AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by freerover

Very Cool! Thanks for the info. So it sounds like phase 1 of the next CIP will be:

West Infill
Center Concourse
Tunnel to Center Concourse
Apron Expansion for CC
New Taxiway for West runway
Braided airport entrance


That sounds way more manageable and fundable than the proposed phase 1 in the MP.

My interpretation is that design work on the braided airport entrance is already underway and may be the first visible construction project from this list. This may take some coordination with TxDOT's project to extend/reconstruct the SH 71 FRs from 183 to Spirit of Texas.

Per your list above, then, the West Infill needs to come before the tunnel as shown. And other operational improvements in the existing BJT must be done before the CC can open. Ultimately, the CC project may or may not include the tunnel, but it sounded like they may all fall under one CMAR contract. But you may assume that the CC can't open without the tunnel.

All of this is obviously subject to change, but that's what I understand of the status of things right now.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So, are we still on for having a new tower then, or no?

At least not in the first batch of projects, no.

[ATCZERO]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

At least not in the first batch of projects, no.

Come on Mikey, make it happen!

Austin has an excellent opportunity to have a cool looking guitar shaped air traffic control tower to solidify it's music capital status.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So, are we still on for having a new tower then, or no?

A new tower was not part of the 2040 plan.

[lzppjb]

I like that mini Pennybacker.

[keiffers]

Originally Posted by freerover

A new tower was not part of the 2040 plan.

I see no reason to replace the tower....its only 20-25 yrs old and its probably no where near needing replacement. It has the necessary view and in the eyes of the FAA it does just fine I'm sure barring any kind of structural issues, so it'll probably last another 20 or so years before they consider replacing it. It wouldn't surprise me they regularly review it in passing but its not like its the old BAFB tower that was only 1/2 the height of the current tower.

Personally I take alot of these plans with a grain of salt. What we the public sees is probably different than what the actual plans are....similar yes, but there are alot of behind the scenes things that we'll never see until the actual plan, approved by the FAA comes out. Yeah they'll come and show pictures and plans, but I think alot of those are just what they'd "like" it to be, and I'm sure it'll be pretty close. If they do go with the tunnel, they must have a remedy to the water table issue, and as well any potential limestone interference. Granted the airport is east of the escarpment, but you'll still hit limestone at some point. But that's just my two cents worth.

And yes, nice touch with the mini-Pennybacker bridge

[freerover]

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

So why the change of heart on the tunnel? I thought there were issues with groundwater?

Also, it was mentioned that the taxiways will be built to accommodate a third concourse in the future, yet the above pictures don’t show it.

New boss came in and wants the tunnel. A third concourse is not in the 2040 plan.

Originally Posted by keiffers

I see no reason to replace the tower....its only 20-25 yrs old and its probably no where near needing replacement. It has the necessary view and in the eyes of the FAA it does just fine I'm sure barring any kind of structural issues, so it'll probably last another 20 or so years before they consider replacing it. It wouldn't surprise me they regularly review it in passing but its not like its the old BAFB tower that was only 1/2 the height of the current tower.

Personally I take alot of these plans with a grain of salt. What we the public sees is probably different than what the actual plans are....similar yes, but there are alot of behind the scenes things that we'll never see until the actual plan, approved by the FAA comes out. Yeah they'll come and show pictures and plans, but I think alot of those are just what they'd "like" it to be, and I'm sure it'll be pretty close. If they do go with the tunnel, they must have a remedy to the water table issue, and as well any potential limestone interference. Granted the airport is east of the escarpment, but you'll still hit limestone at some point. But that's just my two cents worth.

And yes, nice touch with the mini-Pennybacker bridge

The reason repalacing the tower was considered was due to terminal concourse expansion options. Ultimately, an option was picked that did not require the relocation of the tower.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

My interpretation is that design work on the braided airport entrance is already underway and may be the first visible construction project from this list. This may take some coordination with TxDOT's project to extend/reconstruct the SH 71 FRs from 183 to Spirit of Texas.

Per your list above, then, the West Infill needs to come before the tunnel as shown. And other operational improvements in the existing BJT must be done before the CC can open. Ultimately, the CC project may or may not include the tunnel, but it sounded like they may all fall under one CMAR contract. But you may assume that the CC can't open without the tunnel.

All of this is obviously subject to change, but that's what I understand of the status of things right now.

The new entrance system for the port is going to be really great. Now all airport traffic on WB 71 will exit before 183, take a bridge over 183, and take a new bridge over Spirt of Texas. The new 183 SB to 71 EB ramp will have an exit built onto it for airport traffic as well to the new frontage roads and a new ramp from 183 NB to the new frontage as well as a ramp to the WB mainlanes. Basically, it get airport bound cars off the highway before 183 traffic joins the 71 mainlanes. Just smart highway design.


