DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

I thought the airport now preferred a plan that would build two concourses parallel to the terminal, east and west on either side (likely with a new train tunnel and platform underneath). That way, there would be three concourses close-in instead of just one, and it would be a way to avoid putting crush load capacity on the current trains. These two east and west oriented concourses wouldn't preclude Concourses D and E to the north of C from being built, either.

Too lazy to check but IIRC the extension of the people mover train with the hotel addition along with the pending improvements increases the capacity to something like 85 million passengers. This should take them beyond 2030.

Expansion needed beyond this will consist of a new terminal south of Jeppesen and would include new access roads, concourses and people moving capacity.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Too lazy to check but AFAIK the extension of the people mover train with the hotel addition along with the pending improvements increases the capacity to something like 85 million passengers. This should take them beyond 2030.

To clarify, are you referring to a pocket track they built south of the terminal platform to allow trains to turn around?

Expansion needed beyond this will consist of a new terminal south of Jeppesen and would include new access roads, concourses and people moving capacity.

I thought (or at least heard) that the south terminal idea (to be built where the cargo ops currently are) was almost unanimously rejected by everyone.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

To clarify, are you referring to a pocket track they built south of the terminal platform to allow trains to turn around?

Yeah, sounds right. The extension somehow also added capacity.

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

I thought (or at least heard) that the south terminal idea (to be built where the cargo ops currently are) was almost unanimously rejected by everyone.

For the latest greatest that I'm aware of start HERE; then click on Master Plan Update Studies bottom of the 1st paragraph.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Yeah, sounds right. The extension somehow also added capacity.



For the latest greatest that I'm aware of start HERE; then click on Master Plan Update Studies bottom of the 1st paragraph.

Yeah, I don't know if that's the latest. Sure, that may be the latest master plan, but it was all written before the hotel and RTD station were even under planning stages. With that said, DIA seems to keep new projects pretty close to the vest. On an aviation forum I frequent, for months, some in-the-know users have been talking about new gates being built, but nothing was available publicly until this week. Those same people also told me the south terminal idea was rejected, and even if you look at the now-somewhat out-of-date master plan, the south terminal idea was only one of many possible designs (east/west concourses, D, and E, etc.)

From what I gather, DIA eventually realized that building what would essentially be a second airport unto itself is not ideal.

[TakeFive]

^^ I could believe that. For at least a decade it would seem to be a moot point. I don't doubt they'll take a fresh look when they can see the need or as required by FAA.

Since most airports have multiple terminals that doesn't' seem like such a big deal. The question will be can the existing infrastructure including Jeppesen handle the projected needs?

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

From what I gather, DIA eventually realized that building what would essentially be a second airport unto itself is not ideal.

I mean, Heathrow is basically couple separate airport. Even a rather small Budapest Airport has a very distinct and separate Terminals 1 and 2. I don't think it would be that much of an issue if there is a proper infrastructure supporting the new terminal.

[seventwenty]

I don't think the separate terminal idea is a problem from a logistical perspective. COst perspectives are a different matter, though.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by mishko27

I mean, Heathrow is basically couple separate airport. Even a rather small Budapest Airport has a very distinct and separate Terminals 1 and 2. I don't think it would be that much of an issue if there is a proper infrastructure supporting the new terminal.

Yes, but those are old airports in terribly constrained places. Heathrow's problems are very well known. It still only has two runways, and while the current terminals are mostly separate and were built at different times independent of each other, Heathrow's master plan calls for eventually razing almost all of them and building a series of linear, parallel terminals connected by an underground train. Sound familiar?

The south terminal idea for DEN could certainly be done, but I still don't think it's ideal. Sure, you could put Southwest in it, but what if Southwest changes its business model and starts selling connections onto other carriers?

It's amazing to think how much room for logical, built-in expansion room there is at DIA. Fully built out, it'll have something like 12 runways and 300 gates spread across 5-7 concourses!

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Yes, but those are old airports in terribly constrained places. Heathrow's problems are very well known. It still only has two runways, and while the current terminals are mostly separate and were built at different times independent of each other, Heathrow's master plan calls for eventually razing almost all of them and building a series of linear, parallel terminals connected by an underground train. Sound familiar?

The south terminal idea for DEN could certainly be done, but I still don't think it's ideal. Sure, you could put Southwest in it, but what if Southwest changes its business model and starts selling connections onto other carriers?

