Pretty good writeup from yesterday's press conference with the new CEO. I'm always more of an optimist, but it at least sounds like he's pretty aware of the airport's shortcomings.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/l ... passengers

Washington also recognized the problem in August, when trains had to run at reduced capacity due to a mechanical issue, creating hours-long delays for travelers. DEN does not have walkways between security and the gates. The repairs took about 10 hours.

"So what I've directed is for us to put out what I call a problem statement, or request for information, to the private sector on how we can resolve this issue," he said, noting it will go out early next week.

He called the incident "unprecedented" and said it was the first and only time that has happened at the airport.

"I think we have to understand and do a cost-benefit analysis to say, do you spend $200 or $300 million to do a walkway or a tunnel or something like that? You have to do a cost-benefit analysis to say, you've had this happen once in 26 years. Do you spend that money to solve something that is like the 100-year flood?"

Washington said he wants to ask passengers who plan to travel through DEN in the next few months to stay patient through the growing pains.

"We’re doing everything we possibly can to reduce wait times in security lines and to open up off-site parking lots and to make sure concessions are open and restrooms are clean," he said. "Increased passenger volumes has had an impact on how airports operate. That is undeniable. I think having said that, we are also going to take advantage of these challenges by creating opportunities for young people in the aviation industry and engaging them in this industry."

"I think we have to understand and do a cost-benefit analysis to say, do you spend $200 or $300 million to do a walkway or a tunnel or something like that? You have to do a cost-benefit analysis to say, you've had this happen once in 26 years. Do you spend that money to solve something that is like the 100-year flood?"

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

jplatts wrote:

"I think we have to understand and do a cost-benefit analysis to say, do you spend $200 or $300 million to do a walkway or a tunnel or something like that? You have to do a cost-benefit analysis to say, you've had this happen once in 26 years. Do you spend that money to solve something that is like the 100-year flood?"

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

I completely agree. Usually I get to the airport two hours early, 20 minutes through bag check and security, then time to kill. If it is a nice tunnel like United Chicago, or LA colored mosaics, something to look at. I don't really like to wait for the train or ride in the train because it can be crowded and jerky. I always take the bridge to A and continue on the train to B or C from there.
Is the current train and escalator system sized for the traffic? I would say no. They need to double the escalators at the train exit at the terminal. If B is close to a 100 gate concourse, they need to double the amount of escalators there as well. Otherwise it is wait here, wait there, wait everywhere. Poor design leading to a poor airport experience.

Now that they need a good chunk of more area for new gates, where will they go? They need parking, new gates, and cargo. I don't see all that fitting into the footprint centered withing the runways. It look like there is open space between 35L and 35R. Any chance that could be used for a new satellite concourse, cargo, or parking?

DenverTed wrote:

Now that they need a good chunk of more area for new gates, where will they go? They need parking, new gates, and cargo. I don't see all that fitting into the footprint centered withing the runways. It look like there is open space between 35L and 35R. Any chance that could be used for a new satellite concourse, cargo, or parking?

No, the runways are spaced intentionally for operational purposes.

In the case of concourses, once A/B/C are maxed out on length they either build D/E or get creative down/around the Jepp, the latter of which seems more likely, as it's been floated recently. As for parking, they can always build higher. Lots of surface lots close-in that can (and in my opinion should) be built upward.

The airport was designed appropriately for the mix/volume of pax they expected. Unfortunately those projections turned out to be very wrong, and instead of rectifying the problems, the people in charge haven't done much of anything but build new gates. There aren't enough trains, there isn't a pax tunnel to augment the train, there isn't enough parking, there aren't enough escalators or security lanes, the general lack of maintenance is atrocious, and Peña needs a third lane all the way to 70. This is no longer a transit airport as was expected; it is majority O&D with higher than projected pax throughput, and they need to take action and do something about it. Unfortunately I have about as much faith in them as I do those that build/maintain our roads in the Denver area, which are vastly undersized for the amount of growth that has taken place here and is projected into the future.

jplatts wrote:

"I think we have to understand and do a cost-benefit analysis to say, do you spend $200 or $300 million to do a walkway or a tunnel or something like that? You have to do a cost-benefit analysis to say, you've had this happen once in 26 years. Do you spend that money to solve something that is like the 100-year flood?"

