so many airports right now, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you lived in north San Diego.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on September 04, 2014, 07:11:07 PM
QuoteIt seems to me a lot of major metro airports are like this, since a lot of major cities are located on the water, and often the most available space for an airport is located along the waterfront–or indeed, in what was formerly the water.
Yep. Same with San Diego as well. There has been a lot of proposals over the years to move the airport from the crowded area it's in to out in north county. I think they'd even talked with the military about leasing some land, though that fell through as well.
It's needed. It's currently the largest city served by a single runway airport, and a new SD airport, in turn, would help alleviate a lot of LA area air traffic.
SAN isn't going anywhere. They just did a major expansion.
Moving SAN north wouldn't do anything to LAX traffic. There are already LGB, SNA, and CLD between SAN and LAX. If the demand were there, those airports would already have higher traffic.
Quote from: realjd on September 06, 2014, 12:37:10 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on September 04, 2014, 07:11:07 PM
QuoteIt seems to me a lot of major metro airports are like this, since a lot of major cities are located on the water, and often the most available space for an airport is located along the waterfront–or indeed, in what was formerly the water.
Yep. Same with San Diego as well. There has been a lot of proposals over the years to move the airport from the crowded area it's in to out in north county. I think they'd even talked with the military about leasing some land, though that fell through as well.
It's needed. It's currently the largest city served by a single runway airport, and a new SD airport, in turn, would help alleviate a lot of LA area air traffic.
SAN isn't going anywhere. They just did a major expansion.
Not to mention that IIRC, a few years ago, voters opted against any usage of Miramar as a replacement international airport (and the Marine Corps who now use the base were also against the idea).
Quote from: jake on September 05, 2014, 07:14:53 PM
Quote from: empirestate on September 05, 2014, 08:45:26 AM
Especially if it's in the north county. It would see a lot of use from Orange County residents on routes not served by John Wayne; already, Orange County is more convenient to Long Beach, San Diego and even Ontario airports than to LAX.
I would agree that San Diego could use a new airport, but to justify it by saying it would alleviate LA-area air traffic is ridiculous. I mean, literally yes it would, but not to any measurable amount that would mean anything to those who funded the airport in the first place. LA has so many airports right now, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you lived in north San Diego.
Well, I don't know if anyone's using that as a justification. Myself, I'm just talking about it; I'm not in any position to need to justify a new SD airport. And I'm not talking at all about alleviating LA-area traffic, merely mentioning that San Diego's airport would attract some more customers from the north if it were itself located farther north.
Quote from: realjd on September 06, 2014, 12:37:10 AM
Moving SAN north wouldn't do anything to LAX traffic. There are already LGB, SNA, and CLD between SAN and LAX. If the demand were there, those airports would already have higher traffic.
Well...they have traffic; I'm not sure what you mean by "higher". Certainly, there's no dispute that residents of Orange County and other area south of LA do sometimes choose SD airport over LAX, and might do so even more if it were even closer to their homes. In fact, it's because there are so many airports that each one's proximity matters more than if there were only one airport serving a large area.
Quote from: realjd on September 06, 2014, 12:37:10 AM
Moving SAN north wouldn't do anything to LAX traffic. There are already LGB, SNA, and CLD between SAN and LAX. If the demand were there, those airports would already have higher traffic.
Well...they have traffic; I'm not sure what you mean by "higher". Certainly, there's no dispute that residents of Orange County and other area south of LA do sometimes choose SD airport over LAX, and might do so even more if it were even closer to their homes. In fact, it's because there are so many airports that each one's proximity matters more than if there were only one airport serving a large area.
[/quote]
Despite having the other airports, LAX is so much more crowded because they have so many more flights out of there than any other area airport. You might be able to use Long Beach or Burbank for a flight to a major hub like Dallas or Chicago. Certain airlines may fly to the outlying airports as well. But there just isn't a comparison between the direct flights coming out of LAX as there is out of the other airports.
This isn't true in other cities with multiple airports.
NYC has JFK, LGA, and EWR (Newark) in the metro area. JFK is the largest but the other airports are no slouch. If you are west of the Hudson, EWR is your airport and you have almost as many flight options from there as from JFK.
SFO/OAK somewhat similar. OAK is smaller than SFO but still larger than BUR, ONT, SNA, or LGB.
