AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[Jdawgboy]

The longest runway at ABIA can accomodate the largest planes in the world. It used to be an AFB after all. Only DFW has longer runways in Texas. Houston's longest I believe is just under 12,000 feet in length though please correct me if I'm wrong.

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

A regional airport ain't happening. ABIA is booming and has more than enough room for expansion. SAT is crying over spilled milk since ABIA is leaving it in the dust. ABIA is in the midst of a billion dollar expansion with more to come. ABIA did close to 4 million more passengers than SAT did in '16 with the trend continuing to widen.

I recall it was AUS who approached SAT about a regional airport. SAT thumbed their nose and now they're paying for it.

I have my doubts about any new hub being created at ABIA or anywhere nationwide. If Delta wanted to create a hub at ABIA there is more than enough room. Time and economics will tell.

If San Antonio was smart they would have moved their airport to Kelly AFB when they closed it.

[Maximusx1]

Off the top, I love the idea of being a Delta hub and I hate the idea of sharing a regional airport with San Antonio. ABIA all the way.

Let's get some capacity issues straight.

For runways, the (longest) West runway could be expanded another 2,000 ft longer to the North to accommodate future mega-aircraft/spacecraft, otherwise, it's world class right now. The (shorter) East runway could be expanded another 2,000 ft longer to the North for whatever reason. And there is already engineered a middle runway ready to go just to the East of the long West runway to add capacity for third runway.

For terminals, there are two excellent options with no constrictions to expansion.
Option 1: Terminals on Presidential to the Northeast and Northwest of the existing terminal. On the West there is currently a car rental lot and on the East there is currently a employee parking lot. Both fit on the Presidential loop and have easy access to the taxi-ways. Let's call them Delta National Terminal West and Delta International Terminal East. Build yourself a tram between Parking North, Delta National West, Barbara Jordan, and Delta International East and we've got ourselves a big boy airport on the original footprint.
Option 2: A full South Terminal connected by bridges (like Phoenix) or by rail (like Denver). There is plenty of land to develop South terminals. The issues of parking/security/baggage would have to be solved by additions to Barbara Jordan, as depicted by @hereinaustin in earlier posts.

Other points that pertain:
1. I hate the I have to go through a stoplight to get out of the airport. They are currently fixing 183/71, but I still hate that one of the first impressions of our city is a third world stop light.
2. Let's get some downtown to airport light rail. I'm so jealous of cities like Denver and Vancouver (mega cities have this, duh) who got this done. When city council proposed our light rail last time the pitch was easily spun as 'rail to no where' and to their fault, it was kinda true. But if you pitch 'air to rail to town' this makes much more sense to voters. Conventions, hotels, riverside developers, and downtown business people who can leave their car at office garages will all get on board.
Let's build a seamless, first class airport.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

Off the top, I love the idea of being a Delta hub and I hate the idea of sharing a regional airport with San Antonio. ABIA all the way.

Let's get some capacity issues straight.

For runways, the (longest) West runway could be expanded another 2,000 ft longer to the North to accommodate future mega-aircraft/spacecraft, otherwise, it's world class right now. The (shorter) East runway could be expanded another 2,000 ft longer to the North for whatever reason. And there is already engineered a middle runway ready to go just to the East of the long West runway to add capacity for third runway.

For terminals, there are two excellent options with no constrictions to expansion.
Option 1: Terminals on Presidential to the Northeast and Northwest of the existing terminal. On the West there is currently a car rental lot and on the East there is currently a employee parking lot. Both fit on the Presidential loop and have easy access to the taxi-ways. Let's call them Delta National Terminal West and Delta International Terminal East. Build yourself a tram between Parking North, Delta National West, Barbara Jordan, and Delta International East and we've got ourselves a big boy airport on the original footprint.
Option 2: A full South Terminal connected by bridges (like Phoenix) or by rail (like Denver). There is plenty of land to develop South terminals. The issues of parking/security/baggage would have to be solved by additions to Barbara Jordan, as depicted by @hereinaustin in earlier posts.

Other points that pertain:
1. I hate the I have to go through a stoplight to get out of the airport. They are currently fixing 183/71, but I still hate that one of the first impressions of our city is a third world stop light.
2. Let's get some downtown to airport light rail. I'm so jealous of cities like Denver and Vancouver (mega cities have this, duh) who got this done. When city council proposed our light rail last time the pitch was easily spun as 'rail to no where' and to their fault, it was kinda true. But if you pitch 'air to rail to town' this makes much more sense to voters. Conventions, hotels, riverside developers, and downtown business people who can leave their car at office garages will all get on board.
Let's build a seamless, first class airport.

