dredger wrote: ↑Mar 30, 2018
What is disappointing in my mind is that no one in the region is asking what they want for an airport ten years from now, twenty years or several decades from now? or do you maintain the status quo/leftover configuration from TWA days and keep the undersized T2 baggage area w undersized drop off/pickup, limited short term parking and underwhelming metrolink stations as is?
I agree Lambert doesn't need a massive new terminal on the other side of the runways but the lack of a vision to reorganize the gates, right size and look at expanding short term parking & even a hotel is not encouraging for the long term. The luxury of having concourse D in that it gives a great option of being able to accommodate Southwest traffic growth in short term while pursuing a long term vision of how to consolidate gates, improve access from having A, B, C, D, E and T2 gates to maybe one linear concourse for T1 and rebuild part of T2 to provide more baggage space, expanded international presence if need be & better ingress/egress & more parking on the curb side.
I think the problem might be that not all parties agree on where we should go. All of the problems that you describe seem to me to be side effects of Southwest being in a terminal that's too small for what they're doing now, but they reputedly don't want to move. I think the airport pretty much is right sized now. What with B mothballed in a very creative way and D sitting dormant, but maybe not for long.
"Right sizing," in this case, sounds like code for demo. And I don't think demo is a grand idea, since we could well have need for any space that could possibly be demolished profitably in the very near future. T1 is still a little quiet, but less all the time. Honsetly, I don't think what we need is "right sizing" but "right placing."
You could, perhaps, expand T2, but I don't see how you do it in a way that works better without demolishing it and starting over. The space is simply too tight as it stands. I just don't see how you sandwich anything more in there without moving it. And even if you demolish it and build new in that location any new would nullify half of what makes it good. You can't push it closer to the runway without causing the same complaints of pushback from the north side interfering with the taxiway that already plague C. You can't really move C much (if any) closer to D without making it one sided like E. Or doing away with D. Or both.
Right now, I really feel like the current configuration is quite adequate. It served TWA well enough as a primary hub. It would only work better now, with the extra runway. (The biggest problem was operational in bad weather. 11/29 solves that. Entirely. I watched just the other day, actually. It was really cool. They use the crap out of that runway in the rain.) I can't really see what Southwest actually needs that TWA didn't. However . . . Southwest isn't in TWA's airport. They're in Southwest's airport from when they were still small iconoclast upstart. I really think there's absolutely no way you'll ever make E an efficient hub. It just won't work. There isn't room over there. You could build a new terminal over between the end of 12R and 11. That's perhaps the only spot a modern terminal would fit. And that's precisely where they talked about building a new midfield terminal. They could still do that. But right now? Why spend the money. We can cross start to think about crossing that bridge when we can start to see its vague outline in the mists somewhere. For right now we have enough airport. It's well enough organized. It's well maintained. Maybe certain puzzle pieces need to be moved around a little. But the puzzle pieces do get a say in that. And sometimes they like it where they are.
But I've said this before.