And the same goes for O'Hare/Midway and Dulles/BWI/Reagan.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 04, 2014, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 10:38:44 PM
I heard that flying into Mexico City is scary as the pilot has to drop the plane as the entire city is located between mountain ranges where there is not much space between the nearby ranges and the runways to descend at a shallow angle. All planes have to come in steep after clearing the hills and to make the end of the runways.
San Jose, Costa Rica, is like this as well. Flights from the north must make an unsettling drop just before approach. Depending on the weather and time of day, there can be turbulence from currents coming up those mountain faces as well. Sort of an introduction to the very unpredictable circumstances a traveler to the country has ahead of them.
Lihue Airport on the Hawaiian island of Kauai is similar. The plane has to fly high enough to clear some mountains before dropping steeply to the runway.
Quote from: mrsman on September 09, 2014, 08:37:30 AM
Despite having the other airports, LAX is so much more crowded because they have so many more flights out of there than any other area airport. You might be able to use Long Beach or Burbank for a flight to a major hub like Dallas or Chicago. Certain airlines may fly to the outlying airports as well. But there just isn't a comparison between the direct flights coming out of LAX as there is out of the other airports.
Absolutely, and I don't mean to suggest that there is. The comparison I'm making would be between, say, John Wayne Airport and San Diego Airport–and specifically, a hypothetical San Diego Airport that's 15-20 miles closer to John Wayne than the current one. If I'm in Mission Viejo, let's say, or certainly San Clemente, I'm going to seriously consider using this northern SD airport now, maybe if I have a morning flight and don't want to drive up the 5 in peak direction towards Santa Ana. For certain trips, sure, LAX will be my only option. But for others where I do have the choice of several satellite airports, LAX ends up sliding down past most of them on the list.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
As critical inter-modal facilities, I am of the opinion that access highways for major airports should be developed as full access control facilities, connect directly to established freeways and given interstate spurs whenever possible.
Just as an example, someone brought up Charlotte-Douglas earlier; that access road should go straight to I-85 instead of the current situation of surface arterials and service interchanges that lay between the terminal and the city's freeway system.
And speaking of Charlotte, what's up with that railroad spur between the western and middle runways? That looks like some sort of inter-modal freight terminal. Wow. Truck, train and plane can all converge on this one spot. Impressive. Well done, Charlotte.
Louisville (SDF) has an exit off I-264 that also acts as a collector/distributor for traffic for the Kentucky Exposition Center (home of the State Fair) as well. I'm not sure if there's a rail connection, but the airport is best known for being the hub of UPS. It is also possible to access the airport from a surface street.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
As critical inter-modal facilities, I am of the opinion that access highways for major airports should be developed as full access control facilities, connect directly to established freeways and given interstate spurs whenever possible.
Just as an example, someone brought up Charlotte-Douglas earlier; that access road should go straight to I-85 instead of the current situation of surface arterials and service interchanges that lay between the terminal and the city's freeway system.
And speaking of Charlotte, what's up with that railroad spur between the western and middle runways? That looks like some sort of inter-modal freight terminal. Wow. Truck, train and plane can all converge on this one spot. Impressive. Well done, Charlotte.
Actually, as a resident of the DC area, I always used to think all airports were directly connected to limited access highways in the US.
Dulles - VA 267
National - GW Parkway, which kinda counts,
BWI - I-195
And all the other airports I'd ever been to when I was younger:
Boston Logan - I-93/big dig stuff
Chicago OHare - I wanna say I-190?
Detroit - I-94?
Houston Bush Intercontinental - didn't it have a near-interstate quality road headed towards US-59?
Minneapolis - almost a direct connection to MN-62 or something
But then I visited...
Des Moines - yeah, have no idea what road it's on, but it has plenty of motels and strip malls.
Houston Hobby - in a not so great part of town
Manchester NH - but it had adjacent roundabouts to compensate for the lack of limited access.
Portland ME - yeah, basically connected to a residential street
...and I lost hope.
Quote from: wisvishr0 on September 16, 2014, 10:19:44 PM
Actually, as a resident of the DC area, I always used to think all airports were directly connected to limited access highways in the US.
Dulles - VA 267
National - GW Parkway, which kinda counts,
BWI - I-195
And all the other airports I'd ever been to when I was younger:
Boston Logan - I-93/big dig stuff
Chicago OHare - I wanna say I-190?
Detroit - I-94?
Houston Bush Intercontinental - didn't it have a near-interstate quality road headed towards US-59?
Minneapolis - almost a direct connection to MN-62 or something
But then I visited...
Des Moines - yeah, have no idea what road it's on, but it has plenty of motels and strip malls.