100% agree with everything but the rail comment (especially the stupid light leaving the airport).

As for rail, a rail line to the airport is usually one of the last installments on a much bigger rail network, simply because there are much better locations for the money that Austinites will use much, much more. The Guad-Lamar rail line has been brought up multiple time because it would likely be heavily used all-day every-day, recouping a good chunk of the investment costs.

While I'm not necessarily against rail to the airport, I think it's much further that the road and we need to invest locally first.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

When city council proposed our light rail last time the pitch was easily spun as 'rail to no where' and to their fault, it was kinda true.

Not true at all. And the two years since have proved that out. Development on:
Riverside
ACC highland
Medical district
State Capital construction plan
UT campus planning
I35 construction planning
post-Waller Creek planning
convention center expansion planning

All have proved that there's a massive amount of development occurring exactly where the light rail was planned. The only failure was communicating that to the voters.

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

But if you pitch 'air to rail to town' this makes much more sense to voters.

The latest CapMetro plan has the extension of the metrorapid to the airport, and even that's getting a huge amount of pushback from the council. And that's basically "free", not hundreds of millions of dollars in additional construction costs.

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

Conventions, hotels, riverside developers, and downtown business people who can leave their car at office garages will all get on board.

None (save the last) have a vote.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Not true at all. And the two years since have proved that out. Development on:
Riverside
ACC highland
Medical district
State Capital construction plan
UT campus planning
I35 construction planning
post-Waller Creek planning
convention center expansion planning

All have proved that there's a massive amount of development occurring exactly where the light rail was planned. The only failure was communicating that to the voters.




The latest CapMetro plan has the extension of the metrorapid to the airport, and even that's getting a huge amount of pushback from the council. And that's basically "free", not hundreds of millions of dollars in additional construction costs.




None (save the last) have a vote.

I personally think the last rail proposal served a lot of very useful and soon to be very useful areas, though my preference would still have been to serve Lamar/Guad first (and help densify that spine) and Riverside. I voted for it then and I would vote for it again now.

I do agree with the thought from Maximusx1 that the 2014 plan was too easily derided as "rail to nowhere" because its termini were set at two places the "average" (white, suburban) Austinite was generally afraid to venture. Even if it would have been a poor investment to extend the rail line to the airport I bet it would have picked up quite a few more votes that way. People who were turned off by the additional expense were already against the plan (anti-tax, G/L rail crowds).

[_Matt]

Ok, so the Regional Airport idea sounds cool until you look at the facts. Then the argument falls apart.

Claim 1: AUS is doesn't have room to expand... FALSE

Passengers per Land area
million pax (2015) / thousand acres

ATL: 101/4.7 = 21
SEA: 42/2.5 = 17
DAL: 14.5/1.3 = 11
HOU :12/1.3 = 9.2
DFW: 64/18 = 3.6
AUS: 12/4.1 = 2.9

Conclusion: Austin has the capability to become many times more intense, in terms of passengers served. Land "constraints" won't limit growth.

Claim 2: A regional airport should be built between Austin and San Antonio because it worked in Dallas and people will drive far to the airport. And people don't mind driving because of IAH.

Distance from Dallas to Ft.Worth: 33 miles
Distance from Austin to San Antonio: 80 miles

Distance from Downtown Dallas to DFW: 20 miles
Distance from Downtown Houston to IAH: 21 miles (Claimed 30 miles.. FALSE)
Distance from Downtown Austin to San Marcos/NB area: 40+ miles

Conclusion: Austin and San Antonio geography is significantly different from DFW metroplex. Nor does evidence suggest pax would like to drive 1+ hours to a regional airport.


I like the idea of a large new facility and even a Delta hub, but mixing this up with a regional airport is taking the conversation out of reality.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by drummer

The advantages of Delta choosing Austin (or a future-possible-potential-maybe-someday shared hub for the expanding Austin/San Antonio region) as a hub are numerous. I wasn't alive yet, but I've heard that there was a lot of outcry when DFW was proposed as Dallas and Fort Worth both had airports, etc. I don't think anyone's crying about its success now.

