While I don’t know much about the history of DEN I certainly do know UA has found a niche for it within its network. The airline has grown by nearly (50%?) post the merger. But how much more growth can DEN support with UA’s plan and how much does UA plan to grow? Are more long haul routes a possibility? Will DEN overtake ORD for the #1 hub in the UA network? Will it every be comparable to CLT or DFW?

DEN is currently infrastructure limited, but the ongoing expansions should fix that in the short term. I think they will need to start planning for a terminal D.

Denver isn’t as large of a market as the other cities you mentioned but the smaller market does seem to have a greater propensity to travel. The Rocky Mountain tourism and growing conventions certainly help as well.

Continued growth by Frontier and Southwest could limit opportunities for United, but they’ve found ways to be successful.

My wife and I are KBIL based and fly almost exclusively on UA through Denver. Yes we have F9 3x/weekly but it isn’t reliable compared to 4-5x daily UA service, better connection opportunities, and premier upgrades. The trade off for us, but benefit for United, are very high ticket prices.

DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West, and it’s well positioned to serve a number of smaller communities in the Mtn West and even Upper Midwest. I’d say we won’t be seeing the slowing of growth anytime soon, especially with UA growing the hub and WN all but announcing they want all the new gates coming online that they can take

Fortunately, DEN is huge in terms of the amount of land available. They will increase the capacity of the airport in stages and add infrastructure as they go. DEN management has proven fairly far sighted in that regard.

joeblow10 wrote:

DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West...

It's not superior to ORD in that regard. The area surrounding DEN (whether you want to go with 60/90/120 minute flight times) is less dense than ORD. The fairly even split of CHI traffic between UA/AA/WN does limit UA's hubbing opportunities, however, in spite of the much larger CSA.

MIflyer12 wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West...

It's not superior to ORD in that regard. The area surrounding DEN (whether you want to go with 60/90/120 minute flight times) is less dense than ORD. The fairly even split of CHI traffic between UA/AA/WN does limit UA's hubbing opportunities, however, in spite of the much larger CSA.

DEN is far more centrally located than ORD for East-West connections.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Really need another east and west runway for windy days as well as more deicing pads to help out in the winter time. When the airport has gusty west winds the line for takeoff can be 30-40 planes deep during the heavy banks. This will only get worse with more growth planned.

The original master plan has room for two more east-west runways - one south of Pena Boulevard and one to the north of the current runway 8-26. It looks like some parking lots and maintenance buildings have gone up on the land earmarked for the southernmost east-west runway, though.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Fortunately, DEN is huge in terms of the amount of land available. They will increase the capacity of the airport in stages and add infrastructure as they go. DEN management has proven fairly far sighted in that regard.

DEN also has space for 12 runways.

I could see it surpassing ORD...it's not really THAT far off. SFO and LAX are pretty much maxed out (as are ORD and EWR), the 11 new gates at DEN is one of the only ways UA can grow in the near future (they don't seem to have much interest in growing IAH and the O&D from there is very reliant on the volatile oil industry). Just a handful of airports West of DEN that haven't been connected to DEN over the past couple years and many have been adding mainline. So DEN is doing a lot of the heavy lifting for UA in terms of growing the airline, with IAD also adding a couple gates this past summer to cope with the transfer of flights from EWR.

DEN is better located for East-West connections and SFO/LAX can focus more on O&D, international, and North-South connections.

The original master plan has room for two more east-west runways - one south of Pena Boulevard and one to the north of the current runway 8-26. It looks like some parking lots and maintenance buildings have gone up on the land earmarked for the southernmost east-west runway, though.[/quote]

No structures have been built that would impede the original placement of runway 7R--the far south, east/west runway. It's still open land except for a concrete recycling pile and what appear to be retention ponds or soil excavation sites.

JBo wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West...

It's not superior to ORD in that regard. The area surrounding DEN (whether you want to go with 60/90/120 minute flight times) is less dense than ORD. The fairly even split of CHI traffic between UA/AA/WN does limit UA's hubbing opportunities, however, in spite of the much larger CSA.

DEN is far more centrally located than ORD for East-West connections.

Somewhat, but as you said ORD has far more of the US population within a two hour flight from it. And UA has a clear advantage at ORD despite it being a split hub, having a larger international network than AA/Oneworld. Let's also not forget that WN has a large operation at DEN and will likely one day be their largest.

