Austin Texas Thread - 2018

24Whiskey · Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:13 pm

Capn wrote:
See how that goes, and maybe somewhere down the road, if AUS meets their expectations, they may be thinking HUB. Which could possibly lead to much more of a footprint there.

Let’s not do this again. The next 15-20 posts will be angry people telling you not in a million years.

I’m an AUS/SAT/DL fan myself but a realistic aspiration will be one of a RDU focus city. A CDG or AMS flight with some extra dots connected allowing for limited connections. I don’t doubt more from DL is coming but let’s keep ourselves grounded in some reality.

Let’s see how CVG does and look to IND, LAS and MCO as potential future adds. Modest growth with RJ’s/717/CS1.

Capn · Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:35 pm

24Whiskey wrote:
Capn wrote:
See how that goes, and maybe somewhere down the road, if AUS meets their expectations, they may be thinking HUB. Which could possibly lead to much more of a footprint there.

Let’s not do this again. The next 15-20 posts will be angry people telling you not in a million years.

I’m an AUS/SAT/DL fan myself but a realistic aspiration will be one of a RDU focus city. A CDG or AMS flight with some extra dots connected allowing for limited connections. I don’t doubt more from DL is coming but let’s keep ourselves grounded in some reality.

Let’s see how CVG does and look to IND, LAS and MCO as potential future adds. Modest growth with RJ’s/717/CS1.

I know what you mean...
I was thinking way down the road.
10 years ago we went thinking SEA or LAX were going to be hubs either, and MEM and CVG weren't.
Let an old man dream...
Makes things exciting and does cloud a few haters coffee.

skyspa · Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:48 am

colindm wrote:
Does anyone have any good aerial photos of AUS?

Feb 2018 out the window of a C172

colindm · Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:24 am

https://patch.com/texas/eastaustin/resi ... -expansion Anyone going?

Longhornmaniac · Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:23 am

colindm wrote:
Does anyone have any good aerial photos of AUS?

Funny you should mention this. I got a good couple of shots from a Mooney I was instructing in just today. We took off on 35R and they immediately vectored us left to get out of the way of an F9 A320, followed by a right turn to keep us east of a WN 737 taking off on 35L. Pretty neat view going right over the terminal.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

JDawgboy512 · Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:52 am

A SSP forumer posted these on the ABIA updates thread.

Note:New Master plan is not complete yet, there was another planning meeting today. If anyone went please share any info.

JDawgboy512 · Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:14 am

Also found this link, and found the first paragraph interesting. So we are apparently already classified by the FAA as a medium hub..???

https://www.pagethink.com/v/blog-detail/Austin-Bergstrom-International-ABIA-Planning-the-Airport-of-the-Future/11l/

khowaga · Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:20 pm

JDawgboy512 wrote:
Also found this link, and found the first paragraph interesting. So we are apparently already classified by the FAA as a medium hub..???

https://www.pagethink.com/v/blog-detail/Austin-Bergstrom-International-ABIA-Planning-the-Airport-of-the-Future/11l/

They probably mean hub in the sense of “transportation hub” and not in the sense of “hub and spoke” that airlines use.

But it makes sense—over in that thread about int’l service from the busiest US airports, they compiled stats for the 30 busiest; last I saw AUS is 34. If those are all ‘big’ then we’d be ‘medium.’

cvgComair · Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:50 pm

JDawgboy512 wrote:
Also found this link, and found the first paragraph interesting. So we are apparently already classified by the FAA as a medium hub..???

https://www.pagethink.com/v/blog-detail/Austin-Bergstrom-International-ABIA-Planning-the-Airport-of-the-Future/11l/

The FAA classifies airports as Large, Medium, Small, and Non-hub. Large is >1% US boardings, Medium is >0.25%, Small is >0.05%, and Non-hub is <0.05%.

TripleA · Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:27 pm

JDawgboy512 wrote:
A SSP forumer posted these on the ABIA updates thread.

Note:New Master plan is not complete yet, there was another planning meeting today. If anyone went please share any info.

Is the airport's ticketing, baggage claim, and security checkpoints large enough to support these expansions? It seems like they really don't have any space to add any extra ticketing areas, nor any new baggage claim belts. I know they opened that new security checkpoint on the east side of the terminal, but they also closed one of the central ones. And the west checkpoint is very small and is always really crowded, at least the last few times I've flown through there. They can keep expanding the airside concourses, but the pre-security area doesn't seem to have much if any more room to grow.

ADrum23 · Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:00 pm

I'm thinking the only logical solution from the above images is building the south terminal/concourse (Alternative 5) and connecting it to the existing one via an APM. New concourses could subsequently be built in between if traffic demands it.