That said, back to the idea of a Delta hub. While I don't particularly like Delta, Skyteam is not bad. Selfishly, it's actually better for me as China Eastern is in Skyteam and the most inexpensive flights in my part of China are China Eastern. When I lived on the East Coast of China, Air China (Star Alliance) was more popular, so I'd have to fly into Houston or preferably DFW. Other times, I've done Cathay Pacific (OneWorld) from Hong Kong to DFW. In all of these cases, I could catch a smaller flight to Austin without too much issue when coming back. If Austin were larger, even if it were a hub with ties to a particular alliance, connecting via other hubs and alliances wouldn't be impossible. Austin may even benefit as folks may use Austin as a transfer point as I currently use DFW or Houston (albeit not on the same scale for many years to come).

Delta is the only major airline without some kind of hub in Texas. It seems like that would be a hole in any airline's portfolio? I could see them looking at Austin as a future hub. Or a future major airline that is without a Texas hub...Alaska Blue? (I'm predicting that Alaska and JetBlue merge at some point)

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Delta is the only major airline without some kind of hub in Texas. It seems like that would be a hole in any airline's portfolio? I could see them looking at Austin as a future hub. Or a future major airline that is without a Texas hub...Alaska Blue? (I'm predicting that Alaska and JetBlue merge at some point)

I meant to post this under Drummer's earlier post, but ......

Highly regulated airlines back in the late 50s and early 60s wanted a regional airport to serve both Dallas and Fort Worth. Neither city could agree on a plan. The Feds threatened to with-hold airport funds to BOTH cities unless they came up with a solution. The result was DFW. Those conditions just don't exist today vis a vis Austin and San Antonio. Additionally, downtown Dallas and downtown FW are each about 20 miles from DFW. Most of the area population lives even closer than that to DFW since most suburban development in the DFW area is to the north. A regional airport down here in the Austin/San Antonio area just seems like a bad idea.

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Not true at all. And the two years since have proved that out. Development on:
Riverside
ACC highland
Medical district
State Capital construction plan
UT campus planning
I35 construction planning
post-Waller Creek planning
convention center expansion planning

All have proved that there's a massive amount of development occurring exactly where the light rail was planned. The only failure was communicating that to the voters.

And all of that was built without the rail. Clearly the rail was not needed to go there. So how does that prove that the rail was going to serve something? If the rail bond didn't die because it was deemed 'rail to nowhere' then why did it die?

Originally Posted by Novacek

The latest CapMetro plan has the extension of the metrorapid to the airport, and even that's getting a huge amount of pushback from the council. And that's basically "free", not hundreds of millions of dollars in additional construction costs.

Airplane people don't ride buses. Your comparison doesn't work and your point that there is push back just proves it.

Originally Posted by Novacek

None (save the last) have a vote.

They all vote with pro/con PAC money to support/attack bond proposals.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Most of the area population lives even closer than that to DFW since most suburban development in the DFW area is to the north. A regional airport down here in the Austin/San Antonio area just seems like a bad idea.

Endogeneity is a big concern here.

Most of the suburban development exists NOW in between and to the north of the two cities BECAUSE the airport is there, which would be the path we'd go down in the mid-cities should we have an airport between the Austin and San Antonio. I.E. don't say an airport isn't a good idea because the population currently doesn't exist (even though, really, it does and would definitely in the event of a regional airport).

[austlar1]

Mid cities in DFW area was already a booming suburban area at the time DFW was built in the early 1970s. I am a native of the DFW area and was around when DFW Airport was planned and built. The mid-cities communities of Arlington, Grand Prairie, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, and Irving were all established suburbs and growing rapidly. Airport proximity added to the rate of growth certainly but probably the development of two east/west Dallas- Fort Worth expressways (Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike in the mid 1950s and the 121/183 Freeway in the mid to late 1960s) through the mid cities area area played a much bigger role. The later rapid growth in Colin and Denton Counties may have some relationship to airport proximity, especially Denton County growth. Most Colin County residential and commercial development has been a simple expansion of the explosive business and population growth of north Dallas including the development of the so called Telecom Corridor along US 75.

Meanwhile, with regards to Austin and San Antonio, both cities are big enough and will continue to grow larger. They can easily support their own growing airports. The airports don't compete with each other. The airlines are not unhappy with the present arrangement; neither is the government. The airports generate income for their respective cities and also create jobs and increase the value (taxable) of nearby real estate. There is no current reason to consider building a regional airport around here. I don't know of any really powerhouse regional airport that exists so far from core cities, not in the US at any rate. I guess I'll go do some research, but first I have to look up "endogeneity".

