rolypolyman From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 152 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18203 times:
I got some really old maps out of storage last week and found this circa-1970 Gulf road map of the DFW area. What caught my eye was the grandiose plans for DFW Regional Airport:
(Click to enlarge)
I don't know whether anything like this has been posted, but, man, where to begin. Thirteen terminals instead of the four that were initially built, a STOL Airport, a 5800 ft long cargo facility, and a separate and equally gigantic "world trade center" cargo facility. The runways if built fully would measure 19,000 ft in length (I did analyze the image). The northwest diagonal runway is 11,500 ft, instead of the current 9300 ft. Look at the southern fringe of the airport... there's even an "industrial airpark" with a 3800 ft east-west runway.
I'd be curious to know whether they were ever serious about all this or whether it was just an ultimate expansion proposal. I did find a September 1973 newspaper story in Google News archives showing that the runway lengths were fixed at 11,400 ft and 9,000 ft (diagonal), so I'm suspecting it wasn't the oil crisis that kept this plan from unfolding.
Man, someone ought to render all this for MS Flight Simulator.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18022 times:
Texas has always been an ambitious place, look at the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium. Braniff was ambitious and they probaly thought the SSC of the late 1970's required 19,000 feet to takeoff for Europe and Asia. Well the SSC never came to be and Braniff had to keep its "Fat Albert" 747's. Some DFW runays have reached about 2 and a half miles in length, enough for 777 to get to Asia.
AA has built a new international terminal at DFW in addition to the original 4 terminals. DFW has become a well balanced hub with flights to Brazil, Argentina and Europe. Unfortunately more foreign airlines fly to Houston then to DFW but then AA doesn't make life too pleasent for teh competition.
contrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1818 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17977 times:
That map shows how much things have changed since the 70's. DFW now has 7 runways, IIRC, and the area around it has grown up.
The map even shows the old GSW airport, which was still there for a while in the 70's. Of course, it's headquarters for AA now.
ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 23 Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17856 times:
Another reason for this ambition was, at the time, the lack of hub-and-spoke network systems and the existence of less fuel-efficient aircraft.
If I'm not mistaken, it was thought at the time that, due to its central location, DFW could become a "base" (not technically a "hub") for many different airlines. The idea was that each airline could have its own terminal.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14313 posts, RR: 26 Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17757 times:
Quoting rolypolyman (Thread starter): Man, someone ought to render all this for MS Flight Simulator.
Maybe you could just wait a year or two and check out DWC.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2037 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17735 times:
In the late 1960s, other airports had plans that were equally grandiose.
JFK, for example, was planning to fill in Jamaica Bay for a mid field terminal complex and a third 13 / 31 runway.
tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 17427 times:
Airport nursery? What's that about? Trees? Babies? Cessnas?
Renfro747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16762 times:
I had the privilege of touring DFW before it was opened to the public in 1973. My grandfather was a member of the Airport Ground Tansportation Association, and this was the highlight of that years convention in Arlington. Also included was a tour of the newly opened American Airlines training facility.
Even though I was younger than 10 years old, this was an epic experience that set me on aviation for the rest of my life.
Very interesting to see the "Grand Plan"... Love the STOL-port!
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16454 times:
A few notes:
1. Those "grandiose" plans are not solely a product of the 1970s. As recently as 1997, the DFW Master Plan called for a somewhat-less-grandiose, but still intriguing, design of several new terminals in a different pattern but following the general layout along International Parkway. The plan includes designs for Terminal 3W - which would ultimately become Terminal D - as well as the long-discussed/-debated Terminal F. In successive phases, it also envisioned two elongated, north-south midfield terminals (5E or 5W) south of the present terminal area, and south (on the east side of the highway) of what was then the big Delta cargo facility.