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

If the problem with the overcrowding at DEN is because the airport went from 70% connecting to 70% O&D a walkway between A and B sounds like a big waste of money that won't solve the overcrowding because no one other than a handful of airplane enthusiasts will walk from the main terminal to B so they can see the planes up close. Have we forgotten that we live in a country where busing to remote stands are nearly unheard of because people hate walking up and down stairs, or that people prefer to sit in their in at a long drive-thru line when it takes half the time to just go inside? The only solution is an improved train system: higher capacity, more frequent trains. Anything else is just putting lipstick on a pig, IMO.

The airport's design is inherently flawed for what it has become. One of the biggest flaws is not having a concourse attached to the main terminal building. That in turn puts the second parallel concourse even further away from the terminal building. A second flaw is a people mover that can't handle the airport's passenger capacity. And the third is a small and congested TSA screening area. I see no way around any of these without spending massive amounts of money.
A more recent flaw, and this one has no excuse, is the lack of a rail stop at the shuttle lots with a free ride to/from the airport. JFK does this really well from their long term parking and there's no reason why the city of Denver couldn't have come up with a similar arrangement.

airbazar wrote:

jplatts wrote:

"I think we have to understand and do a cost-benefit analysis to say, do you spend $200 or $300 million to do a walkway or a tunnel or something like that? You have to do a cost-benefit analysis to say, you've had this happen once in 26 years. Do you spend that money to solve something that is like the 100-year flood?"

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

If the problem with the overcrowding at DEN is because the airport went from 70% connecting to 70% O&D a walkway between A and B sounds like a big waste of money that won't solve the overcrowding because no one other than a handful of airplane enthusiasts will walk from the main terminal to B so they can see the planes up close. Have we forgotten that we live in a country where busing to remote stands are nearly unheard of because people hate walking up and down stairs, or that people prefer to sit in their in at a long drive-thru line when it takes half the time to just go inside? The only solution is an improved train system: higher capacity, more frequent trains. Anything else is just putting lipstick on a pig, IMO.

The airport's design is inherently flawed for what it has become. One of the biggest flaws is not having a concourse attached to the main terminal building. That in turn puts the second parallel concourse even further away from the terminal building. A second flaw is a people mover that can't handle the airport's passenger capacity. And the third is a small and congested TSA screening area. I see no way around any of these without spending massive amounts of money.
A more recent flaw, and this one has no excuse, is the lack of a rail stop at the shuttle lots with a free ride to/from the airport. JFK does this really well from their long term parking and there's no reason why the city of Denver couldn't have come up with a similar arrangement.

I think there are more people that walk than you think, and every person who walks is one less on the train, lowering pressure. And this is Colorado we're talking about. There is no more athletic state in the country, so if a pedestrian tunnel would have an effect anywhere, it's more in DEN.

panam330 wrote:

No, the runways are spaced intentionally for operational purposes.

In the case of concourses, once A/B/C are maxed out on length they either build D/E or get creative down/around the Jepp, the latter of which seems more likely, as it's been floated recently.

If they build between 35R and L, that would rule out 35C. Not sure what the clearance from a runway centerline to a terminal structure is, 1000'? That would leave a 1/2 mile wide swath for a terminal. I think the whole Midway airport would fit between those runways.
Or they could get move 35L a 1/2 mile to the east for more space, although that would affect parallel operations in bad weather I assume.
D/E sound like a nonstarter since the train system won't handle it. That leaves changing the original plan to go east, west, or both, which looks like taking out parking garages and realigning the road system, and I don't see enough space there for parking and terminals as it currently exists. Especially if they want the same amount of aircraft taxi lanes that they have between A and B on these new concourses that run north-south.
I'll be interested to see what eventually pans out. In the big picture, I think promoting CO Springs and Ft Collins commercial air traffic would be helpful too.

cosyr wrote:

airbazar wrote:

jplatts wrote:

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

If the problem with the overcrowding at DEN is because the airport went from 70% connecting to 70% O&D a walkway between A and B sounds like a big waste of money that won't solve the overcrowding because no one other than a handful of airplane enthusiasts will walk from the main terminal to B so they can see the planes up close. Have we forgotten that we live in a country where busing to remote stands are nearly unheard of because people hate walking up and down stairs, or that people prefer to sit in their in at a long drive-thru line when it takes half the time to just go inside? The only solution is an improved train system: higher capacity, more frequent trains. Anything else is just putting lipstick on a pig, IMO.