[drummer]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I meant to post this under Drummer's earlier post, but ......

Highly regulated airlines back in the late 50s and early 60s wanted a regional airport to serve both Dallas and Fort Worth. Neither city could agree on a plan. The Feds threatened to with-hold airport funds to BOTH cities unless they came up with a solution. The result was DFW. Those conditions just don't exist today vis a vis Austin and San Antonio. Additionally, downtown Dallas and downtown FW are each about 20 miles from DFW. Most of the area population lives even closer than that to DFW since most suburban development in the DFW area is to the north. A regional airport down here in the Austin/San Antonio area just seems like a bad idea.

I didn't realize all the history there. Thanks for that - as I said, it was before I was born.

However, I do still struggle to see the distance from Austin to San Marcos as a massive issue ONLY if we have a thorough overhaul in our methods of transportation. If it's still individuals in their own cars as opposed to more mass transit options, then yes, it won't be feasible. If we have regional rail and high speed rail - or something else entirely - I think there are more options available.

Given our current (and likely near-future) realities, I agree with you and _Matt 100%.

All said, I still support ABIA because it does have room to grow and it's not at all in a bad place to do so. There's plenty of room and there have been a lot of funds utilized in making ABIA what it is today. Is there room for improvement? Sure, and connectivity to the city is one of the top on my list. Making it a hub of some kind would hopefully happen as well as there are many benefits which have already been discussed.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by drummer

I didn't realize all the history there. Thanks for that - as I said, it was before I was born.

However, I do still struggle to see the distance from Austin to San Marcos as a massive issue ONLY if we have a thorough overhaul in our methods of transportation. If it's still individuals in their own cars as opposed to more mass transit options, then yes, it won't be feasible. If we have regional rail and high speed rail - or something else entirely - I think there are more options available.

Given our current (and likely near-future) realities, I agree with you and _Matt 100%.

All said, I still support ABIA because it does have room to grow and it's not at all in a bad place to do so. There's plenty of room and there have been a lot of funds utilized in making ABIA what it is today. Is there room for improvement? Sure, and connectivity to the city is one of the top on my list. Making it a hub of some kind would hopefully happen as well as there are many benefits which have already been discussed.

In the long run: why build a regional when your region will need more that one airport down the road! Dallas and Houston both have 2 airports. If SA and Austin grow together, it will be just as large and will need 2 airports!

In the short run:
Does anyone have stats on what % of ABIA is commuter/business travel?
If you are the twice a year , holiday and vacation traveler. This is not that big a deal. However if you are a business traveler ( and Most of my am flights seem to be all "suits"... it's a different discussion.
I travel for most of my work. I logged 6 months on the road last year.
For me , it would be a large concern if the airport was in San Marcos. I have commuted to SM for guest gigs at TxState. It's quite a drive, you have to go 9 am -3pm or after 7 to make it a reasonable drive at all. That is a huge issue for driving.
As for a train. ( fantasy land I would love ) It would also take a great amount of time to get to a train station, then to SM. It would turn my 20 min ( at the tight time) into more than an hour. ( there will not be sufficient train service here in our lifetime. even if you are 20!).
Liken it to NYC. You have to plan a great amount of your day and much more $$ to fly in/out of NYC because of distance to airports, traffic and additional transportation cost.
( BTW... I can tell you a great car service! )

And speaking of NYC..... look how many airports options there are there!

yeah... we'll need more than one airport.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I meant to post this under Drummer's earlier post, but ......

Highly regulated airlines back in the late 50s and early 60s wanted a regional airport to serve both Dallas and Fort Worth. Neither city could agree on a plan. The Feds threatened to with-hold airport funds to BOTH cities unless they came up with a solution. The result was DFW. Those conditions just don't exist today vis a vis Austin and San Antonio. Additionally, downtown Dallas and downtown FW are each about 20 miles from DFW. Most of the area population lives even closer than that to DFW since most suburban development in the DFW area is to the north. A regional airport down here in the Austin/San Antonio area just seems like a bad idea.

