On September 21st, it will have been 40 years ago that Atlanta's Midfield Terminal Complex opened for traffic.
Its characteristic layout of long concourses, perpendicular to the runway and connected by an underground people mover system, ensured a highly efficient movement of both passengers and aircraft. For the decades that followed, Atlanta would become the gold standard for the design of hub airports.
However, did you know that the design evolved from a plan that was very similar to the original plan for Dallas/Fort Worth Airport? It's only due to project delays that we got the the "ATL" we know today. Read all about it below!
THE NEED FOR A NEW TERMINAL
Atlanta's previous terminal was completed in 1961. It was originally designed for 13.5 million passengers, a level that was already reached in the mid-1960s.
In 1967 the city decided it was time to build a new terminal and modify the existing one. In November 1967 a consortium of architects commenced the difficult task of designing the world's largest air passenger terminal building.
Everyone--the airlines, the two participating joint venture planning firms and even airline pilots--submitted ideas for the terminal design. The architects compiled sixty concepts into a briefing book. Those were narrowed down to ten for a more detailed study.
INSPIRATION FROM TEXAS
In the late 1960s the primary consideration in airport design was passenger convenience in the form of short walking distances between parking facilities and aircraft gates.
In December 1967, the master plan for the newly planned Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport was published. Prepared by Walther Prokosch, who also designed the original Pan Am terminal and the Worldport expansion, the plan proposed the concept of 20 self-contained terminals along a connecting roadway.
An artist's impression of the original master plan for the new Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport. In a way, the plan can be seen as an optimized version of New York Kennedy's Terminal City but also LAX, with each airline operating its own facilities. Later on, the terminals were changed to a semi-circular shape.
Airlines praised the model. They loved the idea of operating their own airport facilities and the small airport convenience the "mini-terminals" brought.
Thus, the Atlanta architects developed their own version of the DFW plan. They conceived the midfield complex as a series of sixteen terminal units along structural, double-decked roadways of Interstate 85 on the west. The roadways met on the east side and continued at ground level to Interstate 75.
Each terminal was self-contained with aircraft gates, ticketing and baggage facilities. The 600-foot (183-meter) central strip was dedicated to roadways and parking garages. A people mover system ran through the upper level of each terminal, parallel to the roadways. Other features included a hotel and an automated sorting system for mail and baggage.
SLIPPING TIMELINE: A BLESSING IN DISGUISE
Initially the completion date for the new midfield expansion was 1972. However, the timetable slipped by years due to airline politics, economic downturns, financing issues as well as discussions about a second airport. This had a major advantage: there was ample time to adjust and fine-tune the design for the midfield complex.
By 1971 the original design was still more or less intact. However, the central area had been reduced from 600 to 200 feet and the people mover was no longer elevated.
The layout was very much tailored to Atlanta's "O&D" (origin and destination) passengers. However, at the time 70% of passengers changed flights at the airport. With the proposed design, most transfer passengers would have to change terminals in order to catch their onward flight.
Even cities that had large volumes of connecting passengers had never specifically addressed this situation: they had merely adapted standard airport designs. Therefore, no precedent existed from which Atlanta's planners could draw.
In a conceptual breakthrough in 1973, the complex had been split into two distinct sections, airside terminals with aircraft parking gates and landside terminals for ticketing and baggage.
Roadways and parking were moved away from the aircraft gates and concentrated around the landside facilities, making the roadway system much simpler, while still creating curb space for hundreds of cars per hour.
Although the separation was not considered particularly significant at the time, it marked the point at which the airport veered away from its "drive to the plane" stance and began to deal with the particular requirements of a transfer airport.
Originating and terminating passengers would shuttle between the terminals and six airside concourses on a sunken but exposed people mover system, the sole means of transportation within the complex.
As ticketing and baggage facilities no longer had to be provided in each airside terminal, more aircraft gates could be added. The elimination of roadways and parking freed additional space.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST
Another major change was to come in the winter of 1975. Due to an ice storm at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, the Airtrans people mover system, the ground level people mover that had been a model for Atlanta's planning, became paralyzed.