The airport's design is inherently flawed for what it has become. One of the biggest flaws is not having a concourse attached to the main terminal building. That in turn puts the second parallel concourse even further away from the terminal building. A second flaw is a people mover that can't handle the airport's passenger capacity. And the third is a small and congested TSA screening area. I see no way around any of these without spending massive amounts of money.
A more recent flaw, and this one has no excuse, is the lack of a rail stop at the shuttle lots with a free ride to/from the airport. JFK does this really well from their long term parking and there's no reason why the city of Denver couldn't have come up with a similar arrangement.

I think there are more people that walk than you think, and every person who walks is one less on the train, lowering pressure. And this is Colorado we're talking about. There is no more athletic state in the country, so if a pedestrian tunnel would have an effect anywhere, it's more in DEN.

Once you wait a few minutes for a train, and it is full, and several minutes for another train, you could have been there just as fast on a moving sidewalk in a tunnel. Plus, who wants to pack into a train and get jerked around? I'll take a 10 minute penalty and ride the sidewalk just for the peace and serenity. No offense to Pete Smythe.

jplatts wrote:

"I think we have to understand and do a cost-benefit analysis to say, do you spend $200 or $300 million to do a walkway or a tunnel or something like that? You have to do a cost-benefit analysis to say, you've had this happen once in 26 years. Do you spend that money to solve something that is like the 100-year flood?"

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the walkway would be used, the question is that at this current point in time is spending probably $400 million on a walking path the best use of money for the airport. If it came down to expanding and improving the trains vs building the walking tunnels I think that the trains would win out. I imagine the tunnels will get built at some point, but with as many issues as the airport has currently I am not sure where it will fall on the priority list..

DEN1895 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

"I think we have to understand and do a cost-benefit analysis to say, do you spend $200 or $300 million to do a walkway or a tunnel or something like that? You have to do a cost-benefit analysis to say, you've had this happen once in 26 years. Do you spend that money to solve something that is like the 100-year flood?"

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the walkway would be used, the question is that at this current point in time is spending probably $400 million on a walking path the best use of money for the airport. If it came down to expanding and improving the trains vs building the walking tunnels I think that the trains would win out. I imagine the tunnels will get built at some point, but with as many issues as the airport has currently I am not sure where it will fall on the priority list..

It absolutely should be at the top of the list. The fact is you have the airports two primary breadwinners in UA and WN across all three concourses, and the former is going to now have significant traffic between A and B now. No amount of new side concourses is going to change that, as UA and WN won’t move off their concourses. Trains can’t do the job as effectively anymore, they have no choice but to build pedestrian tunnels. It’s not going to be cheap, but it is what it is. They should’ve thought about that before building the concourses.

cosyr wrote:

airbazar wrote:

jplatts wrote:

I think there are more people that walk than you think, and every person who walks is one less on the train, lowering pressure. And this is Colorado we're talking about. There is no more athletic state in the country, so if a pedestrian tunnel would have an effect anywhere, it's more in DEN.

Enough to justify a $300 million investment?
If an improved train comes at $1billion, that is a far better investment every time, all day long.
The irony is, you might actually need both because the airport needs an alternative way for moving passengers during the time the train would be down for construction. A good example is what you have currently at SLC where they have a temporary walking tunnel while they work on the main tunnel. The SLC tunnel has a price tag of $120 million but it's only 990 feet. A tunnel at DEN between the terminal and concourse B would be 3x that length and have to be built under multiple active taxiway. $300 million seems cheap to me.
Whatever solution, it's going to be very expensive.

airbazar wrote:

jplatts wrote:

"I think we have to understand and do a cost-benefit analysis to say, do you spend $200 or $300 million to do a walkway or a tunnel or something like that? You have to do a cost-benefit analysis to say, you've had this happen once in 26 years. Do you spend that money to solve something that is like the 100-year flood?"

