Reply #32: Do you want Solution TODAY or a Solution?

[happyslug]

Basically what you can do TODAY is quite limited. What you can do within five years is quite limited. Given 5 or more years you have more options. Lets look at the limitations to any short term solution first (i.e. less than Five years).

1. Building new runways and terminals to ease Planes into and out of the Airport is difficult. You have to acquire land for the new landing lanes, this require moving people and business in almost any airport. In fact the Airport with the most spare land for expansion is Greater Pitt in Pittsburgh, but it is at least 6 hours away from O'Hara and Chicago and 12 hours away from JFK, La Guardia Airport (LGA) and New York City by car (and even longer by Train, almost two days to New York City). Greater Pitt has the room for expansion for it is built on abandoned Strip Mines purchased by Allegheny County in the late 1940s (Pittsburgh is in Center of Allegheny County). Great Pitt has the Room, terminals etc but is to far away from where most people what to go. As to other airports, most have had extensive build up around them (Do to as much as the roads to the Airport as the Airport itself) which means expansion of the Airport is expensive and time consuming. Thus expansion of most Airports is not viable on the Short term basis.

2. Train Service. Trains were in decline from about 1940 till 1970, where it bottomed out and Amtrak was formed to try to save Rail service. Amtrak did an excellent job saving Rail service, but in two different forms. First was in Short Haul among Close in cities (The North East Corridor). Amtrak broke even on this corridor and has tried to improve service in that Corridor since 1970, but being a National Rail Service Amtrak has had to divert money to other trains with Political support in Washington, even if no passenger support. This can NOT change within the Next Five years even if Congress should make the change. It will take Amtrak five years to further improve East Coast Rail service to help out the Airports on the East Coast, and at least five years to improve train service to help out non-East Coast airports. Amtrak just can NOT put more trains on the Rail-lines for it has few if any trains NOT being used.

3. Bus Service. Bus service greatest problem is the Roads. In urban areas these roads are tied up in vehicle traffic (Cars, Trucks and Buses) to a degree that Bus Service can NOT help in moving people from Airport to Airport (Or the cities those airports serve).

Now lets look at long term solutions:

1. Airports, while given five years you can build additional land for additional runways, the opposition from people near the Airports will be immense. In my opinion some improvement can be made. Moving any Air Force units out of the Airports (Freeing Space for Passenger service, but this can be done even on a short term basis) will free up some landing times, but sooner or later you have to accept the fact airports are as about as big as there are going to get. Bigger planes will help, but only on flights to other airports that can support such big planes. You have to get the Passengers to these main airports, one way will be using Smaller planes (As what is happening now) the other is getting those passengers to the main airports by means OTHER than plane.

2. Trains. Trains can provide the Connection from smaller cities to the large Airports. Ideally these trains will have to go directly to the Airport, but what I believe will occur will occur on the East Coast First. A fast Speed Train on its own Right of Way between Boston and Washington (along with local service via the existing Fright Rail lines), can feed the Airport. Ideally the number of Stops of the High Speed train be limited. i.e. Boston, New Haven, JFK, Penn Station, Trenton, Philadelphia (Through Philadelphia Airport may be preferred with a separate rail line to Downtown Philadelphia and Trenton), Baltimore, Dulles Airport, terminating in DC. The High Speed line should connect the Airports and connect with the present Passenger Service wherever possible to permit transfer of passengers (What I mean is Airport to Airport should be the route, downtowns if it is on the way, such as Downtown New York City on the way from JFK to Philadelphia, but if a downtown is NOT on the way, stay Airport to Airport for the High Speed Rail). Now a Law Speed rail must also be maintained. This is to feed the Airports AND the High Speed Rail. This should be on the Current rail line that goes downtown to downtown with a stop anytime it intersects the High Speed Rail. Together the two rail systems can work together to feed people into the Large Airport to fill up the 747s and similar large jets. I be tempted to extend it south to Atlanta and Orlando, through south of DC the population density drops making Rail difficult on a local basis.

A similar line should be built between DC and Chicago (and maybe Milwaukee). This route has several large cities and feed into the super large airports (DC to Pittsburgh is shorter than Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and would have been the preferred rail line except for the incompetence of the B&O in the mid 1800s which let the old Pennsylvania railroad beat it out. I will NOT go into details, but by the 1850s management should have accepted that rails should be 100% iron, as did the Pennsy, NOT iron Strips on Wood, as the B&O did in the mid-1800s. among other incompetencies).

Back to rail lines. The West Coast could have a high Speed rail from San Diego to Seattle, but this does NOT have the population of the state a line from Boston to DC goes through or the population a Pittsburgh to Chicago line goes through. Another route would be the New Orleans to Houston to Dallas route, another high population rail line. These are the "Idea" lines, high Population, high number of people traveling between them. These would be profitable and help the Airports by drawing people to them.

Now while the above would be ideal High Speed Lines, there are other lines where High Speed Lines would help, but only as additional service to feed into the above high population areas. In these areas I would use just Low Speed Rail, but rail that comes at least four times a day in each directions (if Rail lines drop below four trips per day, Passengers stop taking it for the rail service is no longer convenient. This is what killed the old Passenger trains, the railroads kept rail services to areas but slowly drop the number of trains till it was less than four, then the rail lines had to close the line for lack of Passengers. The more trains you have per day, the most people will take it, the magi number seems to be Four in each directions.

Such low speeds locals, should be maintained to feed into the High Speed Service I mentioned above. All of the above High Speed rails should have a Low Speed Local along its route, just to pick up passengers at stops that would slow down the High Speed rail to much. A Low Speed route from Boston to Chicago via Toronto and Detroit would be such a route. As the Train nears either end of its slow route it will feed into the High Speed Rail and Large Airports. Another route that would be needed is a Low Speed from Chicago to St Louis and New Orleans. It would connect O'Hara and DFW by feeding both Airports. Chicago to Birmingham to Atlanta will do the same except for Atlanta Airport and DFW. One last lien between Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville and then Birmingham will connect the Mid West High Speed with New Orleans High Speed. These low speed rail service will feed into the High Speed and into the Airports. These Low Speed will provide an alternative to getting to other locations in the US AND to the large airports, both will reduce the backlog at those large airports.

Further west then Ft Worth, the population density drops even further. Bus Service on existing roads may be the better alternatives in such rural areas. Even EAST of DFW buses can be used to get people to local and high Speed rail heads. Such bus service should be integrated into the System.

An alternative for the High Speed line would be Downtown to Downtown, but if that is adopted a high speed rail line to any airport near any city MUST be made. Eases the connections with the local rail, but an additional transfer for Airport users.

This does NOT have to be one system run by one organization like Amtrak, while that is my first choice, I am willing to accept alternatives such as the Local Rail Service be run by Fright Rail lines while the High Speed Rail System would be run by our different organization (i.e. one for each high Speed rail line). Even if operated by one organization you are looking as at least Four High Speed Rail Division (East Coast, Mid-West, Texas and West Coast), Four Low speed divisions on the areas AND at least four additional division on the connecting low speed rail (and I will NOT go into how many bus "divisions" would be needed).

If you look at the above you are looking at 5-10 years of development. It would solve the problem of to many planes wanted to use the same airports at the same time, but at a hugh investment. I believe it would be a good investment for people will also use the Rail lines in place of their Cars and lessen traffic, but the key to Frequency. The Trains must run at least four times a day each way. If the trains can NOT do that, the trains can NOT move people to and from the Large Airports and ease the overcrowding.