Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland
The problem of size isn’t the frontage lengths or passenger/vehicle movements, it’s baggage claim and airline check-in capacity. That’s where this innovative design falls short. Sure you’ve quadrupled the amount of people and vehicles that can access the same amount of terminal frontage, but that doesn’t mean you’ve quadrupled the size of the baggage handling system or the space needed for airline check in. Check in is being compensated for by the large gateway center check in area, which increases total check in space by about 50%, but it’s the baggage pickup that is the Achilles heel in this design, which doesn’t increase at all from a 1 or 2 frontage terminal design.
|
I could be wrong, but I believe the new systems will be more efficient, and function better, even though they appear to be about the same size. (maybe a little bigger)
It is not an apples to apples comparison. The old airport is a cobbled together mix of systems and buildings, built at different times, by different manufacturers and forced to work together by years of incremental growth.
It is actually amazing that SLC works as well as it does. The new SLC will have a fully integrated system, designed with the building, and built to be expanded in a planned orderly way. This alone will increase efficiency in the check in process and in the baggage handling system. A lot of planning, math, engineering, and design has gone into building a better system. I bet we find it just works better than what we are accustomed to.
All this planning might prove fruitless... but I am choosing optimism.