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

If the problem with the overcrowding at DEN is because the airport went from 70% connecting to 70% O&D a walkway between A and B sounds like a big waste of money that won't solve the overcrowding because no one other than a handful of airplane enthusiasts will walk from the main terminal to B so they can see the planes up close. Have we forgotten that we live in a country where busing to remote stands are nearly unheard of because people hate walking up and down stairs, or that people prefer to sit in their in at a long drive-thru line when it takes half the time to just go inside? The only solution is an improved train system: higher capacity, more frequent trains. Anything else is just putting lipstick on a pig, IMO.

The airport's design is inherently flawed for what it has become. One of the biggest flaws is not having a concourse attached to the main terminal building. That in turn puts the second parallel concourse even further away from the terminal building. A second flaw is a people mover that can't handle the airport's passenger capacity. And the third is a small and congested TSA screening area. I see no way around any of these without spending massive amounts of money.
A more recent flaw, and this one has no excuse, is the lack of a rail stop at the shuttle lots with a free ride to/from the airport. JFK does this really well from their long term parking and there's no reason why the city of Denver couldn't have come up with a similar arrangement.

Neither, A/B/C are at its limit on the west side. If the airport builds new deice pads, each concourse can be expanded even further.........which, the airport is building a new deice pad for WN within the next 3 years, which will be NW of where the end of C is now.

Runway765 wrote:

DEN1895 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

An underground walkway between concourses A and B at DEN would likely see some use by passengers, even when the train system at DEN is operating normally.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the walkway would be used, the question is that at this current point in time is spending probably $400 million on a walking path the best use of money for the airport. If it came down to expanding and improving the trains vs building the walking tunnels I think that the trains would win out. I imagine the tunnels will get built at some point, but with as many issues as the airport has currently I am not sure where it will fall on the priority list..

It absolutely should be at the top of the list. The fact is you have the airports two primary breadwinners in UA and WN across all three concourses, and the former is going to now have significant traffic between A and B now. No amount of new side concourses is going to change that, as UA and WN won’t move off their concourses. Trains can’t do the job as effectively anymore, they have no choice but to build pedestrian tunnels. It’s not going to be cheap, but it is what it is. They should’ve thought about that before building the concourses.

I believe that improving TSA and finishing phase 3 of the Great Hall will be the next priorities, at least phase 3 of the Great Hall should be around 200 million. The last rough estimate of the tunnel would probably be 500+ million. I think the tunnel should happen soon, but with the additional train cars that will be arriving soon, hopefully that will provide some relief to the system.

The cheapest tunnel solution would be to close off one of the two baggage tunnels. For those unaware, surrounding the train tunnel on both sides are service road/baggage tunnels. Each tunnel is approximately 30 feet wide. There would be an operational impact as these tunnels are used by all of the airlines to get bags to/from the terminal. Going to one tunnel would increase the time and amount of driving required, but not by a ridiculously large margin. The main issue would be crossing the tracks to get to them from the existing train stations. I am not sure how that would be worked.

jetmatt777 wrote:

The cheapest tunnel solution would be to close off one of the two baggage tunnels. For those unaware, surrounding the train tunnel on both sides are service road/baggage tunnels. Each tunnel is approximately 30 feet wide. There would be an operational impact as these tunnels are used by all of the airlines to get bags to/from the terminal. Going to one tunnel would increase the time and amount of driving required, but not by a ridiculously large margin. The main issue would be crossing the tracks to get to them from the existing train stations. I am not sure how that would be worked.

