Airport roadways

[1995hoo]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

Landing 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. 

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.

[empirestate]

Landing 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.

[OCGuy81]

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.

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.

[empirestate]

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.

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

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.

[realjd]

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.

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.

[TheStranger]

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.

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).

[empirestate]

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.

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[hm insulators]

 

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[tidecat]

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.

[wisvishr0]

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.

[yankee.peddler]

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.

[TheStranger]

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[oscar]

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.

[TheStranger]

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:

The 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.

[OCGuy81]

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.

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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. 

[jakeroot]

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).

[english si]

Gatwick's 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.