This would allow for no disruptions to the existing terminal during construction and provide a proper southern entrance into the airport, alleviating the north entrance. Everything else would have too much disruption to existing operations and not provide congestion relief at the north entrance.

freerover · Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:21 pm

TripleA wrote:
Is the airport's ticketing, baggage claim, and security checkpoints large enough to support these expansions? It seems like they really don't have any space to add any extra ticketing areas, nor any new baggage claim belts. I know they opened that new security checkpoint on the east side of the terminal, but they also closed one of the central ones. And the west checkpoint is very small and is always really crowded, at least the last few times I've flown through there. They can keep expanding the airside concourses, but the pre-security area doesn't seem to have much if any more room to grow.

All of the expansions add area for ticketing, baggage claim, and security checkpoints.

JDawgboy512 · Sun Apr 22, 2018 5:12 am

Those each show 64 gates, however more gates can be added, it's not a full build out of the port.

CarlosSi · Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:37 am

It's got to be between alternatives 4 and 5.

1: Very destructive and costly when you have to relocate and impact the existing terminal, several times (two piers, new extension down to the West). The only real pro is "keep things centralized".

2: Cool concept, maybe make it into an H? Also "destructive".

3: I suppose the single crossfield connection is the worst factor, so taxi times may be long. Also see below.

4: "Impacts new deicing fluid collection facility". What is ice?

5: Austin, even if Delta makes us a focus city, will for an indefinite amount of time, be mostly an O&D airport. Split terminal operations shouldn't be that big of a deal, plus I imagine airlines wouldn't have their aircraft or partners split up between two terminals.

Another concern is security and ticketing. Though being looked at, some solutions seem destructive, but maybe I'm being too picky on that.

I have to admit I'm biased against designs that require relocating and (significantly) impacting existing infrastructure; why not take advantage of all that space available elsewhere? It may be more costly in the short run but long term you have more room to breathe in and you can expand from that.

tcfc424 · Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:04 am

From what my source mentioned, the original parking garage is old and in need of vast renovation. #3 & 4 show this garage being demolished and turned into the main "terminal" and then there would be concourses. The biggest question in this is how to connect the concourses...aerial bridge, underground bridge (likely out due to the rock that would have to be channeled into), or some sort of people mover. I think an aerial bridge, ala DEN A bridge (perhaps a little higher) would be great. The news is reporting also that the master plan is expected to be complete by years end and that construction of whatever the new plan is will commence immediately upon completion of the existing expansion. There was also mention of a muni bond offering, but I'm not certain that would be needed...revenue-wise AUS has done VERY well and it really pisses the city off that they can't tap into the airports coffers...the new expansion may have impacted those coffers, however.

Regarding TPAC service...I think that with the expected build up of Delta (regardless if they "announce" it or not) and the new joint venture with KE...I would expect a KE ICN flight within 3 years, but likely not daily...probably 3-4 X weekly to begin.

Someone had mentioned looking at hard numbers...I made an attempt to look at PDEW but came up against a brick wall for international...apparently there is secret sauce with those. PDEW domestically is easily available, international is not available at all, at least through the Google search I conducted. I do think that PDEW to ICN, HKG, and TYO should be a reasonable amount, at least for a 789 less than daily. The AA HKG flight from Dallas is on fire.

I also noticed driving up to the terminal today while the BA 744 was present...where it is currently parked, its iconic the way that you can only see the tail...and the upper deck above the current structures at that end. It was literally like she was looking up and over at everyone. I imagined the pilots arriving going "Damn, Presidential is backed up. Looks like a long ride to the hotel."

My Maker's Mark is talking. NIght y'all

slowrambler · Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:32 am

CarlosSi wrote:

5: Austin, even if Delta makes us a focus city, will for an indefinite amount of time, be mostly an O&D airport. Split terminal operations shouldn't be that big of a deal, plus I imagine airlines wouldn't have their aircraft or partners split up between two terminals.

A new, dedicated South Terminal will be more annoying to access for anyone coming from the city and will put tenants at a disadvantage - and presumably it won't be cheaper than the Jordan terminal (the selling point of the current one). #4 seems less disruptive.

khowaga · Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:25 pm

slowrambler wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:

5: Austin, even if Delta makes us a focus city, will for an indefinite amount of time, be mostly an O&D airport. Split terminal operations shouldn't be that big of a deal, plus I imagine airlines wouldn't have their aircraft or partners split up between two terminals.

A new, dedicated South Terminal will be more annoying to access for anyone coming from the city and will put tenants at a disadvantage - and presumably it won't be cheaper than the Jordan terminal (the selling point of the current one). #4 seems less disruptive.

