Salt Lake International Airport Development Thread

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I'd like to take the time to remind everyone that the legislature signed a law barring the department of airports from spending any money on transit projects in Utah, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON.

Are you kidding me???

[Hatman]

^^^
The reason is quite well-known:

The city had planned to use available airport funds but was disallowed by legislation — still in effect — sponsored by Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, under pressure from Delta Air Lines.

Zions wrote that if Bramble's language was removed from state law, the airport could fully fund the TRAX extension with a 10 percent increase in parking fees.

Bramble said he would be amenable to that if "the facts warranted it" but that he would want to review ridership numbers.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.ph...56&itype=CMSID

It's american capitalism at its best - privatize the profits and socialize the costs. Delta doesn't want to pay more for the airport than it has to, and it has successfully insulated itself from cost overruns related to transit extensions.
This isn't Delta's fault - corporations gotta corp - but it is still totally wrong. Its up to our elected representatives to beat down this kind of hedging, and in this case they failed us.
And don't hold out hope that the legislature will correct this problem. Salt Lake City is not interested in letting the legislature have another chance at getting airport tax revenues, which is what the legislature would obviously try to do if they were to rewrite any of the airport authorization laws. So this is something that Salt Lake City and UTA will have to work out on their own.
It's so totally stupid it makes my head hurt.

[Hatman]

Another article related to Jackie's "Secret Plan" to run TRAX to the airport at-grade:

Benson said the design work is still underway, but the ground-level TRAX line would lead up to the west side of the new terminal instead of the front of the south side.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45605850&nid=960

It sounds like Tygr was right - provided that the article is wrong and they mean east side of the terminal, rather than west. That would place the TRAX station just behind the white bus in the picture below, underneath the huge ginormous expensive road bridge up to level 3:


I'm highly supportive of this. This may be the first good news to come from this whole self-imposed nonsense. At least TRAX will now stop in the exact same place that the cars do.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by JMK

It's shocking to me how much larger the new airport is going to be. The current steel framing looks almost as big as the existing terminals, but it is really just a portion of one of the new concourses:



Does anyone know what is planned for the grassy areas in the rendering on the sides of the new parking garage? Is there something planned there in the future? Maybe an attached hotel someday?

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

It's shocking to me how much larger the new airport is going to be. The current steel framing looks almost as big as the existing terminals, but it is really just a portion of one of the new concourses:



Does anyone know what is planned for the grassy areas in the rendering on the sides of the new parking garage? Is there something planned there in the future? Maybe an attached hotel someday?

Yes, that is exactly what is planned to go there.

[jubguy3]

From what I understand the trax was put on the south side of terminal drive because it would restrict pushback for aircraft on the south side of south concourse east if it was on the north side.

At least this is some kind of solution... if it restricts airport ops I will not be happy, but at least it's an option on the table.

[arkhitektor]

This seems like a reasonable solution:



http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/...ial-drawbacks/

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

This seems like a reasonable solution:



http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/...ial-drawbacks/

As long as 1. the amount of walking required is minimally increased and 2. the number of gates and their configuration stays the same, I think I'd be fine with this. I would rather have them build the $68m dollar version but there's no chance in hell they could figure out how.

[Hatman]

Thanks for posting. Exactly what we expected.
Red is the outline of the new TRAX alignment, while Blue is the area where the 'access road' will go. It looks as though TRAX will keep operating on two tracks all the way up to the terminal. From the article, it says there will be a 150-foot buffer distance between the terminal and the station to preserve space for a future baggage claim expansion. I hope that expansion gets built quickly - perhaps at the same time the rest of the second concourse is finished. Then you'll see TRAX go right up to the side of the terminal, just like it does now.
That will make this option pretty fantastic for arriving in SLC. A little more work for departures - an extra elevator - but that's not much.
I wonder how much of the current station they will reuse. With the 'service gap' between the current station closing and the new extension opening being close to a year, it seems like they'll have plenty of time to dismantle the old one and reuse those parts on the new station, if they want to save money. It will also be interesting to see if they cut off TRAX service at the 1940 West Temple station, or if they bring in their temporary wooden platforms and create a temporary station somewhere on the airport grounds to be the point of transfer for the bus bridge. I support the temporary option, as it would mean a shorter bus bridge and therefore a more convenient and cheaper option. Possibly build the temporary station near the current "park and wait" lot.
I'm pretty excited by this. It seems like this option was the original intent, then got shelved, and then got resurrected by budget concerns. I only hope it will be as good as it was originally intended to be.

