MPR's Dan Olson reports the Metropolitan Airports Commission tonight will begin installing new signs for people heading to the airport. That, presumably, will kick off another round of "people should know which terminal they're supposed to go to" comments that have marked the discussion around the signs for the last year or so.
Here's a piece I wrote last year on the subject:
I agree with the basics of the argument. The issue was never so much the names, but the WAY the signs directed people. Yes, there needed to be more signs further off property that explained the differences between the two terminals. Yes, there needs to be better signs to get you from Lindbergh to Humphrey. But, in the discussion of names, how clear was it made to the public that this money would not only pay for signs with the new names, but also for more signs, and better signs? I would argue that it was never made very clear. After all, changing names made for a far, far sexier story.
However, if you dig out many pieces from the original debate from TV, print AND radio, then I will stand corrected.
It's about time. Clear signs signal a willingness to extend courtesy to visitors, whether people here actually FEEL courteous or not.
I'm not going to bother digging out old stories but it was made fairly clear early on that travelers encounter confusion when they see signs for a particular terminal without any indication which airlines are in which terminal.
Sure, people get confused about which airline is in which terminal when that information isn't provided.
But I don't recall that as the focus of the earlier new coverage. That focus was on 'people can't tell Lindbergh from Humphrey, so we're changing to 1 and 2'.
Adding signage to make it clear which terminal is desired is a good thing for people who don't use the airport all the time, especially for out-of-towners. I appreciate that information when I'm coming back into an airport with multiple facilities -- please tell me what my options are so that i can choose amongst them (rental car return, airlines, gas, etc).
But that was all lost before in the 'Lindbergh is same as terminal 1' kerfuffle. Me? When I see the sign for the airline I need, I don't pay much attention to the rest of the information -- just where I should be turning.
I agree with vjacobsen, the earlier discussions were not so much on the additional & new signage, but on the name change.
I apologize for coming across as snarky. I just meant that I do agree that the discussion should have focused more about the lack of signage explaining the different airlines at each terminal,but the bulk of the focus was solely on the name change.
Explained your way, it makes sense now.
This is the piece that lured me into reading News Cut every day. Thanks!
Well, you're right. Part of the reason is some inaccurate reporting originally by the Star Tribune which focused on the $ for an incorrect number of signs.
I can't speak for other media, but I can attest that MPR cover correctly pinpointed the problem, per Marty Moylan's story in July.
Airport spokesman Patrick Hogan says new signs along the highway will list which airlines are at each terminal, unlike the current signage. And Hogan says the Humphrey and Lindbergh terminals will also be identified by number.
//This is the piece that lured me into reading News Cut every day. Thanks!
Quick! Somebody give me an idea for another one of these slideshow/audio thingies!