From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 10-Jun-14 18:29, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>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.   
      
   >The terminal can go pretty much anywhere on the campus that you want it   
   >to; putting it to one side actually means you lose less space to ground   
   >transportation facilities, and if one side _already_ has ground access   
   >options, such as both a railroad and a busy highway in the case of EWR,   
   >that is the logical side to put it on.   
      
   You're being ridiculous AGAIN that infrastructure doesn't ever require   
   re-arrangement. You don't want through traffic on that highway running   
   through the airport, but you don't want people being dropped off to have   
   to cross the railroad. Maybe you want just the passenger tracks running   
   through the airport, with freight avoiding it. Maybe the land side of the   
   passenger terminal will be built adjacent to the railroad and highway   
   drop off, but as you don't want railroad passengers crossing the highway   
   either, maybe the passenger terminal is built above both, if it's possible   
   to have both highway drop off and railroad at grade.   
      
   >>>>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.   
      
   >So you're agreeing with me here?  It's hard to tell with you.   
      
   I have stated my position numerous times on Usenet that UP (ex-C&NW)   
   Milwaukee subdivision should have remained on its original alignment (or   
   close by), but put in a north-south cut across the entire O'Hare campus.   
   Then the rail passenger station could have been adjacent to or underneath   
   air Terminals 2 and 3.   
      
   At Midway? I never put too much thought into the possible location of the   
   rail station, but I like the air passenger terminal where it had been built   
   immediately adjacent to Cicero Avenue to the west. I suppose passenger   
   rail could have looped through somehow, but passenger rail routing would   
   have been more complicated than at O'Hare despite adjacent railroads.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)