HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 5:53 AM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrevo View Post


Very fantastic... What this realy???
New larger rendering:

Source: http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/75...tatious-design

It's the 10th busiest airport, in the World; Denver International Airport (DEN), built in 1995. The tent-like structure is existing, it's the hotel tower structure and the rail station, which is being added as part of an expansion of airport capacity. Denver International has a capacity of 50 million passengers per year, but will likely serve nearly 54 million this year.

This expansion will not only add rail access from downtown, but it will also add 9 new security gates, additional baggage check-in facilities, confrence and retail space and a 500 room hotel. All these will help ease Denver International's yearly capacity up to around 60 million passengers. Additional expansions of the Cobcorses and gates in the coming decade will increase capacity to 75 million, annually. The Denver International Airport masterplan at full build out, will result in an airport with 2 all new Concorses (in addition to the 3 existing), 12 all non-intersecting runways and an annual capacity of 150 million passengers.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 7:13 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
It's astonishing how cheap stuff is to build in Denver, with all those ready-make rights of way etc. That a lot of bang for not a hell of a lot of buck.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 7:16 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
TWELVE runways? What on earth would you need that for?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 7:21 AM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Amen to that.

It's not light rail, though. We're really going to have to come up with a non-mode-specific brand for our system, and soon. Or else I'm just going to start calling everything a steam engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnyderBock View Post
It's heavy rail, so there will be more room for bags and such. It will use the Hyundai-Rotem Silverliner V EMU's. Though technically called Commuter Rail (not light rail), the 15min peak / 15min off-peak service frequency, is more typical of what Americans would think of as metro or light rail type of service and not so much commuter rail. It won't have full grade-seperation at all crossings, but will only have at-grade crossing in the most remote intersections. It will be nearly full-grade seperated and could be upgraded to such in the future, without too much cost. This year, will bring full scale construction of the DIA Terminal expansion, as well as the EMU commuter rail line to the airport. In fact, all these projects will be in full construction this year (2012)...
I will call it electric commuter rail because it won't look like BART (it seems like it will resemble the commuter rail from Frankfurt International Airport).

Last edited by s.p.hansen; Jan 25, 2012 at 7:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 7:21 AM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
TWELVE runways? What on earth would you need that for?

DIA was designed to land planes during blizzards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 3:17 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Well I can tell you from personal experience that you can't land a plane at DIA during a blizzard.

I was stuck in DIA for three days in March of 2003 (watching the Iraq War begin) in DIA during that epic blizzard. Not a single plane took off or landed for 72 hours.

Also the tent started ripping from the massive snow load so they kicked us all out of the main terminal and into the concourses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 3:40 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Bet you wish there had been a nice big hotel in the terminal back then!

For the record though, that was no normal blizzard. That 2003 storm was the second largest snowstorm in Denver in recorded history (the largest was in 1913), and at the time was the largest snow since 1946. I recall having to literally unbury my truck - it completely vanished under the snow. Good fun. But nothing operates through a storm like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 3:51 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
DIA was designed to land planes during blizzards.
Not blizzards but, heavy snowstorms.

It's also designed to handle the mass internment of political dissidents during the occupation of the US by the NWO, but that's another story...
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 4:02 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
The unspoken reason for the south terminal project - expanded detention space. The world is a much more uncertain place than it was in the 90s, and political dissent, whew, that's skyrocketing. We must be ready!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 4:36 PM
RockMont RockMont is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 681
I like the new design better than the original one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 5:11 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
TWELVE runways? What on earth would you need that for?
It probably wont happen in our lifetime but it's good to reserve the land ahead of time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 6:09 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
It probably wont happen in our lifetime but it's good to reserve the land ahead of time.
DIA is in the midst of a new master planning process now. So far, it looks like a 7th runway is needed today (another east-west), and 9-10 in the 2030/2035 planning timeframe.

Keep in mind, at any given time, depending mostly on wind conditions, only the north-south or east-west runways might be in use. That cuts down significantly on weather related days that older and/or land-constrained airports have to deal with, and not just storms and snow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 6:17 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Bet you wish there had been a nice big hotel in the terminal back then!