There is a easier solution than that, looking at the attached picture below there is a vacant, partially excavated tunnel running underneath the East baggage tunnel. This tunnel could be excavated and used as the walking tunnel, and it already runs the full length from A to C. The biggest issues is that the tunnel would have low ceilings due to the existing tunnels that surround it. The other issue with this tunnel is that the excavation process would be lengthy and expensive as all materials would need to be carted to the north end next to the train maintenance facility. This would probably require some sort of cart and track based system to move all the material. All said it's not impossible but just a long and complex project. They would not want to give up the baggage tunnels as there are plans to reinstall a baggage system that would deliver bags from the terminal to the concourses.

airbazar wrote:

The airport's design is inherently flawed for what it has become. One of the biggest flaws is not having a concourse attached to the main terminal building. That in turn puts the second parallel concourse even further away from the terminal building.

Not sure if you're aware, but that was the original proposed design, much like ATL. The north side of the terminal would have had the common use international gates. Concourse A was not going to have a bridge and be much farther out. I can't remember whether they still planned for three satellite concourses or just two. But when the city was planning the new airport in the late 80s, they were continuously running into cost issues and had trouble convincing airlines to commit to moving from Stapleton.

CO was the first, and for a while, the only major airline to commit to moving to DIA, but on the condition that they get the A concourse with a bridge and that the city put the FIS gates in there. CO's plan was obviously very advantageous for them (their passengers would always have a way to get to the gates even if the train was down, and all the international gates would be in their concourse), but the city also liked it because it also reduced costs.

I'm torn on which plan was better. I'm inclined to prefer the original one with the T gates, but on the other hand, a T concourse probably would have prevented a bridge to A. The bridge certainly relieves crowding on the train to some degree, though it is an asset that could certainly be used more. The current bridge security checkpoint closes at 6pm and doesn't have a Pre lane, so I never use it. At least when the terminal redevelopment is complete, the bridge will be open 24/7, and hopefully more people will take it.

And the third is a small and congested TSA screening area. I see no way around any of these without spending massive amounts of money.

The terminal redevelopment is supposed to increase the number of TSA lanes. Security will have a much bigger footprint on level 6 than on the current level 5. I know the redevelopment is controversial, and there are parts of it that I don't like either, but if you look at the level 5 and level 6 floorplans before and after, it's clear that moving security up top will be the right move.

DEN1895 wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

The cheapest tunnel solution would be to close off one of the two baggage tunnels. For those unaware, surrounding the train tunnel on both sides are service road/baggage tunnels. Each tunnel is approximately 30 feet wide. There would be an operational impact as these tunnels are used by all of the airlines to get bags to/from the terminal. Going to one tunnel would increase the time and amount of driving required, but not by a ridiculously large margin. The main issue would be crossing the tracks to get to them from the existing train stations. I am not sure how that would be worked.

There is a easier solution than that, looking at the attached picture below there is a vacant, partially excavated tunnel running underneath the East baggage tunnel. This tunnel could be excavated and used as the walking tunnel, and it already runs the full length from A to C. The biggest issues is that the tunnel would have low ceilings due to the existing tunnels that surround it. The other issue with this tunnel is that the excavation process would be lengthy and expensive as all materials would need to be carted to the north end next to the train maintenance facility. This would probably require some sort of cart and track based system to move all the material. All said it's not impossible but just a long and complex project. They would not want to give up the baggage tunnels as there are plans to reinstall a baggage system that would deliver bags from the terminal to the concourses.

Interesting. And to be clear I wasn’t talking about converting both tunnels. Just one. I don’t think it’s optimal but there are options available that don’t cost $400 million.

How come they didn't build a lid (floor deck) over all of north security and put security centered and symmetrically on the 6th floor? To me, it looks like things are getting more convoluted.

I find it interesting that they took out 1/6 of the check in road frontage for security. Will they need more check in areas and roadside drop off in the future and where will this go? They could reconfigure one or both of the drop off loops, move the north portion to the south a few hundred feet and build a east-west running terminals and drop off. Or they could build drop off and terminals just to the side of the parking structures and have elevated U shaped roads and almost triple the curbside linear footage.