[jubguy3]

Construction Updates

September 6, 2017

- Poured concrete at the Gateway Center and for the final six ground-level columns for the parking garage

- Continued erecting steel for South Concourse-West, which is expected to be completed the end of September

- Began framing for curtain walls on South-Concourse West

Am I correct in assuming that the actual steel erection is moving by at a surprisingly fast rate? Its amazing the amount of time in which they will be able to build nearly 2300 feet of concourse, if my estimates are correct... The scale of the new concourse next to the old D gates and the tiny little E "gates"... erm... hallways... is impressive. Exciting times are ahead for SLC International.

[jubguy3]

Update time!

September 20, 2017

• Poured initial concrete for ground level of the parking garage
• Began interior and exterior framing for the South Concourse-West
• Averaged 610 construction staff on-site daily
• Worked 1 million staff hours in 755 days without a lost time incident

Construction on the framing (I'm not sure what you call this? But the steel structure erection, not the framing that commenced this week) of South Concourse-West is expected to complete by the end of the month, and hopefully the next update will give us a better look into this.

Okland will break ground on the North Concourse-West sometime later this year. Steel erection in the terminal will continue alongside both concourses. Work is moving quickly and I've noticed a steady increase in the number of daily contractors on site as they post those statistics in the updates. Almost all components of phase 1 are in construction now, and I would expect to see more updates on the terminal and north concourse from here on out (the majority of the work undertaken so far has been prep work, the terminal tunnels, or construction on the south concourse-west). I'm not very familiar with the timeline of the TRP but it seems like the project is ahead of schedule - we are still an estimated 3 years out from the opening date of the new airport. There is always time allotted to test systems and become familiar with the new airport (especially for systems like baggage handling), but based on the speed of construction henceforth (steel erection began on S. Concourse-W, so approximately 4 1/2 months to build the largest and most complex "element" of the TRP) it looks like everything is moving along smoothly and quickly. As with all projects of this scale there is always the risk for people to... screw up, but I don't think they have experienced any hiccups in construction seeing as that nearly 2000 feet of concourse steel has been constructed within 4 months, alongside the rest of the TRP.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Okland will break ground on the North Concourse-West sometime later this year.

I had a thought about the north concourse, and concluded that it's accelerated construction is probably what saved the TRAX extension from becoming more of an issue.
It seems that the plan to run TRAX to the east side of the terminal was part o the original plan, but this option was dropped when it was decided that airplanes needed that space on the side of the terminal more. This was back when the north concourse was still just an expansion option, and the plan was to refurbish the existing airport concourses/gates as part of the reconstruction. Then the plan changed, and the north concourse got accelerated and the refurbishment plan got dropped. This probably freed up a lot of space for airplanes elsewhere, which allowed TRAX to be put back where it originally was - on the side of the terminal.
I find it interesting how fluid the design process can be, and how tiny little decisions can trickle down through other pending decisions and create noticeable differences. Infrastructure doesn't change very often, so you can think of older infrastructure as time-capsules of thought - if you know how to read them.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I had a thought about the north concourse, and concluded that it's accelerated construction is probably what saved the TRAX extension from becoming more of an issue.
It seems that the plan to run TRAX to the east side of the terminal was part o the original plan, but this option was dropped when it was decided that airplanes needed that space on the side of the terminal more. This was back when the north concourse was still just an expansion option, and the plan was to refurbish the existing airport concourses/gates as part of the reconstruction. Then the plan changed, and the north concourse got accelerated and the refurbishment plan got dropped. This probably freed up a lot of space for airplanes elsewhere, which allowed TRAX to be put back where it originally was - on the side of the terminal.
I find it interesting how fluid the design process can be, and how tiny little decisions can trickle down through other pending decisions and create noticeable differences. Infrastructure doesn't change very often, so you can think of older infrastructure as time-capsules of thought - if you know how to read them.