One of the issues they mention is difficulty in “intuitive passenger wayfaring.” The issue isn’t just that operations are split between the terminals; the issue is that the terminals aren’t accessible from one another. The south terminal requires you to navigate in a completely different direction before you ever get to the airport. If you make a mistake, it’s an additional 20 minute drive.

It would make Austin unique (and not necessarily in a good way) among major American airports. I really can’t think of a single airport in the US where operations are split to the degree #5 calls for. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is ORD, where terminal 5 is out of the way. But even there the master plan calls for it to be better integrated—and it uses the same entry/exit to the airport grounds. It’s not just locals who, presumably, will ‘get used to it,’ but also visitors who will be unprepared. Plus they’ll need a second CONRAC, which requires rental companies to split ops... yeah. It could get messy.

JDawgboy512 · Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:49 pm

I've heard more than one person talk about an existing underground tunnel from the AFB days that would connect the two terminals. Would be nice if the planners would confirm if this is the case. They still need a south entrance drive in any event but that may help transfer people who end up on the wrong side easily enough.

khowaga · Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:14 pm

JDawgboy512 wrote:
I've heard more than one person talk about an existing underground tunnel from the AFB days that would connect the two terminals. Would be nice if the planners would confirm if this is the case. They still need a south entrance drive in any event but that may help transfer people who end up on the wrong side easily enough.

That could also make option 3 (the midfield satellite concourse) more viable. The existing garage gets turned into the ground transportation pick up/drop off facility (as planned) and the concourse can be expanded to the north to increase lobby facilities.

freerover · Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:40 pm

I don't think the issues you guys are raising about ALT 5 are a big deal.
-The original master plan also called for the construction of a new south terminal and it called for Pres Blvd. to be tunneled under the airport grounds so the main entrance could connect to the new south terminal. I wouldn't be surprised if that was revised in ALT 5 if they pursue that option.
-Previous Master Plan materials called out a new airport smart transit system like Modutram for getting people from place to place. I'm %100 sure that would be a part of the plan if they pursue ALT 5. They are not going to have a completely disconnected ecosystem.

The big issue with ALT 5 is it creates new permeant costs in the operating budgets since you are going to have a lot of redundant services and resources. I think it only gets selected if Delta comes and says we want ALT 5 to be our new terminal and we'll help pay for it and operate it. If the airport is just looking and maintaining the status quo then I think 1-4 make the most sense.

Also, they are going to pursue concurrent short term and long term solutions.

I assume that the short term solution for ALT 1 would be the west infill and piers. The Northwest expansion requires a lot of stuff to be closed and moved. Really, they can do the west infill for ALT 1,3,4 and 5. That might be on every list even though it's only mentioned on ALT 1.

khowaga · Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:59 pm

freerover wrote:
I don't think the issues you guys are raising about ALT 5 are a big deal.
-The original master plan also called for the construction of a new south terminal and it called for Pres Blvd. to be tunneled under the airport grounds so the main entrance could connect to the new south terminal. I wouldn't be surprised if that was revised in ALT 5 if they pursue that option.
-Previous Master Plan materials called out a new airport smart transit system like Modutram for getting people from place to place. I'm %100 sure that would be a part of the plan if they pursue ALT 5. They are not going to have a completely disconnected ecosystem.

Oh, yeah, if the approach road is tunnelled and services both terminals, then it’s a non issue. In fact, it might make life easier because traffic can approach from two directions and reduce congestion...or, at least, not cause significantly more congestion...at any given entry.

freerover · Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:15 pm

khowaga wrote:
freerover wrote:
I don't think the issues you guys are raising about ALT 5 are a big deal.
-The original master plan also called for the construction of a new south terminal and it called for Pres Blvd. to be tunneled under the airport grounds so the main entrance could connect to the new south terminal. I wouldn't be surprised if that was revised in ALT 5 if they pursue that option.
-Previous Master Plan materials called out a new airport smart transit system like Modutram for getting people from place to place. I'm %100 sure that would be a part of the plan if they pursue ALT 5. They are not going to have a completely disconnected ecosystem.

Oh, yeah, if the approach road is tunnelled and services both terminals, then it’s a non issue. In fact, it might make life easier because traffic can approach from two directions and reduce congestion...or, at least, not cause significantly more congestion...at any given entry.

They also have near and long term strategies to re-do the main entrance to streamline it.

This is probably the best near term option but it's pricy bc of the bridges. You have dedicated right turn lane and swap lane directions to keep traffic moving.

Cheaper than Alt 1 since it's 1 less bridge that will be an annoying light. I don't think it's worth it.