2. That airport to the southwest in that picture is not a design - it was real. That is Greater Southwest Airport, which was at one time a fairly busy airport serving Fort Worth. As many on here probably already know, the north-south runway from that airport is now Amon Carter Boulevard, on which AMR/American Airlines is headquartered. The far north end of that runway - which stretches north across 183 - is still clearly visible from a satellite view (or out the window of the plane on landing or takeoff!). Up until just a few years ago, more of GSW was visible - one could still see the outline in the grass of where the approach road long was for the terminal. Only recently has that field been torn up to develop the enlarged CentrePort development in that area - including a new hotel, etc.
3. That airport on the area west of the runways did, indeed, end up being the West Maintenance area of the airport - just about all of which is now occupied by AA's sprawling maintenance operation there. Interestingly, not on the map - though understandably so - is the former Braniff headquarters office which still stands on the spot where this map is marked "Auto Parking" right next to that "Airline Maintenance" area.
On one final note - wow, look at Grapevine! It is pretty astounding to think of what that map looks like for Grapevine all the way back then, and considering the development that has happened in that area since then. And, if the map stretched a little further north to Southlake - that would probably look even more insane compared with how built up that area is now.
Western727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 579 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16300 times:
rangercarp From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 123 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15584 times:
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15549 times:
What's amazing is that while only a fraction of the original terminals are built, the number of full length runways (not including the STOL port) already exceeds the original plan as 17L/35R had to be subsequently planned and added to allow 3 simultaneous IFR arrival streams. An 8th runway was also later proposed (not in the original plan) on the far west side, west of the mx area to allow 4 simultaneous IFR arrivals. Unfortunately if built, this runway would intersect 13R/31L, and as it was not in the original plans there is not the same amount of generous buffer between the runway and surrounding development as the other main runways enjoy.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14313 posts, RR: 26 Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15491 times:
An airport with a short runway, which therefore is limited to STOL aircraft. They were kind of a fad in the 1970s, at least in concept, but are being used successfully today with Toronto Island Airport and London City.
As far as I can tell, they seemed to come in two varieties. The first was an entire airport that would be located in close proximity to the downtown area, like LCY or YTZ.
The second was a shorter runway at a large airport for the commuter aircraft to use which would reduce congestion on the larger runways, which I think was the intent with runway 15L/33R at Boston.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
rolypolyman From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 152 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15215 times:
Holy cow... I just now noticed that. It's on the southeast tip of that southern cargo terminal. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it's a plant nursery for all the landscaping, but who knows... maybe they envisioned a 10-acre Chuck E Cheese.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 48 Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14829 times:
What an amazing plan, thanks for sharing! Don't forget, based on the scan, the entire east half of the airport is missing. I'd love to see what the east side looks like.
Assuming 30 gates/terminal, that rendering has room for almost 400 gates at that airport!
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6140 posts, RR: 25 Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14690 times:
A third concept which was part of the DFW plan at one time was to use STOL aircraft to shuttle high end passengers from the 'remote' airport like DFW to airports close to downtown - FTW and DAL or RBD. Also from key outlying areas.
The thought was that a more remote major airport would be feasible if people could shuttle in STOL aircraft from their local airport to the main airport. One thing missing on the plan map is the level of parking to support that many terminals and passengers. The plan apparently did not anticipate the number of passengers who will drive to the airport and need parking. I would love to see the map/ plans for the Dallas County side of the airport.
I also remember seeing newspaper articles about something like that STOL shuttle planned between NRT and HND back in 72.
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1187 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14536 times:
rolypolyman From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 152 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14209 times:
Size comparison of the ultimate DFW plan with DWC (Dubai), each sized to the same scale:
(Click to enlarge)
Of course we can't see the east side of DFW, as I don't have that map, but it's a good comparison. It's also the best master plan of DWC I could find.. most of what turned up in Google Images was garbage. Airside, it kind of looks like the old DFW would have been a little larger.
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14023 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 14): Don't forget, based on the scan, the entire east half of the airport is missing. I'd love to see what the east side looks like.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 15): I would love to see the map/ plans for the Dallas County side of the airport.
