ABIA to Expand in 08

[Mikey711MN]

EDITED for self-correction

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I swore I read something a few years back also that each terminal could be built up to 55 gates each wich would mean that ABIA could have over 100 gates? Correct me if I was missinformed...

There were a few alternatives that built-out the North Terminal a bit more than 31 gates (notably those with new extending concourses) and/or built the NW terminal (i.e. where the cargo operations currently stand), which sum to the 52 gates as mentioned. However, page 7-17 suggests that ultimate build-out supports 112 gates!

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

With increased traffic to/from the terminal, the LOS decreases for the traffic signals at the frontage roads' intersection with the airport entrance road. At some point, then, the direct connectors (read: flyovers) would be warranted from a traffic point-of-view.

As I recall, there were schematics already in place around the time of the 1999 opening, indicating an eventual NB-to-WB flyover onto 71. Hopefully the 71 tollway lanes between the airport and SH130 will also be in place ahead of any significant expansion.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

As I recall, there were schematics already in place around the time of the 1999 opening, indicating an eventual NB-to-WB flyover onto 71. Hopefully the 71 tollway lanes between the airport and SH130 will also be in place ahead of any significant expansion.

I'm sure the schematics are in place for what's out there now, but they will likely need to be updated once SH 71 gets expanded/improved. Consistent with the mantra of keeping the "free" level of access non-tolled, this may be a particularly tricky area to add tollable capacity. And frankly, given TxDOT's current funding constraints, I rather hope that the flyovers are not included in the SH 71 package so they can be built first.

[RobDSM]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I swore I read something a few years back also that each terminal could be built up to 55 gates each wich would mean that ABIA could have over 100 gates? Correct me if I was missinformed...

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

There were a few alternatives that built-out the North Terminal a bit more than 31 gates (notably those with new extending concourses) and/or built the NW terminal (i.e. where the cargo operations currently stand), which sum to the 52 gates as mentioned. However, page 7-17 suggests that ultimate build-out supports 112 gates!

I get the impression from what I read that there would be an ultimate need for approximately 112 gates, based upon their calculation of the ultimate capacity of the airfield with the addition of a third runway and other improvements. However, it doesn't look like they have specifically planned for any expansion beyond the 52 gates. That Planning Level 3 will be here before you know it!

Hopefully they are looking beyond the near term in a way that is not mentioned in the document. Perhaps through some combination of the expansion of the existing terminal (as shown in the alternatives in Chap 4) and expansion of the new south terminal there is some way of achieving something close to servicing the ultimate capacity of the airport with around 100 gates. They make some estimates of what is needed below, but nothing too specific about how it could be achieved. I think they should have been more specific about this in that report, perhaps having a 4th and 5th planning levels with details on implementation, so we're not stuck redoing facilities to accommodate for poor planning.

Pages 7-16 through 7-18:

Table 7-1 summarizes the projection of ultimate land areas required to accommodate facilities
estimated as needed to serve the ultimate runway capacity. This would include 42 MAP, nearly
680,000 tons of air cargo, and approximately 60,000 annual general aviation aircraft operations. The
corresponding requirements for Planning Level 3 and existing facilities are also shown for
comparison.

It is important to note that the estimated ultimate requirements should be interpreted as very general
approximations, based on the rationale described in the preceding discussion. However, they do
offer a glimpse of order of magnitude requirements. All of the ultimate requirements may not be
accommodated within the airport property, and decisions and policy by DOA will be required as
traffic begins to exceed that which is forecast for Planning Level 3 in anticipation of ultimate
long-term requirements. Nonetheless, certain observations can be drawn from this analysis.

Passenger terminal and gate requirements can be met through the development of midfield satellite
concourses connected by a below grade automated people mover system. The configuration of
ultimate gate requirements will need to consider the location of midfield cross taxiways.

The ultimate number of short and mid-term vehicle parking spaces is more than twice the number
projected for Planning Level 3, thus there will be a need for expanded structured parking in
proximity of the passenger terminals. Likewise over 300 acres is estimated as the ultimate long-term
parking requirement, which is 175 more acres than the Planning Level 3 requirement.
Accommodating such an area on the airport will be a challenge and suggests several options such as:
use of undeveloped airport property, acquisition of additional property, structured parking, or
reliance on off-site parking facilities. At some point in the future, beyond the planning period, use of
golf course land for aviation functions may be required. Likewise, the excavation and filling of
landfills may also be considered.