For the record though, that was no normal blizzard. That 2003 storm was the second largest snowstorm in Denver in recorded history (the largest was in 1913), and at the time was the largest snow since 1946. I recall having to literally unbury my truck - it completely vanished under the snow. Good fun. But nothing operates through a storm like that.
Exactly. That storm was a freaking BEAST! That storm, along with the pounding of 2-3 footers for something like 3-4 weeks straight between roughly Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2006 were the worst I can remember. October 1997 was another biggie, too.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, can operate during massive storms like those.

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 6:18 PM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Not blizzards but, heavy snowstorms.

It's also designed to handle the mass internment of political dissidents during the occupation of the US by the NWO, but that's another story...

I'm somewhat of a hobbyist when it comes to collecting and dissecting conspiracy theories and the DIA NWO conspiracy theory has a special place in my heart; it's definitely the slow kid in the class.

The person doing the narration for the most popular DIA conspiracy video on youtube might also be a bit more touched in the head judging by her slowness of speech and impediment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 6:50 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Bet you wish there had been a nice big hotel in the terminal back then!

For the record though, that was no normal blizzard. That 2003 storm was the second largest snowstorm in Denver in recorded history (the largest was in 1913), and at the time was the largest snow since 1946. I recall having to literally unbury my truck - it completely vanished under the snow. Good fun. But nothing operates through a storm like that.
Oh I'm well aware of how ridiculous that storm was. I believe Breckenridge or some other place in the mountain got something like 136" of snow during that storm. I'm just saying now THAT was a real blizzard. Funny thing is, last year's blizzard in Chicago seemed far worse to me. Maybe it was because Denver only ended up getting 30" or something which is about what Chicago got a year ago and the winds in Chicago's storm were FAR worse leaving 10' drifts blocking roads and alleys in some places. It probably also had to do with the fact that Chicago got like 27" in 36 hours while Denver got 30" in 72 hours. That was the most ridiculous storm I've ever been in.

Haha, it wouldn't have done much good to have a hotel because there were something like 5,000 people trapped in the terminal after the State enforced an emergency shutdown of all roads. And I had been telling my Dad there was no way we were going to get a flight off before the storm and we should just wait out the storm in Vail (where we were skiing in WONDERFUL snow conditions for a week beforehand), but of course he didn't listen and instead of being "forced" to ski in 10' of powder for three more days, we slept on the airport floor for 3 nights. Oh well, it was fun.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 7:42 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
DIA is in the midst of a new master planning process now. So far, it looks like a 7th runway is needed today (another east-west), and 9-10 in the 2030/2035 planning timeframe.

Keep in mind, at any given time, depending mostly on wind conditions, only the north-south or east-west runways might be in use. That cuts down significantly on weather related days that older and/or land-constrained airports have to deal with, and not just storms and snow.
Most of DIA's runways will be a nice, 12,500 feet in length. When DIA opened in 1995, they had 5 runways. In recent years, DIA built a 6th runway and this new runway is a 16,000 foot long runway! This of course, will be ideal for aircraft with an ultra heavy takeoff weight -- in Denver's slightly thinner atmosphere layer -- where a little additional speed is required to generate sufficient lift. This will come in handy for planes such as A380s and any future, yet to be designed, super-jumbo jets.

With DIA's current 6 non-intersecting runways, they can have 4 different aircraft taking off and/or landing, simuletantiously, in zero visibility conditions. As just mentioned, they need the 7th runway to be constructed now and it is being planned as part of the second phase of expansion for this decade, after the South Terminal/rail station/hotel under construction now.

The large number of long, non-intersecting runways, allows DIA to operate most efficiently, in most weather conditions. This is why it is the best performing, of all cold weather airports and useally better performing than most warm weather airports, in the USA.

