AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Also, the latest info I have is that BA will be using gate 3. A glass corridor will be built to funnel passengers to the customs hall off of gate 2. Gate 2 is pressed for space now that the east in-fill project is underway.

Gate 3 is still going to be able to be used for domestic arrivals and departures, too, though - right? BA is only going to be parked at that gate between 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm (assuming the flights are on time.)

[Austin1971]

[

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

A gate can handle more than 458,333 per year.

Yes, I agree. It was, as mentioned, a simplistic analysis/calculation of the situation. So, the 11 million was spread out over all 24 jetways, evenly.

What is the current daily commercial flight count for ABIA? If every gate at ABIA handled an average of 458,333 people per year, and using the design standard of a B752, that would constitute approximately 168-240 flights per day (based on 125-175 people per plane; roughly 70%-100% capacity of a two-class B752).

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

What is the current daily commercial flight count for ABIA? If every gate at ABIA handled an average of 458,333 people per year, and using the design standard of a B752, that would constitute approximately 168-240 flights per day

I don't know the exact amount (it varies by day of week, there's a reduced schedule on Saturdays, and the flights to Cancun and Cabo San Lucas don't operate every day.)

The easiest way for me to estimate was to go to BTS.gov and look at the on-time statistics for AUS. The latest data available is for June. So I just picked an airline (AA) and looked at number of departures for June 26, June 27, and June 28 - (a Wed, Thu, & Fri.) When you look at the data for a particular airline, it will give you the number of departures for that airline, but it will also give you the total departures for all airlines that particular day. AA had 22 departures and ALL departures ranged from 145-147 on the three days I looked at.

Assuming there is an equal number of arrivals, that would be about 290-294 arrivals & departures per day.

[LoneStarMike]

In case anyone missed the press conference about Bristish Airways new service to London (and wants to watch it) it's posted on youtube. It's just under 15 minutes long.

• Video Link

[ILUVSAT]

Long-time reader...very first post. CONGRATULATIONS AUSTIN!!! This is great news.

As a lover of cosmopolitan growth and urban development, I may have to finally leave my hometown and move 75 miles north.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Long-time reader...very first post. CONGRATULATIONS AUSTIN!!! This is great news.

As a lover of cosmopolitan growth and urban development, I may have to finally leave my hometown and move 75 miles north.

Welcome to the forum. That be nice but it really is not that far apart between the two cities though its getting to the point to where you have to travel at night if you want to be able to get from one to the other within a 45 min time frame.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...pansion/nZ7cX/

Posted: 7:06 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013
Airport leases could help fund terminal expansion

By Ben Wear
American-Statesman Staff

The Austin City Council, chasing revenue to expand its booming airport, on Thursday will consider long-term parking and commercial leases at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport that could bring in $95 million or more over the next several decades.

That expansion will include adding seven gates to the east concourse by fall 2017, as well as two new concourses that would include 24 more gates some years in the future. Construction has started on a $62 million “east infill” project with added security, customs, ticketing and baggage-handling facilities.

[the Genral]

The concourses extending south and attached to the 'main' terminal was kind of surprising. I don't remember seeing that on the earlier conception drawings. I thought there was a seperate terminal planned for the next big expansion phase.

I think the good news is we won't have to wait much longer to see the east side expansion and rid ourselves of the 'Finding Nemo' short fin syndrome look. And now that they are talking about planning an infill on the west end, I hope it matches the east infill project under construction. Continuity would give the whole terminal a world class look.
Wow, it looks like we are seeing a construction boom at the airport too! But no talk of rail..

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Wow, it looks like we are seeing a construction boom at the airport too! But no talk of rail..

I don't often agree with Ben Wear, but I do agree that rail to the airport would be a stupid place to start first.
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...ime-soo/nRn5x/


ABIA has about 10,000,000 people a year. Per-day, that's about 27,000. To justify a rail line, basically every single one of them would have to take rail to/from the airport (that's on the order of the expected ridership of a Lamar or Mueller rail line).
Assuming none of those passengers are connecting flights. Assuming none of them are coming from areas not served by rail (east of the airport, south of the airport, etc.). It's just not a high enough volume of passengers (yet).

[Austin1971]

[q

[jg6544]

I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that, back in the 1960s, people in Los Angeles would have said the same thing about mass transit to LAX, so none was provided for. We regret that bitterly now. Sometimes, you have to plan for something, hoping that it will serve a longer-term interest.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by jg6544

I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that, back in the 1960s, people in Los Angeles would have said the same thing about mass transit to LAX, so none was provided for. We regret that bitterly now. Sometimes, you have to plan for something, hoping that it will serve a longer-term interest.