No solution is going to be cheap or easy, other than ones that would in turn be disruptive to airport operations

DEN1895 wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

The cheapest tunnel solution would be to close off one of the two baggage tunnels. For those unaware, surrounding the train tunnel on both sides are service road/baggage tunnels. Each tunnel is approximately 30 feet wide. There would be an operational impact as these tunnels are used by all of the airlines to get bags to/from the terminal. Going to one tunnel would increase the time and amount of driving required, but not by a ridiculously large margin. The main issue would be crossing the tracks to get to them from the existing train stations. I am not sure how that would be worked.

There is a easier solution than that, looking at the attached picture below there is a vacant, partially excavated tunnel running underneath the East baggage tunnel. This tunnel could be excavated and used as the walking tunnel, and it already runs the full length from A to C. The biggest issues is that the tunnel would have low ceilings due to the existing tunnels that surround it. The other issue with this tunnel is that the excavation process would be lengthy and expensive as all materials would need to be carted to the north end next to the train maintenance facility. This would probably require some sort of cart and track based system to move all the material. All said it's not impossible but just a long and complex project. They would not want to give up the baggage tunnels as there are plans to reinstall a baggage system that would deliver bags from the terminal to the concourses.

But why not excavate the unfinished tunnel and move baggage east down to that, and give passengers the east tunnel. It would have higher ceilings and not require people to go down and up so far. Who cares if bags on a conveyor belt have to go farther?

cosyr wrote:

DEN1895 wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

The cheapest tunnel solution would be to close off one of the two baggage tunnels. For those unaware, surrounding the train tunnel on both sides are service road/baggage tunnels. Each tunnel is approximately 30 feet wide. There would be an operational impact as these tunnels are used by all of the airlines to get bags to/from the terminal. Going to one tunnel would increase the time and amount of driving required, but not by a ridiculously large margin. The main issue would be crossing the tracks to get to them from the existing train stations. I am not sure how that would be worked.

There is a easier solution than that, looking at the attached picture below there is a vacant, partially excavated tunnel running underneath the East baggage tunnel. This tunnel could be excavated and used as the walking tunnel, and it already runs the full length from A to C. The biggest issues is that the tunnel would have low ceilings due to the existing tunnels that surround it. The other issue with this tunnel is that the excavation process would be lengthy and expensive as all materials would need to be carted to the north end next to the train maintenance facility. This would probably require some sort of cart and track based system to move all the material. All said it's not impossible but just a long and complex project. They would not want to give up the baggage tunnels as there are plans to reinstall a baggage system that would deliver bags from the terminal to the concourses.

But why not excavate the unfinished tunnel and move baggage east down to that, and give passengers the east tunnel. It would have higher ceilings and not require people to go down and up so far. Who cares if bags on a conveyor belt have to go farther?

Bags are delivered by tractor, not by conveyer belt.

jetmatt777 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

DEN1895 wrote:

There is a easier solution than that, looking at the attached picture below there is a vacant, partially excavated tunnel running underneath the East baggage tunnel. This tunnel could be excavated and used as the walking tunnel, and it already runs the full length from A to C. The biggest issues is that the tunnel would have low ceilings due to the existing tunnels that surround it. The other issue with this tunnel is that the excavation process would be lengthy and expensive as all materials would need to be carted to the north end next to the train maintenance facility. This would probably require some sort of cart and track based system to move all the material. All said it's not impossible but just a long and complex project. They would not want to give up the baggage tunnels as there are plans to reinstall a baggage system that would deliver bags from the terminal to the concourses.

But why not excavate the unfinished tunnel and move baggage east down to that, and give passengers the east tunnel. It would have higher ceilings and not require people to go down and up so far. Who cares if bags on a conveyor belt have to go farther?

Bags are delivered by tractor, not by conveyer belt.

Is the lower tunnel too small for that?

DEN1895 wrote:

I don't think anyone would disagree that the walkway would be used, the question is that at this current point in time is spending probably $400 million on a walking path the best use of money for the airport. If it came down to expanding and improving the trains vs building the walking tunnels I think that the trains would win out. I imagine the tunnels will get built at some point, but with as many issues as the airport has currently I am not sure where it will fall on the priority list..