I have long said DEN should be UA's second largest hub after ORD, and it should be around 600 flights for now.

One thing that will need to happen if UA expands permanently to more concourses beyond B, they will need to bore a pedestrian tunnel to supplement the train.

jbmitt wrote:

DEN is currently infrastructure limited, but the ongoing expansions should fix that in the short term. I think they will need to start planning for a terminal D.

Denver isn’t as large of a market as the other cities you mentioned but the smaller market does seem to have a greater propensity to travel. The Rocky Mountain tourism and growing conventions certainly help as well.

Continued growth by Frontier and Southwest could limit opportunities for United, but they’ve found ways to be successful.

My wife and I are KBIL based and fly almost exclusively on UA through Denver. Yes we have F9 3x/weekly but it isn’t reliable compared to 4-5x daily UA service, better connection opportunities, and premier upgrades. The trade off for us, but benefit for United, are very high ticket prices.

Thanks very much for your business. I absolutely love KBIL. Hopefully I’ll have you and the Mrs on one of my flights some day!

DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Will it every be comparable to CLT or DFW?

DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.

intotheair wrote:

DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Will it every be comparable to CLT or DFW?

DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.

If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?

BNAMealer wrote:

intotheair wrote:

DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Will it every be comparable to CLT or DFW?

DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.

If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?

If everyone except UA and WN went there would it really benefit UA that much?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

intotheair wrote:

DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.







DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.

If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?

If everyone except UA and WN went there would it really benefit UA that much?

Yes because UA could take all of A like they want.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

intotheair wrote:

DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.







DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.

If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?

If everyone except UA and WN went there would it really benefit UA that much?

Yes, because they'd get all of A (except international flights) and B to themselves and WN would get all of C. Remember that A could still be expanded to the east a bit after the current work. Any UA operations in the proposed E/W concourses would be an operational nightmare for connections.

Unless I am reading something wrong, because the alternative plan presented would essentially be a second terminal, and the concourses would not be connected to the existing ones, I'd personally stick with the original plan and build D to house all of the non-UA/WN carriers.

They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.

What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?

I suspect that concourse D will eventually be built, if domestic and international air traffic continue to grow as it has in the DEN area. United is planning to grow by 10% (50+ new daily flights) for S20, as one poster has already said. Many of these are RJs to places like Riverton and Sheridan, Wyoming. UAs been aggressively bidding for EAS markets out of DEN and surprisingly being awarded some at higher costs than the incumbent operators. But hey, it is jet service and not props so they are getting the routes.

I believe pax walk tunnels between concourses were part of the original design, much like Hartsfield, but were eliminated when construction costs began to skyrocket. If concourse D is finalized, it really should have a pax tunnel from C. The trains now can be very crowded at peak arrival and departure times. I have been left waiting at the door several times because the train car was packed tight.

I have heard projections that DEN will likely reach 75 million passengers by 2023 if the pattern of growth continues as it has.

Frontier 14

CriticalPoint wrote:

They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.

What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?

Yes, because a pedestrian tunnel would allow for another option to get to the other concourses/terminal, thereby relieving congestion on the train.

Frontier14 wrote:

I suspect that concourse D will eventually be built, if domestic and international air traffic continue to grow as it has in the DEN area. United is planning to grow by 10% (50+ new daily flights) for S20, as one poster has already said. Many of these are RJs to places like Riverton and Sheridan, Wyoming. UAs been aggressively bidding for EAS markets out of DEN and surprisingly being awarded some at higher costs than the incumbent operators. But hey, it is jet service and not props so they are getting the routes.

I believe pax walk tunnels between concourses were part of the original design, much like Hartsfield, but were eliminated when construction costs began to skyrocket. If concourse D is finalized, it really should have a pax tunnel from C. The trains now can be very crowded at peak arrival and departure times. I have been left waiting at the door several times because the train car was packed tight.

I have heard projections that DEN will likely reach 75 million passengers by 2023 if the pattern of growth continues as it has.

Frontier 14

Unless a severe recession happens, I agree. I could easily see DEN overtaking DFW as the fourth busiest in the US with the next 2-3 years.