This closes the Pres. Blvd crossing at 71 so you have a continuous flow in and out of the port. I don't think it's a big deal that you would have to go EB and take a U-Turn WB but the issue would be traffic coming from the east.

Not a fan at this much construction for a short term solution.

The Long Term Options all separate inbound and outbound traffic by moving inbound traffic to Spirt of Texas Blvd.

This is the big elevated ramp option.

Awesome idea as it would expand the airport northward but there is just no way.

This is interesting as it would still expand the airport but the 71 mainlanes would cut through it. You could see bridges built over 71 that planes use to pass over traffic. I hope they go with this plan. This also seems to allow the east runway to be lengthened.

william · Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:35 pm

I can't imagine though I guess possible that the big Park and Ride gets bought out in 6 and 7.

william · Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:43 pm

Longhornmaniac wrote:
colindm wrote:
Does anyone have any good aerial photos of AUS?
Funny you should mention this. I got a good couple of shots from a Mooney I was instructing in just today. We took off on 35R and they immediately vectored us left to get out of the way of an F9 A320, followed by a right turn to keep us east of a WN 737 taking off on 35L. Pretty neat view going right over the terminal.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

One of the posters mentioned about the original parking garage being old. If the its old so is the Terminal. I understand tearing it down to expand the terminal, but not because its( less than 20) years old. As can be seen in the pics.

khowaga · Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:35 pm

william wrote:

One of the posters mentioned about the original parking garage being old. If the its old so is the Terminal. I understand tearing it down to expand the terminal, but not because its( less than 20) years old. As can be seen in the pics.

The terminal has seen its share of refurbishment projects. The bathrooms have been replaced, they’ve redone the HVAC, and now they’re replacing the roof. Not to mention both of the food court areas are about to be completely overhauled.

But, yeah, I think the main impetus is that it’s not a great use of that space. It probably needs to be updated and someone is thinking they could just as easily turn it into something more useful.

lydh · Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:08 pm

I love how zero of the plans involve rail transit to the airport. Austin, so high and mighty and "woke," but still in Texas. :-\

freerover · Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:40 am

lydh wrote:
I love how zero of the plans involve rail transit to the airport. Austin, so high and mighty and "woke," but still in Texas. :-\

That's not the job of the airport staff. There is a plan proposed by Cap Metro that would either bring an airport line to 71+Pres Blvd or to the main terminal via Riverside Dr. However, it would be at the end of a Riverside LRT line which means it would not be soon. I doubt Riverside LRT makes it on the 2020 bond since they will have a hard enough time finding the money for Guad/N. Lamar. However, if it does it will likely end at montopolis.

Also, keep in mind that we don't have the new master plan yet. I wouldn't assume anything was omitted until we do.

There was also an option floated last year of using the Commuter rail system to connect the new Downtown Rail station by the convention center to the Airport but it would involve buying a lot of land between 183+Boggy Creek and the Airport.

tcfc424 · Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:53 pm

So I talked with my source last night, and he would not say anything regarding an existing tunnel...like literally no acknowledgement I even asked him the question. He did say that during the recent expansions the contractors found significant issues regarding ground water...I believe this to mean, in this context, that the water table here is high which would add a level of complexity to any kind of tunneling operations. He said that repurposing the first-built garage into a transportation/ticketing/check-in area is preferred, turning the existing concourse into a full concourse, and the addition of a second midfield concourse. An aerial bridge, like in Denver, is the preferred method to link the two concourses, however the biggest question is just how high it would have to be. He mentioned that for 747 clearance, it would need to provide at least 75' of vertical clearance, whereas if it just need to clear 737-sized aircraft it could be much lower. There's also discussion of using that connecting bridge to host a bar-area as it would provide direct line-of-sight to downtown Austin.

freerover · Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:35 pm

tcfc424 wrote:
So I talked with my source last night, and he would not say anything regarding an existing tunnel...like literally no acknowledgement I even asked him the question. He did say that during the recent expansions the contractors found significant issues regarding ground water...I believe this to mean, in this context, that the water table here is high which would add a level of complexity to any kind of tunneling operations. He said that repurposing the first-built garage into a transportation/ticketing/check-in area is preferred, turning the existing concourse into a full concourse, and the addition of a second midfield concourse. An aerial bridge, like in Denver, is the preferred method to link the two concourses, however the biggest question is just how high it would have to be. He mentioned that for 747 clearance, it would need to provide at least 75' of vertical clearance, whereas if it just need to clear 737-sized aircraft it could be much lower. There's also discussion of using that connecting bridge to host a bar-area as it would provide direct line-of-sight to downtown Austin.

