From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 10-Jun-14 14:13, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 10-Jun-14 12:24, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
      
   >>>>I prefer the idea of routing railroads through airports; it makes   
   >>>>so much more sense.   
      
   >>>Or, presumably, building airport terminals on top of railroads.   
   >>>That makes a lot more sense to me than moving the railroad, where   
   >>>the two are already in reasonably close proximity as in this case   
   >>>and many others.   
      
   >>You don't want to look at the geography? In this case, you know, what   
   >>we've been discussing if you could be bothered to take context into   
   >>account, it sounds like the airport campus was to one side of the   
   >>railroad.   
      
   >... and I already explained, when this came up a few months ago, how to   
   >handle that case.  The rail line is fine where it is; you can build the   
   >terminal to the side of the campus rather than building it in the middle   
   >and then moving the rail line to go through it.   
      
   You build the terminal where the planes need to be and where all the   
   ground access needs to be. It's absurd to state that there's never a   
   need to rearrange existing infrastructure.   
      
   >>In the case of both of Chicago's airports, railroads ran   
   >>down the middle.   
      
   >If so, they should have put the terminals on top of the tracks, as was   
   >done for Oslo's airport, rather than moving the railroads to go around   
   >the airfield.   
      
   At O'Hare, the terminal is right smack in the middle, but the railroads   
   were moved to the west.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)