I voted against the airport in 89', because I thought they could expand Stapleton. So at this point, I guess i was wrong.
But the airport has some defects, the train and lack of option to walk instead, and the bathrooms have poorly designed exits and are overcapacity. Plus, it needs some public lounge high up with a view of the airfield and the take-offs and landings. O.K. it's a cool tent, structurally, but an airport is about the drama on the runways, and DIA missed that one completely.

Coolest feature, the bridge to A. SEA is building an impressive bridge to S.

Most normal passengers don't care about views and lounges. They want to spend as little time actually in the airport as possible

The elevated moving sidewalks never got put in, although the structure is up there. They had them running on the old E concourse.

smokeybandit wrote:

Most normal passengers don't care about views and lounges. They want to spend as little time actually in the airport as possible

To do list:
Windowless tilt up concrete panel for new concourse.
Replace tent roof with standard Walmart utilitarian flat roof.

CriticalPoint wrote:

They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.

What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?

A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.

The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.

The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.

BNAMealer wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?

If everyone except UA and WN went there would it really benefit UA that much?

Yes, because they'd get all of A (except international flights) and B to themselves and WN would get all of C. Remember that A could still be expanded to the east a bit after the current work. Any UA operations in the proposed E/W concourses would be an operational nightmare for connections.

Unless I am reading something wrong, because the alternative plan presented would essentially be a second terminal, and the concourses would not be connected to the existing ones, I'd personally stick with the original plan and build D to house all of the non-UA/WN carriers.

The biggest issue with building concourse D is the extra pressure that it would put on the trains, once A and C are fully built out in another 5-10 years the trains will be getting pretty close to their limit. The East or West concourse could be built and would serve mostly O&D passengers, but there are plans to ensure everything is connected air side as well. The one thing the original planners got wrong when planning the airport was the amount of connecting traffic, they believed that there would be close to 60% connecting traffic, instead there is only 36%. This is the biggest struggle and the reason for the terminal renovation and trains being over capacity faster than expected.

JBo wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West...

It's not superior to ORD in that regard. The area surrounding DEN (whether you want to go with 60/90/120 minute flight times) is less dense than ORD. The fairly even split of CHI traffic between UA/AA/WN does limit UA's hubbing opportunities, however, in spite of the much larger CSA.

DEN is far more centrally located than ORD for East-West connections.

ORD and MDW are actually located along the great circle between New York and San Francisco.

I’ve always thought UA was taking DEN for granted for international traffic up until a few years ago. Norwegian, Edelweiss, others are proving that DEN O&D - passengers that prefer and will pay for non-stop - are there and growing. UA is slowly getting there and not just deferring to partners - LHR year-round, NRT, FRA is a solid base. My UA growth wish list - CDG, MAD (before Level or now EuroWings gets on it), ICN or another Asian n/s. They need to add a Polaris lounge to one of their Clubs, add showers, and move other *A partner departures to B concourse to allow better club access.

Any expansion will require Peńa Blvd. to be widened.

DENfan wrote:

I’ve always thought UA was taking DEN for granted for international traffic up until a few years ago. Norwegian, Edelweiss, others are proving that DEN O&D - passengers that prefer and will pay for non-stop - are there and growing. UA is slowly getting there and not just deferring to partners - LHR year-round, NRT, FRA is a solid base. My UA growth wish list - CDG, MAD (before Level or now EuroWings gets on it), ICN or another Asian n/s. They need to add a Polaris lounge to one of their Clubs, add showers, and move other *A partner departures to B concourse to allow better club access.

DEN-MAD on UA seems like a longshot. Or on anyone for that matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KFTG wrote:

Any expansion will require Peńa Blvd. to be widened.

This will start in the next year however initially it will be the last couple of miles closer to the terminal (Jackson Gap inbound). Eventually the part all the way to I-70 will get widened, however that is 10 years out as it isn't funded as of yet.

The RFP was issued over the summer for $93 Million.
http://business.flydenver.com/bizops/rfp.asp
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/06/19/d ... n-project/

DEN1895 wrote:

[
The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.

The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.

Adding more trains more frequently sounds good on paper however in reality this will not be a solution. When passengers get on the train they tend to go quite slow which results in people holding/forcing the doors open longer than they should be in order to keep things on time. If the trains are delayed in a more tightly timed system it will delay all other trains as well since they need to be coordinated.

