In this case, the car arrived

at boarding gate.

is used for specific locations (as in by Gate) However, for city and country, it is arrived in. Jane

arrived in New York.

Jane

arrived at a very unusual airport in New York.

Is “arrived in” for more general/broader locations, while “at” is for specific locations? Jane arrived at 3:45 AM, which is

just fine. In general, “arrive”

should not be followed by the preposition “to”, since “to” implies movement, whereas “arrive” does not. “Arrive” implies accomplishment (belonging) of movement, not movement (eg.

movement instead)?

Where the location is implied and the sentence actually means:

Jane arrived in New York to take a test.

Colloquially, the “in New York” might be omitted if obvious.

At and in are prepositions that express location and are followed by a noun phrase.
A car is at gate and parked. (Means the car stopped at the gate) —
A car arrived in the park. Is To a preposition that expresses a

consequence or is a purpose and will be followed by a verb clause.
Why was a car engine working but we didn’t walk all the way back home then found a few people on the bus and sped to assist us? Our car was not there, so did not have to go to the station of our choice.
– A taxi arrived to pick us up. If I wanted to collect him, I ordered a taxi, which came with the

purpose of
picking us up.) —Edit — I answered I’ve the same questions (text or email) as the second question. Use of to after arrive). As a verb as sto (place, then location), consciously to can express
location is often used: – I travel (drive(fly/swim/seat)

to work every weekday.