Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT
"BJT Expansion with newly aligned roadway"). This one, in particular, seem to depict a drastic diversion from all of the previously published (released), imaged, and discussed plans for expanding ABIA. I thought the idea was to minimize any affect to passenger traffic?!? In fact, this idea of slightly expanding the "processing" area on the current BJT would pose a dramatic disruption to all passenger traffic versus construction of a new departure and arrival facility.
|
The term "slightly" seems pretty misleading here; this rendering clearly shows several 100,000's of SF of landside expansion to the north of the existing facility.
The big difference is with the roadway alignment. Rather than running the pickup/dropoff area largely east-west along the existing alignment that runs between the old garages and CONRAC/new parking, this creates a bit more curb length by aligning the roadway in an arc.
This has added benefit of increased sight distance when approaching the terminal, i.e. once clearing the admin building, you can see the entire length of the dropoff/pickup area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT
I don't believe there is any scenario in which one could expand the departure and arrival section of the BJT to be able to effectively handle 30-35 million passengers a year (which is envisioned in the 2040 plan) without massively disputing daily operations. That's why a new facility was developed in the fist place.
|
Correct. The current operations are
almost completely constrained by the existing roadway and garages. And neither this updated rendering nor the one shown here adds the needed capacity - much less provides flexibility for future additions - without changing the roadway and removing the garages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT
Also - notice the budget architecture? The satellite concourse in that rendering is far less aesthetically pleasing than what was previously published. And, it seems to have 22-23 gates. Is that phase one or the entire thing?
|
Conceptual renderings are just that - don't get too concerned about architectural details until those renderings are produced when developing the construction documents. Again, what I understand is that the new concourse will include 20 gates when opened.
Most interesting to me was the claim that the concourse (shown in dark blue) could be opened without necessarily expanding BJT first (as shown in orange) but not before the western in-fill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT
If this rendering of the terminal complex in new and current - how sad for Austin and those passengers having to navigate through all that BJT construction in the next half decade. It's a far less disruptive plan (and prettier too) to build a new processing facility and attach that to the current BJT. Heck, I really liked that park idea between the two.
|
Again, this latest rendering and the last one each serve to "build a new processing facility and attach that to the current BJT."
But extending BJT outwards (to the north) and curving the roadway inwards (to the south) effectively collapses the park area and leaves a void between the roadway arc and the chord of the existing CONRAC/parking garage. However, that area may present some interesting future developments - hotels, transit station, etc. - that are not currently in the plan (and therefore just my speculation).
What is critical to understand is the timing of all this: the 20-gate expansion appears to be planned
before extending BJT since enough operational capacity (claims, ticketing area, etc.) is anticipated to come from the western infill.
This enables a smaller "first bite" at the Master Plan by reducing the funding needed up front to build an expanded BJT and new concourse while generally constructing parts of the terminal, i.e. gates, retail areas, etc. that produce revenue to help finance future phases.
Prev
Linear Mode