KFTG wrote:

Any expansion will require Peńa Blvd. to be widened.

A big issue with widening Pena is that the FAA said the airport is not allowed to pay for it by themselves, since a growing amount of traffic on Pena is not airport traffic, the FAA wants surrounding cities to help fund the construction too. While I think this is fair I could see it becoming a political mess between the city of Denver and other surrounding cities and counties. Another hurdle to get over is that Denver city council is very resistant to any road expansions in the city as it is bad for the environment/city.

jetmatt777 wrote:

ytib wrote:

KFTG wrote:

Any expansion will require Peńa Blvd. to be widened.

This will start in the next year however initially it will be the last couple of miles closer to the terminal (Jackson Gap inbound). Eventually the part all the way to I-70 will get widened, however that is 10 years out as it isn't funded as of yet.

The RFP was issued over the summer for $93 Million.
http://business.flydenver.com/bizops/rfp.asp
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/06/19/d ... n-project/

So ridiculous that they are expanding the part that doesn't need to be expanded first. The worst part is from I-70 to E-470. Very typical of DIA's inept management team.

As someone mentioned above from 70-470 is not all airport traffic. The growth on North tower road has jammed up Pena. also anyone from 270 East can take Pena to 470 and get to the north side of the city faster than 270-25.

If what the previous poster said about the FAA is true then they might only be able to use airport funds to fix what will be only airport traffic.....Jackson Gap to the airport is only DIA traffic.

DEN1895 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.

What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?

A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.

The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.

The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.

A pedestrian tunnel may be difficult to implement, but it will simply have to be done. There is only so much that can be done with the trains and if UA goes to multiple concourses, a malfunction on an increasingly used train will be a nightmare.

There was never any plan to allow walking tunnels at DEN. ATL has significant restrictions due to the fact that concourse operations get impacted by operations on other concourses because there is not enough room for planes on opposite concourses to pull back simultaneously without blocking the taxi ways to the runways. DEN is therefore designed that two wide bodies can simultaneously push back from the gate _and_ two 767s can taxi past them side by side. It's a lot further between the concourses in DEN then ATL.

In terms of DEN traffic projections, it will come much sooner then people thing. WN has been stating for a while now that their plan is to make DEN their largest station, while UA is planning well over 500 flights a day. UA is seeing huge advantages by shifting more traffic through DEN, and therefore building a significant new set of international flights, and has indicated that they will be aggressive with new routes.

In terms of the new alternative to concourse D, I doubt very much that these will pick up steam. City Council really didn't like the proposal last time they went down that path, and the new city council has a pronounced anti-business vibe to it, which is going to keep Concourse D and E from being built for quite a while. Most of the telescoping of the concourses is done, but there will be more opportunity for additional gates on A and C. I suspect in 10 years, there will be a new management team at the airport, as Kim Day will have accomplished her goals, and the city will be looking at things differently, assuming that the Airport City effort is successful.

(Getting out of here before the usual sexist attacks on the airport administration start).

BNAMealer wrote:

DEN1895 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.

What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?

A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.

The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.

The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.

A pedestrian tunnel may be difficult to implement, but it will simply have to be done. There is only so much that can be done with the trains and if UA goes to multiple concourses, a malfunction on an increasingly used train will be a nightmare.

It really just comes down to how much money should be spent on a rare issue, in the nearly 25 years the trains have only completely failed 3 times. Currently the system has 99.9% reliability, while there are sometimes delays a few minutes, I have heard creating new tunnels may cost hundreds of millions up to billion+ to fix. Under the current tunnels are the main utilities for all three concourses and baggage systems that drive up the cost of the project. In the future there is a possibility for adding additional trains that travel through the outer cores of the concourse, with the expansions for the concourses being built with train stations in mind. I agree there should be some sort of backup, but I don't know if it should be the main focus of the airport when there are many other things at the airport that need attention.

DEN1895 wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

DEN1895 wrote:

A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.

The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.

The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.

A pedestrian tunnel may be difficult to implement, but it will simply have to be done. There is only so much that can be done with the trains and if UA goes to multiple concourses, a malfunction on an increasingly used train will be a nightmare.

