STILL No Rail to L.A. Airport

[Gray]

There is?

Yes. In fact, the Airport MARTA station was constructed as a part of the new Atlanta Airport terminal, which opened in September 1980. However, the MARTA South Line did not actually reach the airport until 1988, which is when rail service began.

While Atlanta's MARTA doesn't go much of anywhere, it definitely does go to the airport. It's useful if you're going to a downtown hotel near the main line, but otherwise...not so useful.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

I forget which line(Green?) was to go to LAX. But the airport blocked the access of that line. I received this information from a brother in law. It is also at least 5 years old, so today's non-access may be completely different . There is a switch and short stub built south (I think) of the airport property.

Right here the whole time, and no need to bother bro-in-law:

Rail To Airport Still Has Hurdles

 

[me_little_me]

There is?

Yes. In fact, the Airport MARTA station was constructed as a part of the new Atlanta Airport terminal, which opened in September 1980. However, the MARTA South Line did not actually reach the airport until 1988, which is when rail service began.

Not only that but it has to be one of the more convenient systems. Station is literally just a few steps from baggage claim. No need for long walks, shuttles, going outside in bad weather or walkways. Elevator and escalators up to train platform. All trains go through downtown. Half then continue north and half northeast alternating every few minutes except off hours when all trains go through downtown to northeast and connect to north trains at the station where they diverge.

I even remember when using MARTA that when flights were very late due to bad weather, they would hold the last trains (scheduled to depart at 1AM) for 5 to 10 minutes to help late passengers.

 

[George Harris]

I forget which line(Green?) was to go to LAX. But the airport blocked the access of that line. I received this information from a brother in law. It is also at least 5 years old, so today's non-access may be completely different . There is a switch and short stub built south (I think) of the airport property.

Right here the whole time, and no need to bother bro-in-law:

Rail To Airport Still Has Hurdles

Just read it. Seems that there are people that don't want it to happen and are simply looking for reasons to say no. A classic found in the article:

Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the FAA, said running the rail line above ground by the south runway protection zone would raise some of the same issues that challenged the Green Line from extending into the airport in the 1990s. Those issues include whether the overhead catenary wires would interfere with runway operations and whether the rail electronics would cause problems for air traffic control.

Maybe the guy should go north about 400 miles and look at SFO. BART comes in above ground and terminates right at the International Terminal. The clearance is simple: There is a clear zone for the flight path. Stay out of it. End of story. Interference with ATC? Come on, get real. What electronics would be interfering? The big amps are in the power system. BART is 1000 volts. The LA overhead is 1500 volts.

 

[leemell]

I forget which line(Green?) was to go to LAX. But the airport blocked the access of that line. I received this information from a brother in law. It is also at least 5 years old, so today's non-access may be completely different . There is a switch and short stub built south (I think) of the airport property.

Right here the whole time, and no need to bother bro-in-law:

Rail To Airport Still Has Hurdles

Just read it. Seems that there are people that don't want it to happen and are simply looking for reasons to say no. A classic found in the article:

Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the FAA, said running the rail line above ground by the south runway protection zone would raise some of the same issues that challenged the Green Line from extending into the airport in the 1990s. Those issues include whether the overhead catenary wires would interfere with runway operations and whether the rail electronics would cause problems for air traffic control.

Maybe the guy should go north about 400 miles and look at SFO. BART comes in above ground and terminates right at the International Terminal. The clearance is simple: There is a clear zone for the flight path. Stay out of it. End of story. Interference with ATC? Come on, get real. What electronics would be interfering? The big amps are in the power system. BART is 1000 volts. The LA overhead is 1500 volts.

Exactly what I would have said, but more eloquently.

 

[battalion51]

I've actually used both MARTA and BART to get to/from the airport in the same day (twice). For both BART and MARTA, they're great systems if you're going to a point that is in the immediate path of the lines, if not it can be a bit of a pain. But the thing that I think the airport authorities and local authorities are overlooking is that the rail lines will primarily assist folks who work at the airport, and visitors coming in to the city. There is a high percentage of fly in traffic that comes to my hotel that uses MARTA to get to us. With conventions on heavy arrival days we'll actually send a few associates down into MARTA to direct our guests on how to get to the hotel just because of sheer volume of arrivals. For any city that has a major convention center that is accessible by rail, making your airport also easily accessible by rail is critical if you want to land the big conventions (no pun intended).

 

[George Harris]

Can't speak about the electronics side, but for the clearance side, there is no need to take anybody's word for anything. Go to the source. The source is FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design. In there it is very specific about clear zones and approach paths around runways. All you need is in there.

 

[PRR 60]

Can't speak about the electronics side, but for the clearance side, there is no need to take anybody's word for anything. Go to the source. The source is FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design. In there it is very specific about clear zones and approach paths around runways. All you need is in there.

One thing constant with FAA obstruction regulation is the inconsistency. The AC's describe zones within which notification of the FAA is required. Within those areas you submit your plans to the governing FAA office for review. Then you sit for the requisite 90 days, call to see what the hold-up is, then finally get the FAA's determination. Depending on who reviewed your plans and the mood they were in at the time, you may be OK, you may have to install one of several types (and costs) of obstruction lighting, or you may have to relocate or lower the facility (which may or may not be possible). Submit five different projects to the FAA, and you'll get five different responses. The AC's are pretty clear. The FAA's application of the AC's can be a bit cloudier.

For new or modification of facilities, the applicable AC is 70/7460-2K. In my prior life, I knew that one almost by heart.

 

[George Harris]

For new or modification of facilities, the applicable AC is 70/7460-2K. In my prior life, I knew that one almost by heart.

Thanks much for the reference.