Houston Hobby - in a not so great part of town
Manchester NH - but it had adjacent roundabouts to compensate for the lack of limited access.
Portland ME - yeah, basically connected to a residential street
...and I lost hope.
You would have lost all hope even faster if you visited San Diego. One the nation's top 30 airports is accessed from I-5 by a combination of two city roads and numerous traffic signals (although, to be fair, most of the signals along Hawthorn are timed).
Even with the recent construction at the airport, it's still a pain to access. I know it was talked about earlier in this thread, but I find it regrettable that some solution involving a new airport at Miramar was never reached.
Quote from: yankee.peddler on September 19, 2014, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: wisvishr0 on September 16, 2014, 10:19:44 PM
Actually, as a resident of the DC area, I always used to think all airports were directly connected to limited access highways in the US.
Dulles - VA 267
National - GW Parkway, which kinda counts,
BWI - I-195
And all the other airports I'd ever been to when I was younger:
Boston Logan - I-93/big dig stuff
Chicago OHare - I wanna say I-190?
Detroit - I-94?
Houston Bush Intercontinental - didn't it have a near-interstate quality road headed towards US-59?
Minneapolis - almost a direct connection to MN-62 or something
But then I visited...
Des Moines - yeah, have no idea what road it's on, but it has plenty of motels and strip malls.
Houston Hobby - in a not so great part of town
Manchester NH - but it had adjacent roundabouts to compensate for the lack of limited access.
Portland ME - yeah, basically connected to a residential street
...and I lost hope.
You would have lost all hope even faster if you visited San Diego. One the nation's top 30 airports is accessed from I-5 by a combination of two city roads and numerous traffic signals (although, to be fair, most of the signals along Hawthorn are timed).
The surreal part:
Until 1967, the original terminal - on the north side - had direct freeway access (via old US 101/Pacific Highway, which connects to I-5)! When the terminal was moved to the south side of Lindbergh Field on Harbor Drive, THAT is when the passenger area became one with only surface street access.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 19, 2014, 04:59:54 PM
Quote from: yankee.peddler on September 19, 2014, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: wisvishr0 on September 16, 2014, 10:19:44 PM
Actually, as a resident of the DC area, I always used to think all airports were directly connected to limited access highways in the US.
Dulles - VA 267
National - GW Parkway, which kinda counts,
BWI - I-195
And all the other airports I'd ever been to when I was younger:
Boston Logan - I-93/big dig stuff
Chicago OHare - I wanna say I-190?
Detroit - I-94?
Houston Bush Intercontinental - didn't it have a near-interstate quality road headed towards US-59?
Minneapolis - almost a direct connection to MN-62 or something
But then I visited...
Des Moines - yeah, have no idea what road it's on, but it has plenty of motels and strip malls.
Houston Hobby - in a not so great part of town
Manchester NH - but it had adjacent roundabouts to compensate for the lack of limited access.
Portland ME - yeah, basically connected to a residential street
...and I lost hope.
You would have lost all hope even faster if you visited San Diego. One the nation's top 30 airports is accessed from I-5 by a combination of two city roads and numerous traffic signals (although, to be fair, most of the signals along Hawthorn are timed).
The surreal part:
Until 1967, the original terminal - on the north side - had direct freeway access (via old US 101/Pacific Highway, which connects to I-5)! When the terminal was moved to the south side of Lindbergh Field on Harbor Drive, THAT is when the passenger area became one with only surface street access.
Does anyone know why they moved the terminal to the other side of the runway?
One thing nice about the current San Diego airport, even if you need surface streets to reach it, it is closer to its Downtown than most major city airports.
Quote from: hm insulators on September 09, 2014, 02:01:45 PM
Lihue Airport on the Hawaiian island of Kauai is similar. The plane has to fly high enough to clear some mountains before dropping steeply to the runway.
Only approaching from the west (and even in that direction, the mountains are a few miles from the airport), which I expect would be uncommon since most traffic is to or from the east. My flights to and from Lihue, last year and on at least two previous visits, had no steep drops or climbs.
Quote from: mrsman on September 24, 2014, 11:08:05 AM
Does anyone know why they moved the terminal to the other side of the runway?
On the north side, the Marine Corps depot stands in the way of any taxiway expansion. From Wikipedia:
QuoteThe north-centric concept is hampered by the fact that the taxiway on the north side of the Runway does not extend for the full runway length. For this plan to be developed, land would need to be acquired from the Marine Corps Recruit Depot to build the taxiway. Without this taxiway, all aircraft would have to land, exit the runway to the south, then cross the runway to get to the gates on the north side.