It really just comes down to how much money should be spent on a rare issue, in the nearly 25 years the trains have only completely failed 3 times. Currently the system has 99.9% reliability, while there are sometimes delays a few minutes, I have heard creating new tunnels may cost hundreds of millions up to billion+ to fix. Under the current tunnels are the main utilities for all three concourses and baggage systems that drive up the cost of the project. In the future there is a possibility for adding additional trains that travel through the outer cores of the concourse, with the expansions for the concourses being built with train stations in mind. I agree there should be some sort of backup, but I don't know if it should be the main focus of the airport when there are many other things at the airport that need attention.

It may have high reliability right now, but that doesn’t mean it will going forward with a massive increase in pax to levels not seen before. It’s not just about malfunctions either, it’s also about making passenger flow more efficient. If UA goes into A on a permanent basis as well as B, there’s going to be even more congestion on the trains, thus, increasing the possibility of missed connections. And with WN growing to potentially 300 flights, that’s going to create even more passenger flows to the trains.

I don’t care if it costs $1 billion+, with the insane growth DEN is experiencing, pedestrian tunnels are needed fast. I’d actually argue this may be the most critical issue right now.

BNAMealer wrote:

DEN1895 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.

What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?

A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.

The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.

The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.

A pedestrian tunnel may be difficult to implement, but it will simply have to be done. There is only so much that can be done with the trains and if UA goes to multiple concourses, a malfunction on an increasingly used train will be a nightmare.

It can't happen, the simplest reason that the distance which is way greater then at ATL. A huge portion of DEN's sterile capacity is based on the idea that they can isolate traffic to to the trains or too a specific concourse if someone "accidentally" breaches security (which has already happened once), rather then evacuating the whole airport (which has happened). Also, along the spine, there is no room in the tunnel corridors to expand, due to the failed original baggage system.

There was already a second set of tunnels that were designed as a fall back option for the trains at some point in the future, but they were consumed by the baggage change to route the bags through that tunnel instead of the automated baggage system.

After the expansion of the trains to include new cars, and the the introduction of the new refurbished cars, what will probably happen is that a second and third tunnels will be dug for additional train traffic. These tunnels will be at the edge of each concourse, rather then the center line, to allow the system to have a circular flow, and a counter-clockwise flow to optimize traffic.

BNAMealer wrote:

DEN1895 wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

I don’t care if it costs $1 billion+, with the insane growth DEN is experiencing, pedestrian tunnels are needed fast. I’d actually argue this may be the most critical issue right now.

There is around 4 billion dollars worth of construction going right now - completely independent of this. The main terminal refresh and the concourse expansions are the most critical issue, but also include new refurbished trains, as well as a new set of trains to mix in.

What happened to the walking tunnel to A that was demanded by the “old” Continental Airlines (they did not trust the train concept “

COSPN wrote:

What happened to the walking tunnel to A that was demanded by the “old” Continental Airlines (they did not trust the train concept “

No tunnel was ever built, just the bridge to Concourse A.

If just connecting it is a great airport. As soon as you have to get on the train to the terminal it goes down hill rapidly. The trains are already jammed, so will need to come up with a solution to that to continue growth or will really get miserable.

In the near term another crosswind runway and further extensions of the concourses would be nice. I'd say those are the two highest operational priorities to handle the growth.

ytib wrote:

Adding more trains more frequently sounds good on paper however in reality this will not be a solution. When passengers get on the train they tend to go quite slow which results in people holding/forcing the doors open longer than they should be in order to keep things on time. If the trains are delayed in a more tightly timed system it will delay all other trains as well since they need to be coordinated.

More trains will still help that problem though as it will reduce the number of passengers waiting/riding an individual train and holding up the on/off process. It should be a more timely system to offset the shorter room for error.

MSPNWA wrote:

In the near term another crosswind runway and further extensions of the concourses would be nice. I'd say those are the two highest operational priorities to handle the growth.

More trains will still help that problem though as it will reduce the number of passengers waiting/riding an individual train and holding up the on/off process. It should be a more timely system to offset the shorter room for error.

The airport is in the beginning stages of planning for the 7th runway with estimates of it being built in 5-8 years, at this time there is quite a bit of debate as to which runway would provide the greatest benefit to the airport.

Definitely East/West runway is needed. As a controller around the Denver area, this place goes to shit fast when the wind switches. If they want to accommodate growing, then that’s what they need to do.