Also, do you mean that the west infill as to be open before they start on the tunnel? I would think they would work on both simultaneously as long as the west infill done before or at the same time as the new center concourse.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

I meant the taxiways in the above image don’t seem to be configured in a way that leaves open space for a third concourse as was mentioned.

There is nothing but open space south of the taxiway with the exception of the airport tower, deicing facility and south terminal. Everything else can go.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by freerover

Also, do you mean that the west infill as to be open before they start on the tunnel? I would think they would work on both simultaneously as long as the west infill done before or at the same time as the new center concourse.

I have no doubt that they could take place simultaneously like you mention, but my interpretation of the 4-gate expansion was - at least in part - to absorb the loss of some of the existing BJT to build the tunnel, i.e. gates, waiting area, etc. that may need to be removed to place stairwells, escalators, elevators, etc. within the footprint of BJT.

Depending on the amount of floor area of BJT, perhaps some of that capacity can be restored, in which case the western extension would present a minor net expansion to the port before the midfield concourse comes online.

That would be wildly speculative on my part at this point without some amount of design being done.

[GoldenBoot]

I agree with some who have expressed displeasure with the idea of not constructing a new (separate) arrivals & departures hall - as depicted in the previous rendition of the master plan.

I loath the idea of fighting through the BJT during construction of a new/expanded arrivals & departures area directly attached (extending north) from the current facility. AUS' passenger experience will be severely impacted for several years while said extension is constructed. I am extremely curious as to how they are going to do it...

As for the mini Pennybacker Bridge - we could do without it. It's not needed and too cutesy. Does Kingsford-Smith have a mini Sydney Harbour Bridge? No. Does either Heathrow or Gatwick have a mini Tower Bridge? No. It's not needed. Let the architecture of the airport stand on its own merit. There is no need to copy something which already exists.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I agree with some who have expressed displeasure with the idea of not constructing a new (separate) arrivals & departures hall - as depicted in the previous rendition of the master plan.

I loath the idea of fighting through the BJT during construction of a new/expanded arrivals & departures area directly attached (extending north) from the current facility. AUS' passenger experience will be severely impacted for several years while said extension is constructed. I am extremely curious as to how they are going to do it...

As for the mini Pennybacker Bridge - we could do without it. It's not needed and too cutesy. Does Kingsford-Smith have a mini Sydney Harbour Bridge? No. Does either Heathrow or Gatwick have a mini Tower Bridge? No. It's not needed. Let the architecture of the airport stand on its own merit. There is no need to copy something which already exists.

The port would still be constructing a new (separate) arrivals & departures hallbut it wouldn't be in the 1st phase. The new terminal building is still there. It' just better blended with BJ.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by freerover

The port would still be constructing a new (separate) arrivals & departures hallbut it wouldn't be in the 1st phase. The new terminal building is still there. It' just better blended with BJ.

Actually, it will not be "separate" in the newly presented plan. It will be directly attached to the current BJT. Basically, in essence, the BJT will be expanded to the north creating a new arrival and departure hall.

Building a separate facility would have alleviated a lot of headache for travelers. And, as a frequent flier, the option in which I would prefer. It really doesn't matter to me that it "blends better." I would, however, hope that it is up-and-running prior to opening any new satellite concourse.

[GoldenBoot]

Don't get me wrong...I'm ecstatic that ABIA is expanding. And, no matter what I say - they're going to do what they're going to do. When it's all done, we'll be happy.

I'm just not looking forward to the forthcoming chaos. The pains of growth, huh!?! Okay...I'll take it if I can see AUS grow to service 30+ million, have 64+ gates in two concourses, and overall, have a beautiful airport to boot.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

Isn’t the South Terminal being demolished?

I guess I just don’t get why the blue taxiway east of the satellite is on a diagonal. Don’t they realize they are probably going to have to expand the satellite eastward eventually so they’ll have to redo that area again?

Also, I’ll say it again that they should completely clear the area where a third concourse would go, for maximum flexibility purposes.

They don't have to demolish that blue diagonal when they do the 3rd concourse post 2040. They would just have to fill in what they aren't paving now. The reason they aren't paving now for the future is because they don't need it for what they are planing to open in the 1st expansion. Sure, it would be great if they could just apron the whole area and install all the necessary drainage that would be required for that but there isn't some infinite pot of money for the port to pull from. It seems they are being smart about what they can do in the sequence they can do it. Also, you never know what could change. The 2003 master plan never called for any of this. We were suppose to be working on the new actual south terminal on the south side of the port. Things change. Don't spend money on something unless you are going to use/monetize it.