My priority list:
1) Hall of Denver personalities. Like the Disney hall of the presidents, they would be lifesize animitronic talking figures. Denver news people, Reynelda Muse, Ed Greene, Ed Sardella, other people like Pete Smyde, Kenny Be, Federico Pena, John Denver.

cosyr wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

But why not excavate the unfinished tunnel and move baggage east down to that, and give passengers the east tunnel. It would have higher ceilings and not require people to go down and up so far. Who cares if bags on a conveyor belt have to go farther?

Bags are delivered by tractor, not by conveyer belt.

Is the lower tunnel too small for that?

They would also have to rebuild the way the baggage tractor ramps to/from the ramp area to make the current baggage tractor tunnel usable for a walkway. However, I don't think they can move the baggage tunnel down a level further without the ramps being too steep creating safety issues.

From a capacity standpoint during normal operations they need to extend the platform length which can be done for comparatively little cost as the walls were designed to be removed at either end of the existing platforms giving the ability to extend train lengths from 4 cars to 5 cars. As others have rightly called out, reducing lead times between trains will help significantly as well.

This was called out early on in the press but has received little attention sense. The most recent large scale train failure was due to low pressure in a tire which caused the train to drag and tear up the track. The contractor responsible for train maintenance was aware of the low tire pressure but didn't address. As we've all rightly called out for years at DIA, preventative maintenance is a major issue and could have prevented the most recent outage. IMO the large August outage was preventable.

I am also not convinced the airport is properly using the crossover tracks that exist between the concourses and the terminal to route trains around any issues that come up. While capacity would be reduced vs. normal operations, they should still be able to manage it relatively sanely in a scenario like what happened earlier this year.

I am personally against building a pedestrian tunnel from a cost/benefit standpoint if they can find a way to do it that makes sense given normal train reliability, comparatively cheaper options, etc. What I would propose DIA explore instead is enhance the bus shuttles with additional capacity and designated and 'nice' drop off & pick up points between the concourses that is put into use during irregular operations. The landing in between the main concourse level and trains leads directly to the ramp and I can see building out formal entrance/exits and pick up points there that are put into use during peak times or irregular operations. Seems like a far more cost effective option for the rare times there is a near complete outage than $400 million on a pedestrian tunnel that would be difficult to build given the tunnel structure in place and the hodge-podge security setup that we will have after the Great Hall renovations are done. Remember, only one of the two main level security checkpoints is moving to level 6, the other one will remain where it is now. This was done as a cost-saving measure due to the renovation debacle.

GmoneyCO wrote:

cosyr wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

Bags are delivered by tractor, not by conveyer belt.

Is the lower tunnel too small for that?

They would also have to rebuild the way the baggage tractor ramps to/from the ramp area to make the current baggage tractor tunnel usable for a walkway. However, I don't think they can move the baggage tunnel down a level further without the ramps being too steep creating safety issues.

From a capacity standpoint during normal operations they need to extend the platform length which can be done for comparatively little cost as the walls were designed to be removed at either end of the existing platforms giving the ability to extend train lengths from 4 cars to 5 cars. As others have rightly called out, reducing lead times between trains will help significantly as well.

This was called out early on in the press but has received little attention sense. The most recent large scale train failure was due to low pressure in a tire which caused the train to drag and tear up the track. The contractor responsible for train maintenance was aware of the low tire pressure but didn't address. As we've all rightly called out for years at DIA, preventative maintenance is a major issue and could have prevented the most recent outage. IMO the large August outage was preventable.

I am also not convinced the airport is properly using the crossover tracks that exist between the concourses and the terminal to route trains around any issues that come up. While capacity would be reduced vs. normal operations, they should still be able to manage it relatively sanely in a scenario like what happened earlier this year.

