Originally Posted by
threeoh
Yes but an airside connection would still be nice. No need for ATS, a tunnel from the tip L to the tip of M would only be 1000 feet long (300 steps).
Compare, for example, the tunnel from B to C is 800 feet.
I wonder what the total budget of the TTB (buses, labor, constructing accessible entrances) and the various airline-operated buses that predated it were compared to the one-time cost of the tunnel construction.
CapEx vs OpEx
When the mind is in one category the other terrifies people -- Aside from the added costs from logistical issues of trying to tunnel (likely cut-and-cover instead of a bored) in an active airport terminal environment I can very easily see certain classes of beancounters doing the "It's only $30k/month in operating costs!" justification vs. "OMG, we can't spend $3 million in capital expenses!" (numbers completely made up) despite a lower lifetime cost -- at least if lifetime is > X years.
The other part is the can has been kicked down the road so many times on terminal improvements that I even if they aren't stuck in a rut I can also see "Why CapEx a giant bandaid when this entire problem will just go away we have a new terminal (soon, I promise)"
But an airside solution of any flavor would be most appreciated. Before I was grounded (
) I had a nasty habit of in-bounding to ORD at C25 or there abouts and departing from F21 or the neighborhood. That was bad when they had the C-EF shuttle but now it's just plain miserable... But a sign of how much I'm missing flying: I'd even do that in a heartbeat if my employer would allow it.