What I've heard more recently was that they were not going to buy out the south terminal but I would default to Mikey as he is more in the loop than I am.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I would, however, hope that it is up-and-running prior to opening any new satellite concourse.

This surprised me as well, but I think the west infill holds the key in how much additional ticketing and Checkpoint 3 space opens up upstairs while adding another couple carousels downstairs. Tight but doable, and that's assuming that all 20 gates are fully operational upon opening, which seems highly unlikely.

Another way to get the numbers to work, of course, is if you don't have as many O&D customers to process through BJT.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

This surprised me as well, but I think the west infill holds the key in how much additional ticketing and Checkpoint 3 space opens up upstairs while adding another couple carousels downstairs. Tight but doable, and that's assuming that all 20 gates are fully operational upon opening, which seems highly unlikely.

Another way to get the numbers to work, of course, is if you don't have as many O&D customers to process through BJT.

If the east infill project is used as a model, then there will be no new check-in space created with a west infill project. Closing checkpoint 2 & adding a tiny bit of check-in space there would be an option when the new west infill is completed.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

If the east infill project is used as a model, then there will be no new check-in space created with a west infill project. Closing checkpoint 2 & adding a tiny bit of check-in space there would be an option when the new west infill is completed.

As you are implying, it depends on the west infill is designed. If they build a rectangle infill instead of oval and attach it to the road then they can add more outdoor curb checkin as well as more room for ticketing without losing security lines. The east infill oval is aesthetically pleasing but not a great use of space. I'm sure the design will also reflect the future connection to the terminal processing building.

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Actually, it will not be "separate" in the newly presented plan. It will be directly attached to the current BJT. Basically, in essence, the BJT will be expanded to the north creating a new arrival and departure hall.

Building a separate facility would have alleviated a lot of headache for travelers. And, as a frequent flier, the option in which I would prefer. It really doesn't matter to me that it "blends better." I would, however, hope that it is up-and-running prior to opening any new satellite concourse.

I'm willing to bet a buck that the new processing building opens in 2 phases. The first looking like a separate building and then another phase of construction that demolishes the arrivals level of the current pres. blvd and building a "connection building" between the two is parts so people can still walk from the new facility to BJ. At one of the commission meetings, members expressed skepticism with the idea of an outdoor plaza as initially presented because it's so hot for a big part of the year. That might have to do with closing it up. Also, it's just a much more efficient use of space. As Mikey mentioned, you now have room for 2 more facilities at the corners between the garages and processing facility.

-it'll be nice the south terminal has its own taxiway to both runways while heavy construction is going on in the center.
-It makes sense to start with the west half of the new center concourse since there is more room on the west side due to the new deicing facility on the east side
-I'm sure it'll be nice for the planes in the back of the east terminal extension to have the new corner connection (new Golf1 I'm Guessing) to the east runway taxiway.
-I wonder if they can manage to get the new west taxiway Foxtrot ready to build at the same time they close the west runway for maintenance/upgrades and renumbering. Seems like it would be hard to build the taxiway next to an active runway unless it was all at night. I assume all the quick exits in the new taxiway increases the amount of operations the runways can handle per hour?
-Would it be crazy to cut and cap the tunnel? You would have to probably get the scheduling right so you finish the south half of the cap with the new apron so you could cut and cap the north half.

[freerover]

AUS put out a press statement celebrating Spirit's first international flight to CAN and their 1 year at the port. It's pretty impressive that they'll be up to 13 cities next month. As a reminder, here are all the new flights:

*Feb 26th, Cancun, Spirit
Mar 26th, Nashville, Spirit
Mar 26th, Newark, Spirit
April 7th, Boston, AA
April 7th, San Jose, AA
April 23rd, Miami, Frontier
*May 6th, Paris, Norwegian
*May 7th, Amsterdam, KLM
*May 16th, Cabo, AA
May 21st, Asheville, Allegiant
May 22nd, Des Moines, Allegiant
May 22nd, Grand Rapids, Allegiant
May 22nd, Knoxville, Allegiant

These are getting shut down
April 21st, Ontario CA, Frontier
April 22nd, Salt Lake City, Frontier

[atx-adam]

In today's Delta press release about expanding Seattle flights, it lists an additional daily flight to Austin:

Austin-Seattle (existing flight)
6:30 a.m.
8:57 a.m.

Austin-Seattle (added frequency)
3:20 p.m.
5:45 p.m.

Seattle-Austin (added frequency)
8:30 a.m.
2:40 p.m.

Seattle-Austin (existing flight)
6:20 p.m.
0:24 a.m.