The designers realized that Atlanta's system would be vulnerable under similar conditions. It was a risk that airlines would not accept. Thus, during an intense brainstorming session Delta's facility department recommended covering the "ditch" that contained the people mover system, thereby protecting it from the elements.
Putting the people mover underground also removed the barrier between the north and south runway systems and eliminated the need for costly taxiway bridges. Also, the taxiways that in earlier layouts had separated the landside and airside terminals could be eliminated.
Next the Delta team recommended that two parallel terminals replace the three landside linear landside buildings. This move, coupled with the removal of the taxiways, allowed the half-concourse to become a full concourse, adding twelve gates.
THE FINAL STEP IN CREATING THE "ATL" WE KNOW TODAY
A final critical step was to divide the people mover tunnel into two chambers and separate them to allow for a pedestrian mall in between. Lastly, the planners re-positioned the terminals from a north-south to an east-west alignment and placed them back to back.
The number of concourses was reduced to four domestic concourses boasting 26 gates each, with space to build a fifth concourse. An international concourse was added adjacent to the north terminal.
On April 18th, 1977, the contracts for construction of the terminal building and the people mover were awarded and construction could begin, almost ten years after the start of the design process. All good things take time!
For this blog the fantastic 1989 book "A Dream Takes Flight" by Betsy Braden & Paul Hagan was a huge inspiration. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the history of Atlanta Airport pre-1990.
We hope you enjoyed this little piece of history on the development of Atlanta's Midfield Terminal. In the future we are also planning a full multi-part history on the development of Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. Sign up below to know when new content is released!
Want more stunning airport photos & stories?
Sign up to our newsletter below to know when new content goes online!
I want to give a special thanks to Marie Force of the Delta Flight Museum for her assistance in preparing this article.
PLANNING BLUNDER OR GREAT VISION?
Everyone who frequently flies in and out of Schiphol will be familiar with the infamous runway 18R/36L, nicknamed the "Polderbaan" or "polder runway" ("polder" refers to the typical Dutch phenomenon of dry pumped lake beds, on which Schiphol is built).
Opened in 2003, the runway is located a whopping 3 miles (4.5 km) from the terminal area and it can take 20 minutes or more to taxi from the runway to the gate!
Some people refer to it as a planning blunder, but is it? In today's post, I will argue that the runway's remote location was actually well considered.
THE 'ENVIRONMENTAL RUNWAY'?
So, why was the runway so far away from the airport? In the early 1990s, when the project was going through the public consultation phase, the runway was pitched to the public as the "environmental runway".
Supposedly, its location was optimized so that departure and arrival routes would avoid overflying built-up areas as much as possible, explaining its eccentric location.
However, the runway first appeared in planning documents in 1968, when there was a lot less urban development around the airport and when jet noise was much less of an issue.
CHANGE OF PLAN
Over the years the thinking about Schiphol's long-term evolution has changed. Current plans envisage a second terminal building north of the current terminal complex, rather than northwest. This location would optimize connections to the existing terminal as well as existing road and rail connections.
For the huge area in between runways 18R/36L and 18C/36C, planners have come up with the idea to construct yet another runway, which would provide Schiphol with four parallel north-south runways. This would still not preclude the development of satellite buildings at some point in the future.
AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE
Currently, Schiphol can still accommodate growth within the current runway system and terminal area. A new terminal and Pier A will open in 2023, raising the capacity with 14 million annual passengers to a total of about 80 million annual passengers.
However, with almost 500,000 aircraft movements in 2019, growth at Schiphol has hit a political ceiling. Currently, a national discussion is ongoing on if and how to accommodate growth in the long term.
The Dutch government as well as the general public traditionally have taken a pro-growth stance. However, with addressing aircraft emissions becoming an ever more urgent priority, the outcome of the discussion is currently uncertain.
One thing is certain however; if the government does decide to allow further growth, plans are ready to accommodate it!
What are your thoughts about Schiphol's long-term development? Let us know in the comments below!
Want to explore more airport history?
Sign up for our newsletter here or follow us on social media!
With a title inspired by the setting of the iconic 70s film "Airport", this blog is the ultimate destination for airport history fans.
Marnix (Max) Groot Founder of AirportHistory.org. Max is an airport development expert and historian.