That's not surprising about the water table considering part of the airport grounds is on the FEMA Flood Plain. I believe you are describing ALT 4 as the possibly preferred option which I can see. It's nice that it sets up up for further expansions as oppose to ALT 1 and 2 which give you more gates but put you back at ground 0 after you are done. With ALT 4, they could presumedly keep building midfield concourses southward.

JDawgboy512 · Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:52 pm

See that's what I had always figured about that area due to the fact that it's close to both the Colorado river to the north and Onion Creek borders to the south. So when I heard that there may be a tunnel, I either assumed they made it water proof or that the rumors where untrue. I mean a tunnel could be done but it would be expensive.

JDawgboy512 · Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:54 pm

freerover wrote:
tcfc424 wrote:
So I talked with my source last night, and he would not say anything regarding an existing tunnel...like literally no acknowledgement I even asked him the question. He did say that during the recent expansions the contractors found significant issues regarding ground water...I believe this to mean, in this context, that the water table here is high which would add a level of complexity to any kind of tunneling operations. He said that repurposing the first-built garage into a transportation/ticketing/check-in area is preferred, turning the existing concourse into a full concourse, and the addition of a second midfield concourse. An aerial bridge, like in Denver, is the preferred method to link the two concourses, however the biggest question is just how high it would have to be. He mentioned that for 747 clearance, it would need to provide at least 75' of vertical clearance, whereas if it just need to clear 737-sized aircraft it could be much lower. There's also discussion of using that connecting bridge to host a bar-area as it would provide direct line-of-sight to downtown Austin.

That's not surprising about the water table considering part of the airport grounds is on the FEMA Flood Plain. I believe you are describing ALT 4 as the possibly preferred option which I can see. It's nice that it sets up up for further expansions as oppose to ALT 1 and 2 which give you more gates but put you back at ground 0 after you are done. With ALT 4, they could presumedly keep building midfield concourses southward.

I agree, this looks like the most reasonable and best option for the very reason that they can simply construct concourses as needed.

colindm · Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:41 pm

Is anyone else surprised that they're aren't flights to Rekjavik on a WOW a321 yet?

ADrum23 · Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:21 am

colindm wrote:
Is anyone else surprised that they're aren't flights to Rekjavik on a WOW a321 yet?

No. It may be just out of range and DY is already in AUS. I don’t see WW or FI coming anytime soon.

khowaga · Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:33 am

ADrum23 wrote:
colindm wrote:
Is anyone else surprised that they're aren't flights to Rekjavik on a WOW a321 yet?

No. It may be just out of range and DY is already in AUS. I don’t see WW or FI coming anytime soon.

WW was in talks with the city but lost interest when DY moved in. Service would have been on the A330.

william · Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:37 pm

lydh wrote:
I love how zero of the plans involve rail transit to the airport. Austin, so high and mighty and "woke," but still in Texas. :-\

Oh please. Don't blame Texas, blame the"progressive" city council and Cap Metro that planned the first light rail running since 2012, should go north 32 miles to Leander than running a shorter but more utilized line from downtown to the Airport.

william · Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:59 pm

tcfc424 wrote:
So I talked with my source last night, and he would not say anything regarding an existing tunnel...like literally no acknowledgement I even asked him the question. He did say that during the recent expansions the contractors found significant issues regarding ground water...I believe this to mean, in this context, that the water table here is high which would add a level of complexity to any kind of tunneling operations. He said that repurposing the first-built garage into a transportation/ticketing/check-in area is preferred, turning the existing concourse into a full concourse, and the addition of a second midfield concourse. An aerial bridge, like in Denver, is the preferred method to link the two concourses, however the biggest question is just how high it would have to be. He mentioned that for 747 clearance, it would need to provide at least 75' of vertical clearance, whereas if it just need to clear 737-sized aircraft it could be much lower. There's also discussion of using that connecting bridge to host a bar-area as it would provide direct line-of-sight to downtown Austin.

I wander how drop off and pick up will work? Walk to the old garage building/ New Terminal on the left, check in and cross back across the road way via a bridge? I guess they could keep baggage claim in the same place. Surely they are not going to move the main road.

freerover · Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:19 pm

william wrote:
lydh wrote:
I love how zero of the plans involve rail transit to the airport. Austin, so high and mighty and "woke," but still in Texas. :-\

Oh please. Don't blame Texas, blame the"progressive" city council and Cap Metro that planned the first light rail running since 2012, should go north 32 miles to Leander than running a shorter but more utilized line from downtown to the Airport.