QuoteActually, as a resident of the DC area, I always used to think all airports were directly connected to limited access highways in the US.
Dulles - VA 267
National - GW Parkway, which kinda counts,
BWI - I-195
And all the other airports I'd ever been to when I was younger:
Boston Logan - I-93/big dig stuff
Chicago OHare - I wanna say I-190?
Detroit - I-94?
Houston Bush Intercontinental - didn't it have a near-interstate quality road headed towards US-59?
Minneapolis - almost a direct connection to MN-62 or something
But then I visited...
Des Moines - yeah, have no idea what road it's on, but it has plenty of motels and strip malls.
Houston Hobby - in a not so great part of town
Manchester NH - but it had adjacent roundabouts to compensate for the lack of limited access.
Portland ME - yeah, basically connected to a residential street
...and I lost hope.
Can't forget Chicago Midway on this list, both in terms of city street accessed AND not being in such a great part of town.
However, I still prefer it greatly to O'Hare, but maybe that's because I'm also a fan of Southwest.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on September 25, 2014, 11:56:03 AM
Can't forget Chicago Midway on this list, both in terms of city street accessed AND not being in such a great part of town.
Out of curiosity, to what extent does the not-so-greatness of an airport's neighborhood affect the experience of using it? I have only ever lain over at Midway, and I can't say I felt any influence whatsoever from the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Quote from: empirestate on October 02, 2014, 01:37:20 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on September 25, 2014, 11:56:03 AM
Can't forget Chicago Midway on this list, both in terms of city street accessed AND not being in such a great part of town.
Out of curiosity, to what extent does the not-so-greatness of an airport's neighborhood affect the experience of using it? I have only ever lain over at Midway, and I can't say I felt any influence whatsoever from the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Newark Airport is among the busiest airports in the country, and it's in Newark. As a matter of fact, the airport might actually be the nicest part of Newark.
Quote from: empirestate on October 02, 2014, 01:37:20 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on September 25, 2014, 11:56:03 AM
Can't forget Chicago Midway on this list, both in terms of city street accessed AND not being in such a great part of town.
Out of curiosity, to what extent does the not-so-greatness of an airport's neighborhood affect the experience of using it? I have only ever lain over at Midway, and I can't say I felt any influence whatsoever from the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Well, if you are from somewhere other than Chicago and you fly into Midway, having never been to Chicago, certainly the neighbourhood surrounding Midway doesn't give off the best vibe to tourists (who are probably wondering why they didn't fly into O'Hare and also why Chicago would surround one of their city's gateways with the less-desirables).
Gatwick's (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.1577/-0.1605) is very, very simple. And while Norwegian Air have made it a hub for their low-cost operations, most passengers aren't changing planes there. This airport is busier than Newark and yet the road network is two sets of two (arrivals and departures) one-way loops off a roundabout on a link road to the motorway (and the diverted A23): one for each terminal. OK, there's turn off for short- and long-stay car parks, and the GSJ between the Airport Way and the A23, but it's simple, not over-powered and works well most of the time.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 02, 2014, 01:47:17 AM
Newark Airport is among the busiest airports in the country, and it's in Newark. As a matter of fact, the airport might actually be the nicest part of Newark.
I thought the Airport was both in Newark AND Elizabeth? Also, from what I've heard, the Ironbound district of Newark, along with the Downtown area seem to be the "nice" parts of Newark.
Quote from: english si on October 02, 2014, 08:01:37 AM
Gatwick's (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.1577/-0.1605) is very, very simple. And while Norwegian Air have made it a hub for their low-cost operations, most passengers aren't changing planes there. This airport is busier than Newark and yet the road network is two sets of two (arrivals and departures) one-way loops off a roundabout on a link road to the motorway (and the diverted A23): one for each terminal. OK, there's turn off for short- and long-stay car parks, and the GSJ between the Airport Way and the A23, but it's simple, not over-powered and works well most of the time.
Speaking of parking lots, the parking lot for the rental car pick-up/drop-off has the tightest, and most narrow loop I have ever driven on. We thought for sure we were gonna scrape the side of the car. And then, when we finally reached our floor, it was an extremely tight right turn, and again, we thought we were gonna scrape the side of the car. Fortunately, again, we didn't (though we had full insurance coverage; we could have just drove the car straight through a wall and threw the keys into the return slot and said "DONE" and we would have been covered).