That is the most efficient design. All the stupidity of older terminals at any airport is about having smaller separate sections, rather than one giant common area for each function.
After that, it’s all about the décor motif, be that Desert Southwest, Mountain West, Midwest, Cowtown, Motor City, Southern Chic, Southern Hick, or Tropical.
One thing for the airport with a lot of ancillary facilities underground – you need to consider geology. For instance forget about trying that in Florida or Louisiana with the high water tables.
New Orleans did pretty much the same, simply building a new current-standards terminal complex on available land on the other side of the runways from the old-style one that had expanded sort of organically over 60 years until there was nowhere else to expand to.
One thing that planners these days don’t want to do is to repeat the experience of MCI and gamble on a model for the future and fail.
Paywalled for me. What’s new with the giant red crab terminal?
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky (CVG) is kind of like that, having been so thoroughly rebuilt over time that it might as well be new. Also there’s long underground sections below the ramps/taxiways that connect the terminal and concourses. There’s not much other than a long corridor and people mover trains down there, but it does create more of a node-like layout on the surface.
Sorry about that. Boston Red is the newly patented color that supposedly represents the city; not sure I see it but it’s striking. It’s also on prismatic panels so it should change colors depending on the light. I’m flying out of Logan today, I’ll report on how it looks.
It’s kind of striking on Google Earth
It is no coincidence that no language in history has ever coined the phrase “as pretty as an airport”.
What you do is you build the “underground” stuff at real ground level, and then build on top of that. That’s how Disneyworld works, for instance.
Or, for that matter, downtown Chicago.
San Diego had something similar. I’m not sure why they shut it down - it might have been a combination of saving money and getting people out of the baggage claim area faster.
Since people usually beat their bags to the baggage claim area, I’d think trying to swipe one would be a bit risky, since you might find yourself right next to the owner - and you are not going to be able to run very fast with the bag. And show up on surveillance.
Seattle, too.
Aircraft carrier style elevators lowering jumbo jets into underground receptacles? Probably not something that’s actually feasible to build…
It helps to remember that anything called “Xth Generation”, “X-GEN!!!1”, etc., was named by the marketing department at some giga-corp and is 95% bullshit intended to fleece the masses.*
Safeway Grocery. Now with NextGen canned beans. Gluten-Free!
Maytag Introduces our new 7th Generation Washing Machine. No more fussy dials and knobs, Now 100% Smart-Phone App controlled!**
*G11M! New 11th Generation marketing. Now 400% more trickery and lies!
**currently Windows Phone only
I’m not sure that I am completely following this.
Yes, in specific circumstances, like Heathrow mentioned in the article, with existing infrastructure constraints, putting the terminal in a more easily-accessible place and connecting the terminal to the runways with a train / bus / monorail service may make sense.
But not as an ideal in itself.
It doesn’t seem to provide any advantages apart from in a specific scenario (where there happens to be an existing transport hub with enough space for an airplane terminal and to put a connecting train, but not enough space for runways). And in that specific scenario, I think that already happens…certainly I’ve been to airports where you checked in then took a short train to the runway.
What am I missing?
At least conceptually as I see it there are three distinct ideas. All of which hinge on the idea that there’s a natural dividing line between the part of the facility used by the customer public vs the part used by the airplanes.
Facilities which are scaled to be convenient for airplanes end up with vast terminals and long distances between gates. This means extra walking and lots of wasted interior space that must be air conditioned, decorated, maintained, etc. Designing a terminal that was solely for people would look a bunch different. And perhaps be considerably smaller & cheaper for a given capacity.
Ideally, terminal facilities will have dense connections to ground transportation infrastructure and be located close to population centers in high density areas where land costs are likely high. Conversely, airplane facilities are best when vast and ideally will be far from population centers where land costs are low, where noise is less of a problem, and where contiguous parcels of multiple square miles can be assembled easily, and where additional contiguous land for future expansion can be “banked” for decades at a tolerable carrying cost.
As any existing airfield grows and the city grows around it, eventually it becomes land-locked, preventing further growth. One way to square that circle is to separate the airfield and terminal, repurposing all the existing land to one or the other role & building a new facility elsewhere for the other half. The terminal (and parking) can move underground beneath the existing airfield, leaving all the surface for airfield growth. Or in the alternative, the existing airfield could be closed, the terminals expanded to fill the whole available land footprint where the airfield was, and a new terminal-less airfield built some miles or even dozens of miles away if properly connected by dedicated secure high speed-ish rail transport.
I could totally see the e.g. Chinese doing something like this in their burgeoning cities. The rest of the already developed world? Not so much. It may be the least bad answer logically, but the incremental costs of this concept over the traditional muddle-through method pretty well precludes it getting any traction.
The Dulles people movers were really cool. I got to ride in one shortly after the airport opened. That means early 1960s and the alternative was walking out on the runway and climbing stairs. The movable sky bridge with the accordion type connector at the end quickly took over at all the airports. More economical and practical in a number of ways.