As I remember it, Dallas (Love Field) and Ft. Worth (Meacham Field) were pretty much independently sustaining airports, each serving its own city. Then Amon Carter came along with the bright idea of building a new airport exactly between the two cities serving both. It was built and opened in 1953 or '54. Although the restaurant and observation deck (this was way pre-TSA) faced Dallas, whose skyline was clearly visible, the entrance to the terminal was on the Ft. Worth side of the bldg. Dallas promptly modernized the antiquated, utterly inadequate Love Field, opening its new terminal in '58 or thereabouts. Although the terminal facilities were a vast improvement over the old, cramped building, the airport itself was still hemmed in by residential neighborhoods and the downtown skyscrapers were right on the southward take-off routes. When the new Kennedy Administration came into office, its FAA head, Najeeb Halaby, became a proponent of a single airport serving both cities. By this time, the "metroplex" was forming. I agree that the airlines themselves wanted a single airport by the '60s. And the FAA finally did threaten both cities with federal funding cuts if they didn't agree on a new airport. DFW was situated north of Amon Carter (the remains of one runway are still visible, but the rest of Carter was bulldozed) and opened in 1974 as the the-largest airport in the world.

An important distinction to bear in mind, Dallas and Ft. Worth were 30 miles apart. Austin and San Antonio are 70 miles apart. The distance is too great for a single airport conveniently serving both cities.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by jg6544

As I remember it, Dallas (Love Field) and Ft. Worth (Meacham Field) were pretty much independently sustaining airports, each serving its own city. Then Amon Carter came along with the bright idea of building a new airport exactly between the two cities serving both. It was built and opened in 1953 or '54. Although the restaurant and observation deck (this was way pre-TSA) faced Dallas, whose skyline was clearly visible, the entrance to the terminal was on the Ft. Worth side of the bldg. Dallas promptly modernized the antiquated, utterly inadequate Love Field, opening its new terminal in '58 or thereabouts. Although the terminal facilities were a vast improvement over the old, cramped building, the airport itself was still hemmed in by residential neighborhoods and the downtown skyscrapers were right on the southward take-off routes. When the new Kennedy Administration came into office, its FAA head, Najeeb Halaby, became a proponent of a single airport serving both cities. By this time, the "metroplex" was forming. I agree that the airlines themselves wanted a single airport by the '60s. And the FAA finally did threaten both cities with federal funding cuts if they didn't agree on a new airport. DFW was situated north of Amon Carter (the remains of one runway are still visible, but the rest of Carter was bulldozed) and opened in 1974 as the the-largest airport in the world.


An important distinction to bear in mind, Dallas and Ft. Worth were 30 miles apart. Austin and San Antonio are 70 miles apart. The distance is too great for a single airport conveniently serving both cities.

That is a pretty accurate summary of the history of the of DFW Airport. Amon Carter thought the new FW Airport (Carter Field) would lure Dallas into joint participation. Instead it encouraged them to continue with plans to build a new terminal at Love Field. I remember the old terminal at Love Field, which was over on the Mockingbird side of the airport. The terminal was a large white stucco affair, and there were seemingly miles (I exaggerate) of outside gates accessed via covered (?) walkways. The air was alive with the sounds of prop planes. The place was a beehive of activity by the mid 1950s, while Amon Carter Field, a truly handsome airport, sat mostly empty about 15 miles to the west.

Here is a pretty complete history of the Dallas v/s Fort Worth airport controversy: http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com...rterfield2.jpg

Check out the main waiting room at the old Carter Field. It looked like the lobby of a really nice hotel; http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com...field5_jpg.jpg

[hereinaustin]

I think you guys are right. We have more than enough room to build a massive airport. Inspired by Atlanta's airport, I did a mock-up of what ours could look like, with room to spare.

(full-size: http://i.imgur.com/FsfFHH9.jpg)

[the Genral]

Nice! Pretty sure I'll be "Dust in the wind" before we get anywhere near that though.
One advantage of ABIA over airports like DFW is the proximity of the terminal to the runways. It seems on the rare occasion when I connect through DFW, the taxiing time to the runway is a long 10 minutes, maybe longer. In that time, a 747 uses about 1800 liters of fuel. Until they get the technology and weight down on electric motors for the front wheel of smaller aircraft like the 737, a lot of fuel is spent just to get to the runways of the larger airports. I would think that would make ABIA a cheaper airport to fly in and out of for the airlines.

[lzppjb]

Would 3 runways be enough for 148 gates?

[lzppjb]

I think space for 4+ runways is going to be the limiting factor. Not so much the space for extra terminals.

Could the 4th be added on the east side, or would it be too close to other facilities?