It's amazing to think how much room for logical, built-in expansion room there is at DIA. Fully built out, it'll have something like 12 runways and 300 gates spread across 5-7 concourses!

It's unfortunate that those expansions aren't as seemingly easy as they should be... despite that, I've always loved DIA from a technical standpoint. DIA is one of those rare beautiful-but-useful airports in the US, maybe along with DTW.

[mr1138]

I'm still not sure I understand or fully buy the argument that the train couldn't be extended to create more concourses. There may be logistical challenges... perhaps even to the point that it would need to be closed temporarily and replaced with some kind of Dulles-style people movers while the end-of-the-line issues are resolved and rebuilt. But temporary construction headaches seem to pale in comparison to making long-term design mistakes. The basic premise of additional concourses seems to be undoubtedly better than allowing the Pena Blvd entrance to become some sort of LAX or JFK style Frankenstein's monster of a design. In spite of some of its flaws, I have always loved the geometric simplicity of DIA, which I think makes it very easy and low-stress to navigate even if it may take a bit more time to move through than a decentralized airport.

What about the idea of a second terminal to the north of the additional concourses? Something with a second access road either off of the beltway, or I-76. Wasn't that a part of the original master plan as well? This would basically be a mirror image of Atlanta's airport - which I haven't personally interacted with, but considering the passenger load it handles, it can't be too terrible of a design right?

[jubguy3]

Can someone remind me why DIA isn't building any other tunnels? Shouldn't there be walking tunnels on the west and east parts of the concourses? I feel like we've gone over this already but I don't remember what the issue is

[LooksLikeForever]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Can someone remind me why DIA isn't building any other tunnels? Shouldn't there be walking tunnels on the west and east parts of the concourses? I feel like we've gone over this already but I don't remember what the issue is

Cost is the main issue. I'm fairly certain they built the original tunnels as a dig and cover, rather than actually boring a tunnel (as you would with a new subway under NYC, for instance). They really should've built a walkway to connect the concourses at that time as I imagine adding them now would be extremely costly.

They'd either have to use traditional underground construction techniques (very costly) or they'd have to rip up the runway above ground to build it cheaper and then replace everything on top. I'd imagine this would disrupt airport operations a good deal.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

Cost is the main issue. I'm fairly certain they built the original tunnels as a dig and cover, rather than actually boring a tunnel (as you would with a new subway under NYC, for instance). They really should've built a walkway to connect the concourses at that time as I imagine adding them now would be extremely costly.

They'd either have to use traditional underground construction techniques (very costly) or they'd have to rip up the runway above ground to build it cheaper and then replace everything on top. I'd imagine this would disrupt airport operations a good deal.

That's the issue with expanding at DIA... they're almost always completely ready to expand the airport in any direction, and then stuff like this comes up. I would imagine that they should build passenger walkways to any new concourses because I know that there is an actual concern of stranding passengers in the concourses when the power goes out

[TakeFive]

LooksLikeForever/jubguy3...

I agree that cost was and is the main issue, both when they built the original and going forward. They built it during recessionary times which was smart but along with the baggage snafu they didn't build in any redundancy or plan well for it to happen. Considering that it would likely cost 5X as much today to build from scratch Denver is lucky to have what they do.

The first question relative to expansion is the capacity of Jeppesen terminal. If that could easily be expanded then adding concourses D & F beyond what they have might make the issue of building a whole new tunel worth revisiting as it would also have the benefit of adding redundancy.

Adding a new terminal to the south has all the obvious advantages of building a modern day efficient terminal and new concourses, baggage handling etc. One thought was to have one of the new concourses serve international routes and maybe commuter routes. In any case they could likely move some of the Jeppesen passenger load to the new terminal which would be good all-around.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I'm still not sure I understand or fully buy the argument that the train couldn't be extended to create more concourses. There may be logistical challenges... perhaps even to the point that it would need to be closed temporarily and replaced with some kind of Dulles-style people movers while the end-of-the-line issues are resolved and rebuilt. But temporary construction headaches seem to pale in comparison to making long-term design mistakes. The basic premise of additional concourses seems to be undoubtedly better than allowing the Pena Blvd entrance to become some sort of LAX or JFK style Frankenstein's monster of a design. In spite of some of its flaws, I have always loved the geometric simplicity of DIA, which I think makes it very easy and low-stress to navigate even if it may take a bit more time to move through than a decentralized airport.