Austin doesn’t have light rail.

william · Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:21 pm

freerover wrote:
william wrote:
lydh wrote:
I love how zero of the plans involve rail transit to the airport. Austin, so high and mighty and "woke," but still in Texas. :-\

Oh please. Don't blame Texas, blame the"progressive" city council and Cap Metro that planned the first light rail running since 2012, should go north 32 miles to Leander than running a shorter but more utilized line from downtown to the Airport.

Austin doesn’t have light rail.

http://kut.org/post/austin-getting-anot ... -rail-line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_MetroRail

https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/New2 ... ailMap.pdf

freerover · Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:41 pm

william wrote:
freerover wrote:
william wrote:

Oh please. Don't blame Texas, blame the"progressive" city council and Cap Metro that planned the first light rail running since 2012, should go north 32 miles to Leander than running a shorter but more utilized line from downtown to the Airport.

Austin doesn’t have light rail.

http://kut.org/post/austin-getting-anot ... -rail-line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_MetroRail

https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/New2 ... ailMap.pdf

This doesn’t prove anything. Austin voted down light rail in 2000 and followed up by putting commuter trains on existing freight hard rail lines. You’re using a term in “light rail” that you don’t understand. They did that because it’s cheap as oppose to building light rail to the airport which would be billions.

khowaga · Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:43 pm

william wrote:
I wander how drop off and pick up will work? Walk to the old garage building/ New Terminal on the left, check in and cross back across the road way via a bridge? I guess they could keep baggage claim in the same place. Surely they are not going to move the main road.

The plans do seem to indicate that at least part of the traffic would be diverted in front of what’s now the garage—follow the dotted black line on the map above—but that just seems like an absolute nightmare to implement (and no way is that area wide enough to handle all the traffic). Especially if the plan is to repurpose the existing garage structure and not tear it down and build something new.

khowaga · Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:55 pm

freerover wrote:
william wrote:
freerover wrote:

Austin doesn’t have light rail.

http://kut.org/post/austin-getting-anot ... -rail-line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_MetroRail

https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/New2 ... ailMap.pdf

This doesn’t prove anything. Austin voted down light rail in 2000 and followed up by putting commuter trains on existing freight hard rail lines. You’re using a term in “light rail” that you don’t understand. They did that because it’s cheap as oppose to building light rail to the airport which would be billions.

Cap Metro has, admittedly, done a very good job of confusing the difference between commuter rail and light rail. Probably to hide the price tag involved with constructing the latter.

Mikey711MN · Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:08 pm

william wrote:
I wander how drop off and pick up will work? Walk to the old garage building/ New Terminal on the left, check in and cross back across the road way via a bridge? I guess they could keep baggage claim in the same place. Surely they are not going to move the main road.

I'm not sure that it needs to be as complicated as you think, but it does take some rethinking about what could be versus what exists today.

First, the New Terminal (or "Ground Transportation Center" as identified more specifically from the Plan) functions as just that: curbside dropoff and pickup of passengers at-grade, but on both the north and south side instead of on two levels on just the south side.

There is no reason to have the GTC take up the exact footprint as the existing garages, which solves whether or not there is sufficient width for a reconstructed northside roadway. From a constructability perspective, it probably makes sense to narrow (in the N-S direction) the footprint to enable construction of the GTC while the existing terminal access (to the south) and parking garages/car rental facility (to the north) are in use.

In effect, the big change in thinking here - and the huge opportunity that most of the Alts create - is that the GTC may provide pedestrian access largely at the existing terminal's upper level for departure & check-in, that is, bridging over what exists today as the curbside dropoff area for vehicles. Pedestrian access may remain on that upper level across to-be-constructed bridging over the northside roadway to connect passengers to the new parking garages and car rental facility. If it wanted to, the City could prioritize transit traffic as front-door access to the terminal itself (i.e. where the southside lower level pickup area exists today). And in the long term (i.e. beyond 2040), additional curb-side expansion may be effectively doubled by readding second-level roadways and relocating ped access to tunnels. (similar to PDX, SEA, and others today with constrained curbside lengths).

In conclusion, there is little value to preserving the existing garages in the area of the GTC nor, for that matter, the existing function of the main road. As a result, moving the main road - and repurposing it exclusively for at-grade GTC access generally to the northside - seems to be a key feature in making it all work.

william · Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:04 pm

freerover wrote:
william wrote:
freerover wrote:

Austin doesn’t have light rail.

http://kut.org/post/austin-getting-anot ... -rail-line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_MetroRail

https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/New2 ... ailMap.pdf

This doesn’t prove anything. Austin voted down light rail in 2000 and followed up by putting commuter trains on existing freight hard rail lines. You’re using a term in “light rail” that you don’t understand. They did that because it’s cheap as oppose to building light rail to the airport which would be billions.