Long-term planning is one thing. Preserving right of way to eventually run a line out there (or at least keep that option open) makes sense. Running rail now absolutely does not. There's way better locations in Austin to run rail before then.

[nixcity]

If I read this chart correctly L.A. already had 6.8 million people in it's metro in the 60's.....Novacek is right, we don't need rail to the airport yet, I do think it should still be a part of our first line but if we vote on it next year the phase connecting to the airport so it wouldn't happen until our metro can actually support it.
http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx

[electricron]

I believe light rail or streetcar service to ABIA is the wrong choice, few light rail or streetcars have overhead luggage racks. Stadler GTWs do have them, and that's the type of trains I think should be built to ABIA. A commuter rail spur built across the Colorado River shouldn't cost more than a streetcar along Riverside, it just might even cost less.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by electricron

I believe light rail or streetcar service to ABIA is the wrong choice, few light rail or streetcars have overhead luggage racks. Stadler GTWs do have them, and that's the type of trains I think should be built to ABIA. A commuter rail spur built across the Colorado River shouldn't cost more than a streetcar along Riverside, it just might even cost less.

The majority of transit users at airports aren't travelers, they are workers. ABIA just isn't a large enough employment center to justify rail on it's own. That's why Riverside makes more sense. The growing density along Riverside justifies rail, the ABIA connection is a convenience that can come later.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by the Genral

The concourses extending south and attached to the 'main' terminal was kind of surprising. I don't remember seeing that on the earlier conception drawings. I thought there was a seperate terminal planned for the next big expansion phase....

Actually, construction the two 12-gate concourses was apart of the architects's original plan. However, without expanding the ticketing area, we are going to be in a world of hurt should the current space be used to facilitate more than twice the number of gates currently at ABIA (from 25 to 56).

Due to budget cuts (during original construction), the terminal's north side (ticketing area) was shaved by some 50', the height of most ceilings in the terminal were cut by 10' to 20' and the airside waiting areas were narrowed by over 20'.


You are correct, the master plan suggested that the next major phase of expansion be the "south terminal." Initially, that terminal would have 11 gates and expand to 21 when necessary (space is available for further east/west expansion of its concourses). Additionally, two mid-field concourses would also be possible (placed between the current Barbara Jordan Terminal and new future "south terminal").

In all, I believe the plan outlined the ability of ABIA to be expanded to 125+ gates.

More high-speed turn-offs are in the works and a future runway is planned. It shall be constricted between the 12,500' west runway and the current terminal. I believe the length was somewhere between 9,000 and 12,000'. I cannot remember exactly.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Actually, construction the two 12-gate concourses was apart of the architects's original plan. However, without expanding the ticketing area, we are going to be in a world of hurt should the current space be used to facilitate more than twice the number of gates currently at ABIA (from 25 to 56).

Another problem is the roadways in front of the current terminal can't be lengthened according to this old Austin Chronicle article from 2003.

The Barbara Jordan Terminal can be expanded to contain more gates, but the lower level can't grow with it. Right now, the terminal has more curb frontage upstairs than downstairs, which is the opposite of what the ABIA Master Plan Update says should be the case. (Even if you could turn the terminal upside down, the lower level curb would still be several hundred feet too short.) That's a big reason why the plan calls for a second terminal building, which was "a little surprising" to Riddering, "but it makes sense. But obviously, that's going to be very expensive." Both Smith and Speck note the alternative -- expanding the Barbara Jordan Terminal to 52 gates -- "creates operational conflict in the meantime," in Speck's words. "The appeal [of a second terminal] is that you can do construction without disrupting." Smith adds that building a second terminal -- and, decades from now, a third runway -- "is a more efficient use of our 4,200 acres."

[Austin1971]

H

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Long-term planning is one thing. Preserving right of way to eventually run a line out there (or at least keep that option open) makes sense. Running rail now absolutely does not. There's way better locations in Austin to run rail before then.

If you don't have the right-of-way when you need mass transit to your airport in another 10-15 years, where are you going to build the line? Just saying, when LAX was opened in 1960 or thereabouts, the assumption was that everyone going there would drive. Sure enough! Today, the freeways are parking lots; the surface streets are crowded, and parking is a nightmare unless you want to park at a "remote" lot and then spend half-an-hour to 45 minutes on a bus creeping your way to your terminal in the perpetual gridlock that passes for a access road system. They're finally building a light rail line. San Francisco was much smarter about it. Denver is building rail access to their airport as well. Metro is being extended to Dulles in DC and National Airport has had a Metro stop for years.