The ultimate requirement for air cargo also represents a need to identify a major land area which is
over 200 acres more than the requirement for Planning Level 3. This also suggests the potential need
to redevelop portions of airport property or acquisition of additional property.

The accommodation of certain functions such as airline maintenance and general aviation may
prompt discretionary action or development of policy strategy by DOA. Reduction of general
aviation activity could occur without proactive action by DOA, as commercial operations at ABIA
continue to increase and GA operators experience increasing delays. To be proactive, DOA could
encourage the development of additional GA airports and facilities in the vicinity of the airport, and
encourage FAA to designate additional GA airports in the area as reliever airports, which would
allow them to receive additional FAA funding for capacity enhancements. Other support functions
such as flight kitchens, airport maintenance, GSE, fuel storage and ARFF do not appear to present
problems in accommodating as these require relatively small areas and may be accommodated as
extensions of areas presently depicted on the land use plan.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by austintilIdie

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the initial considerations for total built-out expansion of the current terminal could accommodate a total of 55 gates, but it's been years since if I've seen the conceptual diagram of it. Two arms would extend southward.

That was the original plan when the airport opened. Phase 1 would have involved 5 gates added to the East Concourse and subsequent phases would have involved building two pier concourses extending southward from the current terminal. If you look at Chapter 5 in the Airport Master Plan, Concept A-01 was the original expansion concept.

Chapter 5 examines several alternative expansion possibilities and discusses the pros and cons of each plan. I believe the final plan (with the new South Terminal) is Concept A-07. I think one of the main reasons they didn't go with the original plan was because the roadway in front of the current terminal would have had to have been expanded to handle the increased traffic and it would have been costly and disruptive to airport users during construction.

[NormalgeNyus]

i was looking at the plans for the future development of abia. for the terminal that i in the middle of the field on the south side i see a back road being built to it from the south but are they really planning on the long underground tunnels so traffic can get to the north side? seem that would cost alot of money

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by NormalgeNyus

i was looking at the plans for the future development of abia. for the terminal that i in the middle of the field on the south side i see a back road being built to it from the south but are they really planning on the long underground tunnels so traffic can get to the north side? seem that would cost alot of money

Tunnels the whole length? No. Depressed roadways tunneled occasionally under taxiways? Yes.

This presents a bit of a drainage situation, but nothing that can't be engineered.

[DrewDizzle]

What's the western obsession with flyovers? Why not just raze a couple of those gas stations and have a cloverleaf for non-stop access to the airport from 71?

[MichaelB]

the ABIA documents are interesting. Thanks for the link. I had gone to the site but did not see find all the build out plans! In Chapter 5. Version 5.6 was the one I remebered getting talked about the most. Underground ped tunnel or train connecting to a remote terminal.

Any specualtion as to how long before we would need that level of expansion?

I know I already wish they would have built out the parking decks with the last level (or was it more?) that were left off!

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by DrewDizzle

What's the western obsession with flyovers? Why not just raze a couple of those gas stations and have a cloverleaf for non-stop access to the airport from 71?

In principle, it's a property rights issue and an access issue.

Of course, a cloverleaf takes up quite a bit more ROW, which in this case would not only encompass both (albeit derelict) gas stations, but may also impede on the apartment complexes further north. But there's little to be gained because you haven't improved the FR intersections any because that traffic must still pass through it.

Furthermore, access directly adjacent to highways is preserved by using frontage roads (this is not universally adopted, mind you, but that's been TxDOT's MO). A "direct connector" is designed to facilitate through movements in lieu of those movements being constrained to a signalized frontage road intersection. In this case, then, a cloverleaf ramp constructed from the SH 71 main lanes is put in place to eliminate a left-turn movement from the FR's, therefore you'd need to put at least one bridge in place to clear a FR for the through movement to work.

So by the time you add it all up, the state of Texas opts to leave the property to the owners (reduced ROW cost, time impact, etc.) and constructs more vertically (higher construction cost) with the flyover ramp instead.

Or so the theory goes...again, Texas is the only state that I've ever worked in where flyovers are the standard, but to me it makes sense in light of the importance the state puts on mitigating ROW impacts.

[M1EK]

The flyovers are only needed because of the frontage roads; and they use frontage roads instead of 'access roads' or 'perimeter roads' because TXDOT is still largely controlled by guys with cronies who make a lot of money on real estate, and would make a lot less money if their crappy little property had access only via a 2-lane perimeter roadway.

Basically, real estate development interests trump traffic engineering. There's no universe under which flyovers would be necessary for this airport if it wasn't for the frontage roads - cloverleaves and some depressed sections would be just fine.