Ok, lets call it urban rail, commuter rail or whatever, the first proposed line should have went to the Airport from Downtown. That would have passed because it would have made sense to the voters.

CapMetro came close to designing a system to airport in 2014 but still no cigar.

https://www.capmetro.org/central-corridor-urban-rail/

If built, I bet it would carry more people in a day than what the Leander line carries all week. It is definitely needed.

william · Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:16 pm

Mikey711MN wrote:
william wrote:
I wander how drop off and pick up will work? Walk to the old garage building/ New Terminal on the left, check in and cross back across the road way via a bridge? I guess they could keep baggage claim in the same place. Surely they are not going to move the main road.

I'm not sure that it needs to be as complicated as you think, but it does take some rethinking about what could be versus what exists today.

First, the New Terminal (or "Ground Transportation Center" as identified more specifically from the Plan) functions as just that: curbside dropoff and pickup of passengers at-grade, but on both the north and south side instead of on two levels on just the south side.

There is no reason to have the GTC take up the exact footprint as the existing garages, which solves whether or not there is sufficient width for a reconstructed northside roadway. From a constructability perspective, it probably makes sense to narrow (in the N-S direction) the footprint to enable construction of the GTC while the existing terminal access (to the south) and parking garages/car rental facility (to the north) are in use.

In effect, the big change in thinking here - and the huge opportunity that most of the Alts create - is that the GTC may provide pedestrian access largely at the existing terminal's upper level for departure & check-in, that is, bridging over what exists today as the curbside dropoff area for vehicles. Pedestrian access may remain on that upper level across to-be-constructed bridging over the northside roadway to connect passengers to the new parking garages and car rental facility. If it wanted to, the City could prioritize transit traffic as front-door access to the terminal itself (i.e. where the southside lower level pickup area exists today). And in the long term (i.e. beyond 2040), additional curb-side expansion may be effectively doubled by readding second-level roadways and relocating ped access to tunnels. (similar to PDX, SEA, and others today with constrained curbside lengths).

In conclusion, there is little value to preserving the existing garages in the area of the GTC nor, for that matter, the existing function of the main road. As a result, moving the main road - and repurposing it exclusively for at-grade GTC access generally to the northside - seems to be a key feature in making it all work.

So the new terminal in place of the parking garage would be like the Terminal C setup at IAH or Terminals at PHX. Traffic on north and south side of the new terminal and a bridge across the south side connecting pax to present terminal complex. Changing the present terminal to a concourse will allow more room for security, ala the setup at MDW where TSA will actually be on the bridge over the roadway. Baggage claim could stay in its present location.

william · Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:26 pm

freerover wrote:
khowaga wrote:
freerover wrote:
I don't think the issues you guys are raising about ALT 5 are a big deal.
-The original master plan also called for the construction of a new south terminal and it called for Pres Blvd. to be tunneled under the airport grounds so the main entrance could connect to the new south terminal. I wouldn't be surprised if that was revised in ALT 5 if they pursue that option.
-Previous Master Plan materials called out a new airport smart transit system like Modutram for getting people from place to place. I'm %100 sure that would be a part of the plan if they pursue ALT 5. They are not going to have a completely disconnected ecosystem.

Oh, yeah, if the approach road is tunnelled and services both terminals, then it’s a non issue. In fact, it might make life easier because traffic can approach from two directions and reduce congestion...or, at least, not cause significantly more congestion...at any given entry.

They also have near and long term strategies to re-do the main entrance to streamline it.

This is probably the best near term option but it's pricy bc of the bridges. You have dedicated right turn lane and swap lane directions to keep traffic moving.

So in plan 7, the read and blue lines are fly overs and not a rerouting of 71?

Cheaper than Alt 1 since it's 1 less bridge that will be an annoying light. I don't think it's worth it.

This closes the Pres. Blvd crossing at 71 so you have a continuous flow in and out of the port. I don't think it's a big deal that you would have to go EB and take a U-Turn WB but the issue would be traffic coming from the east.

Not a fan at this much construction for a short term solution.

The Long Term Options all separate inbound and outbound traffic by moving inbound traffic to Spirt of Texas Blvd.

This is the big elevated ramp option.

Awesome idea as it would expand the airport northward but there is just no way.

This is interesting as it would still expand the airport but the 71 mainlanes would cut through it. You could see bridges built over 71 that planes use to pass over traffic. I hope they go with this plan. This also seems to allow the east runway to be lengthened.