Here's a short summary from the DIA Materplan:







Note: On this one, you can see the South Terminal and Rail Station/Hotel Expansion, which is currently underway.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future

Last edited by SnyderBock; Jan 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 8:09 PM
min-chi-cbus min-chi-cbus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnyderBock View Post
New larger rendering:

Source: http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/75...tatious-design

It's the 10th busiest airport, in the World; Denver International Airport (DEN), built in 1995. The tent-like structure is existing, it's the hotel tower structure and the rail station, which is being added as part of an expansion of airport capacity. Denver International has a capacity of 50 million passengers per year, but will likely serve nearly 54 million this year.

This expansion will not only add rail access from downtown, but it will also add 9 new security gates, additional baggage check-in facilities, confrence and retail space and a 500 room hotel. All these will help ease Denver International's yearly capacity up to around 60 million passengers. Additional expansions of the Cobcorses and gates in the coming decade will increase capacity to 75 million, annually. The Denver International Airport masterplan at full build out, will result in an airport with 2 all new Concorses (in addition to the 3 existing), 12 all non-intersecting runways and an annual capacity of 150 million passengers.
I like bigger airports, but why would you want SUCH a busy and big airport? I don't see the benefit once you've got non-stop flights to most U.S. cities and major international gateways. That's all I care about, at least. Besides, I realize that Denver is a moderate immigration gateway and tourist destination, but it's FAR from being one that needs this level of national and international air travel! Why is the demand so high in Denver? Also, 150 million passengers and their planes will make a SHIT TON of air and noise pollution! I guess it's a good thing the airport is in the middle of nowhere, but I hear that area is growing -- no?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 9:09 PM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by min-chi-cbus View Post
I like bigger airports, but why would you want SUCH a busy and big airport? I don't see the benefit once you've got non-stop flights to most U.S. cities and major international gateways. That's all I care about, at least. Besides, I realize that Denver is a moderate immigration gateway and tourist destination, but it's FAR from being one that needs this level of national and international air travel! Why is the demand so high in Denver? Also, 150 million passengers and their planes will make a SHIT TON of air and noise pollution! I guess it's a good thing the airport is in the middle of nowhere, but I hear that area is growing -- no?

1). It's far away, who cares.
2). It's a freaking cash machine; if it increases capacity and importance it just rakes in more cash for the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 9:20 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by min-chi-cbus View Post
I like bigger airports, but why would you want SUCH a busy and big airport? I don't see the benefit once you've got non-stop flights to most U.S. cities and major international gateways. That's all I care about, at least. Besides, I realize that Denver is a moderate immigration gateway and tourist destination, but it's FAR from being one that needs this level of national and international air travel! Why is the demand so high in Denver? Also, 150 million passengers and their planes will make a SHIT TON of air and noise pollution! I guess it's a good thing the airport is in the middle of nowhere, but I hear that area is growing -- no?
Noise management is a big deal for DIA, and has been from the start, when neighboring communities agreed to allow Denver to annex that land. Even so, you can see the noise contours map (at buildout), and they're not really in areas of major concern: http://business.flydenver.com/commun...e_contours.pdf

(More noise info if you're interested: http://business.flydenver.com/community/noise/index.asp)

As for air pollution... eh, that all blows toward Kansas and Nebraska.

But yeah, as for why we'd want a big airport...because it's an enormous economic engine. It's our port.

Snyder: The slide you posted showing terminal/concourse expansion, specifically concourse D, is no longer looking to be the favored alternative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 9:47 PM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
I really don't understand why a logical expansion of concourses (as shown by Snyder) is now less favorable than the weird West and East concourses. The beauty of DIA is that it is logically laid out and easy to get around. Having 4-5 concourses - named A-E - and accessed by "train" seems much more logical than 3 concourses - named A-C - and accessed by "train" and an additional 2 concourses - named West and East - accessed by foot (?). I get that the train (or whatever you want to call it) is going to be too slow and too small to efficiently move people to the farther-out concourses (D-E) but, isn't this something they planned for? First, the trains only run 3 cars, but there's enough platforms for at least double that. That'll take care of capacity. Travel time(as well as capacity) can be mitigated by higher frequency of service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.