Each spot on a given alphabetically-named lane should be sequentially numbered. One, two, etc. So a person can tell whether they are moving toward or away from the place where they parked days earlier in very different lighting.

I could go on and on and on but I agree that outside of passenger comfort, not much else has improved.

This terminal when done will have 32 gates, yes four more than the 26 that Terminal C has. Currently though United, Air Canada, American, and American Eagle are currently operating with a total of 12 gates since the other half of Terminal C has been demolished (Technically they have been operating with 12 in C since 2002). The four extra gates on the north end will house Delta. Most airlines have taken less gate space, probably due to the economy in general. In 2011 when all 32 gates are finished, this is how you move all airlines except Southwest, JetBlue, and AirTran over with gates for all.

Terminal 2 is completely designed in a Common Use environment. What this means is any airline can work any flight from any gate. When we have weather problems with flights cancelled or delayed the building, in a way, can be flexed to operate a Delta flight from an American Gate or vice versa. Technically there are no Delta gates or American Gates…they are just grouped together for operational ease. Remember the JetBlue problems a couple of years ago, or any other airline that has suffered a blunder of a flight waiting on the ground for hours and hours? This type of system virtually eliminates that kind of problem.

Customs and Immigration will finally work like a normal airport. The Terminal C setup was terrible and finally that won’t be a problem anymore. Also, Customs and Immigration will have their entire office over here. This hasn’t been the case for at least 5 years, and the problem is finally alleviated.

I really don’t get how this is a missed opportunity for RDU. This building will go a long way in the future in my opinion. It has been built with flexibility in mind. Some that most people will see and some that a lot of people won’t see until the day it’s actually needed. In a lot of ways we have to deal with the hand that was dealt with AA plowing through to make their terminal 20 years ago. I think we deal with it quite well.

In 1987 American Airlines opened their fifth US hub. The concourse was built too narrow to accommodate moving sidewalks commonly seen in competing airports. The runway was built too close to the terminal, thus locking the airport into a straight line concourse configuration.

A perimeter road was built encircling the new runway, however it was abandoned a few years later when I-540 was built.

Terminal A was later extended to the south and the north. After Southwest revived Terminal B (without renovation – including its 1975 baggage claim) travelers have, at times, had to walk the entire concourse length to get to baggage claim (the equivalent of walking halfway around the lagoon at Epcot, and longer than any of Atlanta’s concourses).

Two parking garages were built between the terminals. Because Terminal A was only built with one level of traffic, the deck could not sit close to the terminal, to make room for bypassing traffic.

The parking garages that were built in the late 80′s for Terminal C were quickly out of date, and could not be built upon, therefore the new parking garages had to sit on the other side of Terminal C from the decks.

And you don’t think there is a legacy of missed opportunities at RDU?

RDU isn’t “being Raleigh” with its overall design. It is being a poor-man’s version of Logan and Kennedy. Meanwhile the rest of the US is putting in componentized landside/airside designs where parts (such as security, baggage claim, concourses, etc) can be changed out without shutting down half of the airport.

Do you buy all-in-one inkjet/scanner/faxes? How about answering machines tied into the base of a phone? How about all-in-one TV/Home theater systems? If you do, then you are throwing away perfectly good components whenever the first one goes bad. This is exactly what RDU is setting up for itself. Terminal C needed improvements to security, and they could not pull it off without completely replacing the terminal. The concourse was completely adequate for current standards as was the baggage claim. $570 million dollars later, we still have an inefficient complex that really doesn’t allow the airport to do anything it couldn’t before, and doesn’t solve future growing problems.

Let’s go back 10 years. Build that central terminal where the decks are. Put the decks above the terminal. That way people park, take the elevator down to ticketing, ride up and escalator to a people mover, and arrive at a concourse pod that doesn’t require half a mile of walking. THAT is convenience. The only problem Tampa found with their design is that they didn’t build enough parking deck space.

If we had hub and spoke-styled landside/airside design, we could simply start building a new concourse building with 32 new gates while keeping the 26 in C functional. Once the 32 would open, they could move everyone out of A/B over to C while A/B is replaced. Once the new Terminal 1 is complete, you drop Terminal C and replace it with a design that meets current requirements.

RDU will continue to go on 20-25 year cycles of having to completely and painfully reinvent itself because it is not building toward an ideal setup. We’re not stuck in the 80′s. We’re stuck, like Boston and NYC, in the 1960′s.

Anyone know why the “new standard” for naming terminals is with numbers? If gates and parking areas are already numbered, it only adds to confusion to name buildings with numbers. That’s like going to an arena and saying you are in Section 107, Row 8, Seat 6 (…or was that row 6 and seat 8?) My seat in the airplane is Row 3 seat 2 (or is that Row 2, seat 3????) The point of numbering seats, rows, aisles is for them to be quickly identifiable. Using numbers only moves us away from that ultimate goal.

As someone who uses RDU weekly, I’m thrilled with the new Terminal 2 and appreciate the new terminal for what it is; an excellent start in bringing RDU out of the 1980s. An overwhelming majority of people start/end their travel at RDU and the new variety in restaurants and stores and overall modern elements in the new terminal are a welcome change and something to be proud of. Yes, even though RDU is not a hub anymore on busy weekly travel days the restaurants are busy.

RDU flights are currently operating entirely out of approximately 35 gates between Terminals A and C for all ten major airlines. Upon the completion of the Terminal 2 Phase II in 2011, seven of ten major airlines will use the 32 new T2 gates. This will consolidate and centralize the ticketing, security and baggage for roughly 65% of RDU’s annual passengers to Terminal 2 while JetBlue, AirTran and majority holder, Southwest, continue out of Terminal A (or 1)…which as stated in the article, is what makes Southwest happy. One has to assume that Terminal A will be replaced/renovated in sections allowing these airlines to maintain operations in that terminal during construction, similar to the Terminal 2 construction plan.

While I do agree that RDU needs some sort of post-security people mover between terminals that will allow for future expansion, I doubt a landside/airside model would be practical given the runway locations.

I disagree that Terminal 2 adds to RDU’s legacy of missed opportunities, however, I feel that a bigger “opportunity” lies more in the future replacement/renovation plans of the existing Terminal A and how these plans compliment and engage the now-new Terminal 2.

PS – Love the site, surf here daily, keep up the good work!

The ground transportation infrastructure at RDU actually is quite centralized – the parking structure nicely serves both terminals. I don’t see the need for a central terminal structure … just puts people and their baggage farther from their gates, and requires an expensive people-mover system for no real benefit, when no single airline dominates the RDU market, and would thus never require more than one of the current terminal spaces. And the nature of the RDU market is such that it will never again be feasible as an airline hub.

Is the new structure “greener” than the old one? Improvements in building technology and HVAC efficiency probably outweigh any additional cost for maintaining a comfortable indoor environment, and the space is, architecturally speaking, a vast improvement over the status quo.

I am rather stunned at the negative second guessing of the author. I hail from Upstate NY and I can tell you with a measure of authority that this kind of second guessing is what killed the cities there.

The terminal is appropriate in scale and scope for Raleigh. We are not Orlando, or God forbid, Tampa. Let’s move toward completion of all the terminals and stop the silly comparsions to places we are not, nor want to be. Let’s be Raleigh – the place where people want to come, and want to stay.

Kudos to the designer and the people who made the decision to go !