The north Concourse has definitely opened up some flexibility in the construction phasing of the airport. If I understand correctly, the new terminal will open with closer to 50 gates rather than the 24ish expected to open along with the new terminal. I think this gives them a lot more flexibility in the second phase of construction... rather than having to demolish the terminals, construct a weird network of bridges between the concourses, construct the new S. Concourse E, then demolish the old bridges, connecting the new concourse with the old concourses, and finally decommissioning and destroying the old gates in phases to keep as many gates as active as possible.... I haven't seen the new construction phasing strategy, but I believe that they are now able to go ahead and directly demolish B, C, and D along with the old terminals, and then to go ahead and construct N/S concourses East but maintain a bridge between concourse A and the rest of the airport.

If I remember correctly, the airport's plan was to include larger planes along the southeast side of terminal drive (like, 757 large, not widebodies). I think they are now choosing to move those gates elsewhere and put regional jets along that part of the concourse. I think that would help with keeping foot traffic even throughout the concourse because it was expected that most of the widebody gates would be opposed to the gates along the trax stop.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

As long as 1. the amount of walking required is minimally increased and 2. the number of gates and their configuration stays the same, I think I'd be fine with this. I would rather have them build the $68m dollar version but there's no chance in hell they could figure out how.

I'm just glad we're not ending up with some lame at-grade crossing with crossing arms, etc. But with an escalator, I agree that won't be too bad.

Are departures on the ground level or the second level?

[JMK]

$3 billion Salt Lake airport rebuild hits midway mark of Phase 1 and future begins to take shape
-Lee Davidson, SL Tribune

The first phase of rebuilding the Salt Lake City International Airport is at a midpoint: construction began three years ago, and opening is scheduled in another three.
So airport officials took the news media on a tour Friday of construction of what eventually will be a $3 billion project, scheduled to have all phases fully completed in 2025.
“It’s getting exciting now,” said Mike Williams, airport redevelopment program director, as he looked over vast fields of new foundations, support columns, a small army of 600 workers, 19 cranes lifting steel and supplies, and several buildings rising from the ground.

rest of article and a bunch of photos here,
http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/...to-take-shape/

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by i-215

I'm just glad we're not ending up with some lame at-grade crossing with crossing arms, etc. But with an escalator, I agree that won't be too bad.

Are departures on the ground level or the second level?

Departures are on the second level

[jubguy3]

Aeromexico is adding (weekly?) service to Mexico City beginning in January

[MANGOslcHERE]

you will also need at least two large cargo handling size elevators for just luggage to the second level for airline check in.that trak situation is classic proof that utah does not get to the future but only to the moment.doubt that 2020 opeartional date is realistic .it will be choas across the2020 november/december holiday seasons.welcome to the SLC airport where everything is happening but there is nothing going on.....

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by MANGOslcHERE

you will also need at least two large cargo handling size elevators for just luggage to the second level for airline check in.that trak situation is classic proof that utah does not get to the future but only to the moment.doubt that 2020 opeartional date is realistic .it will be choas across the2020 november/december holiday seasons.welcome to the SLC airport where everything is happening but there is nothing going on.....

If you consider this a problem, it's a problem either way. Previously the track would be on the 2nd level whereas check-in will be on the 3rd (NOT on the second as you suggest). If you argue, oh hey it will be fine they can put in a check-in for the Trax people on the 2nd, then the same argument can be made for doing it on the 1st.

I'm not saying that I love the ground level station, but the luggage on the escalator/elevator problem is a problem whether it is elevated or not. Also you can make the argument now that all the people departing the airport (yeah they do that too) won't have to go up an escalator/elevator anymore to do so with their bulky luggage, because the Trax station will be on the same level as baggage claim.

[asies1981]

Post on the airport construction.