Here is the east side from the 1985 Layout Plan. I apologize for the quality of the images; I don't have a scanner so just took a picture of the diagrams. Anyway, in this first one the only really interesting aspect is a 150'x5000' runway and associated dual taxiways and ramps for an executive airport. Its kinda hard to make out even on the original print but is located where 17L/35R was instead built.
Here is the 1997 Layout Plan showing the west side and future 6th parallel runway (150'x9760') previously mentioned. Not popular with Grapevine as it was not in the original airport design. Gone is the STOL port. The east side looks pretty much as it is today.
Here's a postcard that was printed a few months before the airport's opening:
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2869 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12507 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 15): One thing missing on the plan map is the level of parking to support that many terminals and passengers. The plan apparently did not anticipate the number of passengers who will drive to the airport and need parking.
Then as now, parking is within the center of each semi-circular concourse. Not a bad plan, really, since you could park in whatever terminal your airline operated from. Of course things didn't quite work out that way once AA started using three of the four available terminals; One could park in Terminal A, then have to get to Terminal C for departure, and return to Terminal B. Prior to the opening of the SkyLink train in 2005, this made for some very long walks from terminal to terminal*.
*The previous Airtrans (later called "TrAAin" ) system was uni-directional and moved at about half the speed of the SkyLink system, making it not terribly efficient for transferring passengers with tight connections.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
jfr From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 227 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11110 times:
American Airlines Hub and HQ changed everything.
One very big hubbing operation can have a very chilling effect on other airlines. In the case of DFW, the AA Hub also eventually killed DFW's second hubber: DL.
So the question is this: would the Dallas / Ft Worth region be better off with one super Hub or a large number of non-hubbing airlines? There is sure a lot of service which the AA hub has made available.
Don't forget that most of the people calling the shots in the formation of the DFW plan were New Yorkers, who were focused on solving the kinds of problems JFK was facing. As others have said, the mid-continent mega-hubs were not in existence or even being dreamed about.
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9217 times:
Quoting rolypolyman (Thread starter): found this circa-1970 Gulf road map of the DFW area. What caught my eye was the grandiose plans for DFW Regional Airport:
Great find, Rolypolyman! I remember my grandparents driving me out to the airport site, with all the earth movers and bulldozers. Heaven for a 4 year old. Texas Stadium was new then, too. I always wondered why they just didn't plug the hole in the dome. I mean, doesn't Dallas do things in a big way and finish them? Sorry, I digress.
Speaking of road maps, I'll have to dig up my Los Angeles area road atlas. It showed the configuration of the massive Palmdale International Airport, with 6 parallel runways and numerous terminals. Grandiose, and nothing came of it. Yet.
Quoting commavia (Reply 8): 1. Those "grandiose" plans are not solely a product of the 1970s. As recently as 1997, the DFW Master Plan called for a somewhat-less-grandiose, but still intriguing, design of several new terminals in a different pattern but following the general layout along International Parkway. The plan includes designs for Terminal 3W - which would ultimately become Terminal D - as well as the long-discussed/-debated Terminal F. In successive phases, it also envisioned two elongated, north-south midfield terminals (5E or 5W) south of the present terminal area, and south (on the east side of the highway) of what was then the big Delta cargo facility.
This is a good illustration of the evollution of passenger priorities at terminals. DFW in the 70s was the embodiment of the "drive to the gate" plan, like MCI (and the PanAm WorldPort debated in another thread). The blocky hexagonal terminals (Terminal D) allow for more passenger milling about (transfers). I'm not quite sure the benefit of long linear terminals (like DEN, ATL, DTW, and so on) for connecting purposes. It's a long way to walk whether it's in the shape of an I or a D. A triangular terminal or concourse like SVO or HAJ would seem better.
GSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2745 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9112 times:
I once had a tourist picture book of the Metroplex that I got in the late 70's showing an overall artist's rendering of DFW , very much along the lines of the bottom image in reply 18, but showing the entire airport property with many, many terminal/concourse buildings, similar to the layout of the map the OP posted.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7918 times:
Quoting jfr (Reply 20): One very big hubbing operation can have a very chilling effect on other airlines. In the case of DFW, the AA Hub also eventually killed DFW's second hubber: DL.
So the question is this: would the Dallas / Ft Worth region be better off with one super Hub or a large number of non-hubbing airlines? There is sure a lot of service which the AA hub has made available.
All else being equal, I think most local development and business officials in the Metroplex would probably argue that having the AA hub has definitely been a net benefit to the region long-term, for several reasons.
For starters, having a major hub in the region has flowed literally tens of billions of investment and capital development into the airport - and, indirectly, into the region overall - that simply would not have ever happened absent a hub.
Beyond that, from a purely network and schedule perspective, having a hub facilitates a level of frequency and network breadth that simply would not be feasible if an airport was only served by non-hub carriers flying to their hubs. The Metroplex is a massive local market, and now the fourth largest population center in the United States, but even with that, it probably couldn't support 17 daily flights to LAX, or over 20 to the New York area, or even 5 to Knoxville, or 3 to Reno, or 3 to Toronto, etc. without the massive influx of connections a hub provides.
That increased hub connecting traffic drives better schedules which the local market can also benefit from, which in turn ultimately makes it easier to come to and do business in the area, which in turn drives business activity.
Plus, finally, as others have said - even though DFW only has one hub these days - AA, obviously - the Metroplex still has a massive presence from Southwest, which still has a major impact on the region's air service market (moreso for Dallas than Fort Worth, admittedly). And, even post-Delta-pullout, DFW is still very well-served by non-hub carriers with lots of flights each day to virtually every major O&D market in the U.S., and several internationally, driven by the massive size of the market here.
WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2037 posts, RR: 13 Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7802 times:
Not many people know that DFW was originally planned to open with five terminals. Construction work had already begun on terminal 4W, which would have been for Continental, Frontier, and Eastern, but the downturn in airline traffic in the early 1970s caused DFW to "defer" construction of this terminal.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 15): A third concept which was part of the DFW plan at one time was to use STOL aircraft to shuttle high end passengers from the 'remote' airport like DFW to airports close to downtown - FTW and DAL or RBD. Also from key outlying areas.
Sadly, STOL aircraft were viable when jet fuel was 10 cents / gallon. The economics of these aircraft were destroyed in the early 1970s, when fuel prices began rising.
Seaholm Maples are #1!
25 ScottB: The original naming scheme for the terminals reflected what was intended in the master plan; that's why they started at "2E" and "2W" instead of "1E"
26 contrails: The discussions about the STOL runways and heliport jogged my memory a bit. I know that there was once helicopter service from downtown Ft. Worth, and
27 dfwcre8tive: There were some interesting graphics and diagrams in the DFW Airport Opening guide, which I've posted on Flickr; view the original images there for la
28 ScottB: Oddly, that graphic entitled DFW Airport 1973 has most of the terminal numbers mislabeled.
29 dfwcre8tive: You're right; I never noticed that. I guess the number + E/W system was confusing even before opening!
30 txjim: Ah, the old Airtrans! When DFW opened, it was not uncommon for people to travel to the airport (myself included) just to ride these things. It did ha
31 DCA-ROCguy: Thank you rolypolyman and all for a great topic! With respect to all who like drive-to-the-gate terminals, I for one dislike them intensely. As hubs,
33 GSPSPOT: WILL SKYLINK EVER GO TO THE CAR RENTAL CENTER??? (Caps intentional)
34 ssides: Not anytime in the near future. SkyLink is in the secure area of the terminal. Some major changes to the track layout would be necessary for it to tr
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 152 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