From what I read and have understood, the airport prefers building the east and west concourses first as they won't have to do something about the train right away, and the concourses will be closer to the terminal, which is more ideal for how traffic at DIA eventually panned out. DIA was built presuming 65% of passengers would be connecting from one place to another. Turns out now, 65% of passengers are actually starting or ending their trips in Denver. Whoops!

Also, do not get me started about the mess that is LAX. Getting there and back is an unmitigated struggle. It is unpredictable except for that you can always predict you'll end up sitting in traffic for at least 15-20 minutes in that World Way Loop before you can even get to the curb. Say what you will about DIA being in Kansas or whatnot, and sure, traffic to and from DIA is a little heavier than it has been in the past, but I still think it's a pretty accessible airport.

As for the tunnel walkway thing, I think it's one of those ideas where on paper, it seems stupid that it doesn't exist and that people *should* have the option of walking to all concourses. But in reality, it probably wouldn't justify the cost, and any such tunnels beyond Concourse A would be so long that I could imagine people would then start walking and then complain about how long they are and possibly misconnect, when the train could have gotten them there faster all along. DIA is not Atlanta— the concourses here are spaced so far out that two 747s can back out from gates on opposite concourses and still have two 747s pass in between them.

Plus, the train system is very reliable for what it is. You could count the number of times it's failed on one hand and still have fingers left over.

[Zmapper]

New concourses to the east and west of the terminal would likely have a better chance at getting airline buy-in, as the new concourses can be built to suit individual airline needs and preferences.

What I'd do is build the new west concourse for the ULCC's, Spirit and Frontier. This concourse could be one level with stair gates only in order to save on construction cost. The new east concourse would be built as a 3-story (baggage, arrivals before customs and immigration, departures) international concourse. Due to the higher-than-expected number of international flights than a 90s planner could have expected for a mid-continental airport, the international gates are over capacity today.

This leaves concourse C for Southwest, B for United, and A for everybody else.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

Due to the higher-than-expected number of international flights than a 90s planner could have expected for a mid-continental airport, the international gates are over capacity today.

I always think it's an interesting DIA footnote that there originally was supposed to be an international concourse. The original plans called for a Concourse "T" with international-equipped gates right at the north side of the terminal, just like Atlanta. But when no airlines had yet committed to move to DIA, Continental agreed to sign a lease but only if they could get the A concourse to themselves along with a foot bridge. Also, as a way of cutting costs on the DIA project, Continental suggested scrapping the T gates in favor of putting the international gates in what would just-so-conveniently become their own concourse. Pretty smart on Continental's part, even if they dehubbed Denver right as DIA opened, and now we live with the current setup.

In the near-term, I'd like to see A fully turn into an international concourse along with United running out of both A and B. United is expanding so much that they really need the gate space, and B will be pretty much maxed out with this next round of gate additions. Even as it is today, United is running some domestic departures out of A. C was always supposed to be the "all others" low rent concourse, so I'd rather see Frontier and friends out there. But of course, Southwest has big plans for expansion, too. Should be interesting to see what happens!

Edit: For TakeFive Here's a PDF of DIA's master plan executive summary from March 2012. It's the only master plan I could find with a date on it, and while it was written before the hotel and RTD station even started construction, it reflects more or less the final design. It's also interesting to see more details about how the east/west concourses may be built, why building a looped train system for Concourses D and E is such a challenge, and potential ways DIA could expand the terminal south of the hotel and above the train station!

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Edit: For TakeFive Here's a PDF of DIA's master plan executive summary from March 2012. It's the only master plan I could find with a date on it, and while it was written before the hotel and RTD station even started construction, it reflects more or less the final design. It's also interesting to see more details about how the east/west concourses may be built, why building a looped train system for Concourses D and E is such a challenge, and potential ways DIA could expand the terminal south of the hotel and above the train station!

That makes me wonder, is DIA in the process of updating their master plan? Seems about due for some fresh eyes to look at it and make tweaks as needed.

[Cirrus]

Merry Christmas transit nerds. Click here if you want to buy any of this stuff. Or click here to see other cities. Here's SLC (in mountain west solidarity).

[Cirrus]

Also, someone tell me what the blue bus with the mountain livery is. The third one from left categorized under "city bus."