Mikey711MN · Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:28 pm

william wrote:
So the new terminal in place of the parking garage would be like the Terminal C setup at IAH or Terminals at PHX. Traffic on north and south side of the new terminal and a bridge across the south side connecting pax to present terminal complex. Changing the present terminal to a concourse will allow more room for security, ala the setup at MDW where TSA will actually be on the bridge over the roadway.

That is all my interpretation of the proposals at least, and yes, I think those airports are good comparisons to convey what I tried to describe.

william wrote:
Baggage claim could stay in its present location.

That seems reasonable enough, but I know that while the public side of the baggage claim area seems spacious enough, the secure-side baggage handling operations are severely space constrained. I don't necessarily think that the claim area would be moved from its current location - so I generally agree with you here - but more space for baggage handling operations will almost certainly need to happen before any of these gate/terminal/GTC expansions would start.

As a result, I'm left to speculate if the need for this new GTC may be driven, at least in part, by making some space available in the terminal area for expanded baggage ops. In other words, it may be prohibitively expensive to retrofit these ops into the existing terminal space versus possibly pushing the terminal area out (i.e. to the north) for newly relocated claim area to make room behind it for baggage handling.

khowaga · Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:39 pm

william wrote:
freerover wrote:
william wrote:

http://kut.org/post/austin-getting-anot ... -rail-line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_MetroRail

https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/New2 ... ailMap.pdf

This doesn’t prove anything. Austin voted down light rail in 2000 and followed up by putting commuter trains on existing freight hard rail lines. You’re using a term in “light rail” that you don’t understand. They did that because it’s cheap as oppose to building light rail to the airport which would be billions.

Ok, lets call it urban rail, commuter rail or whatever, the first proposed line should have went to the Airport from Downtown. That would have passed because it would have made sense to the voters.

CapMetro came close to designing a system to airport in 2014 but still no cigar.

https://www.capmetro.org/central-corridor-urban-rail/

If built, I bet it would carry more people in a day than what the Leander line carries all week. It is definitely needed.

I mean, this is verging on non-AV, but my gut feeling is that an effective urban rail/light rail system will never happen because of the massive gridlock the construction would cause (every solution will cause this, but let’s not bring logic in here). It would never win an election, and any city council that backed it would commit political suicide in doing so, and that’ll just never happen. So, they’ll do what they always do: nothing.

william · Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:50 pm

khowaga wrote:
william wrote:
freerover wrote:

This doesn’t prove anything. Austin voted down light rail in 2000 and followed up by putting commuter trains on existing freight hard rail lines. You’re using a term in “light rail” that you don’t understand. They did that because it’s cheap as oppose to building light rail to the airport which would be billions.

Ok, lets call it urban rail, commuter rail or whatever, the first proposed line should have went to the Airport from Downtown. That would have passed because it would have made sense to the voters.

CapMetro came close to designing a system to airport in 2014 but still no cigar.

https://www.capmetro.org/central-corridor-urban-rail/

If built, I bet it would carry more people in a day than what the Leander line carries all week. It is definitely needed.

I mean, this is verging on non-AV, but my gut feeling is that an effective urban rail/light rail system will never happen because of the massive gridlock the construction would cause (every solution will cause this, but let’s not bring logic in here). It would never win an election, and any city council that backed it would commit political suicide in doing so, and that’ll just never happen. So, they’ll do what they always do: nothing.

On the positive side, there have been proposals from rail, monorail or Gondola going down or along Riverside to the Airport. There is always hope.

JDawgboy512 · Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:42 pm

william wrote:
khowaga wrote:
william wrote:

Ok, lets call it urban rail, commuter rail or whatever, the first proposed line should have went to the Airport from Downtown. That would have passed because it would have made sense to the voters.

CapMetro came close to designing a system to airport in 2014 but still no cigar.

https://www.capmetro.org/central-corridor-urban-rail/

If built, I bet it would carry more people in a day than what the Leander line carries all week. It is definitely needed.

I mean, this is verging on non-AV, but my gut feeling is that an effective urban rail/light rail system will never happen because of the massive gridlock the construction would cause (every solution will cause this, but let’s not bring logic in here). It would never win an election, and any city council that backed it would commit political suicide in doing so, and that’ll just never happen. So, they’ll do what they always do: nothing.

On the positive side, there have been proposals from rail, monorail or Gondola going down or along Riverside to the Airport. There is always hope.

Gondola would be pretty sweet.

KD5MDK · Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:07 pm

Just to point out, Airports are bad ridership locations compared to downtowns and where people live. The first rail transit expansions need to focus on going where the jobs are, not somewhere most people only go occasionally. The statistics are very clear in every city that has a rail line to their airport, it has less ridership than their primary lines.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net