Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
But terminal 4 is new. I think, again from what was said a few months ago, the cheaper way was to have all of 2 plus lengthening (maybe) or refurbished, terminal 3 gone and link to the very nice terminal 4. Thats why we got terminal 3 removed from the national historical site but I guess we didn't get the saucer removed because I was told in JFK last week the saucer stays but terminal 3 goes.
I think they'd be wise not to have any one lane alley ways in whatever they do.
Yes you are correct. Terminal 4 is new. But so what? New buildings get razed all the time to make way for better more efficient ones. Space is a premium at JFK. Terminal 4 in it's current configuration does little to help out the situation in the long run. The dimensions do not work to put any kind of terminal between 2 and 4 without the 1 way alleys. (And I wholeheardetly agree with you on this one, that they must be designed out of the project). That being said, hard stands where the existing T3 is would not be a horrible thing if proper transportation to/from the terminus is provided (NO Golden Touch School busses). But I digress. What IMO DAL should be doing right now is conducting a worldwide architectural competition and get some rock star architect like Frank Gehry to do the design. JFK should be a showpiece.. not another ATL. It will never be as efficient as ATL simply because of the spatial restrictions, so go for the monument. JMHO.. your mileage may be vastly different.