I am personally against building a pedestrian tunnel from a cost/benefit standpoint if they can find a way to do it that makes sense given normal train reliability, comparatively cheaper options, etc. What I would propose DIA explore instead is enhance the bus shuttles with additional capacity and designated and 'nice' drop off & pick up points between the concourses that is put into use during irregular operations. The landing in between the main concourse level and trains leads directly to the ramp and I can see building out formal entrance/exits and pick up points there that are put into use during peak times or irregular operations. Seems like a far more cost effective option for the rare times there is a near complete outage than $400 million on a pedestrian tunnel that would be difficult to build given the tunnel structure in place and the hodge-podge security setup that we will have after the Great Hall renovations are done. Remember, only one of the two main level security checkpoints is moving to level 6, the other one will remain where it is now. This was done as a cost-saving measure due to the renovation debacle.

If you check in at the southeast end of the terminal, it will be a walk to the entrance of security.

Anybody hoping these problems will be corrected soon, will have to be more patient: https://www.businessinsider.com/labor-s ... nt-2021-10

No matter what the solutions will be, they will have to include new staffing, which looks a long way off.

cosyr wrote:

Anybody hoping these problems will be corrected soon, will have to be more patient: https://www.businessinsider.com/labor-s ... nt-2021-10

No matter what the solutions will be, they will have to include new staffing, which looks a long way off.

It costs $21 for a R/T to the airport. No one is going to pay that just to go to a job fair. It's a worker's market. These employers are still acting like they have the upper hand. They need to go hold the job fairs where the workers are rather than expect the applicants to come to them. And it goes without saying that is the commute costs more then the pay needs to be better but I don't know if that's already the case.

airbazar wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Anybody hoping these problems will be corrected soon, will have to be more patient: https://www.businessinsider.com/labor-s ... nt-2021-10

No matter what the solutions will be, they will have to include new staffing, which looks a long way off.

It costs $21 for a R/T to the airport. No one is going to pay that just to go to a job fair. It's a worker's market. These employers are still acting like they have the upper hand. They need to go hold the job fairs where the workers are rather than expect the applicants to come to them. And it goes without saying that is the commute costs more then the pay needs to be better but I don't know if that's already the case.

they've been holding job fairs at Mile High, in downtown Denver, not at the airport.

As CALMSP pointed out, the job fair was held at the old Mile High Stadium now called Empower Field at Mile High. They were expecting upwards of 5,000 people to show up for the recent job fair and had about 100 people that actually showed up.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/l ... s-job-fair

adv40624 wrote:

As CALMSP pointed out, the job fair was held at the old Mile High Stadium now called Empower Field at Mile High. They were expecting upwards of 5,000 people to show up for the recent job fair and had about 100 people that actually showed up.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/l ... s-job-fair

The article posted clearly says it was at the airport:
"A job fair at Denver's airport on Saturday attracted just 100 people, an exec told a local outlet."
"The DCA and airport leadership organized the job fair at the airport's United Club with representatives from nearly 170 concessions, KMGH reported."
If there was another job fair at the stadium, that's great.

airbazar wrote:

adv40624 wrote:

As CALMSP pointed out, the job fair was held at the old Mile High Stadium now called Empower Field at Mile High. They were expecting upwards of 5,000 people to show up for the recent job fair and had about 100 people that actually showed up.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/l ... s-job-fair

The article posted clearly says it was at the airport:
"A job fair at Denver's airport on Saturday attracted just 100 people, an exec told a local outlet."
"The DCA and airport leadership organized the job fair at the airport's United Club with representatives from nearly 170 concessions, KMGH reported."
If there was another job fair at the stadium, that's great.

The United Club is the Club Level at Mile High, not a United Club at the airport.

The Business Insider article is a joke and not even close to being accurate. Do you honestly think United is going to open their clubs at the airport for a job fair? The applicants would not even be able to get down to the concourse to attend and apply for jobs. No way is United going to allow their clubs at the airport to be used for a job fair. As alasizon pointed out, the job fair was held in the United Club area at Empower Field. Click on the link below and read the story. Just because the Business Insider writes the job fair was at the airport does not mean it was.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/l ... s-job-fair

Speaking of congestion are they having ATC staffing issues at Denver tracon/tower or just flow control issues? Just did my usual afternoon flightradar check and am noticing quite a few planes in holding patterns to the west of here (Fort Collins) and the weather is almost perfect at the moment.

AndoAv8R wrote:

Speaking of congestion are they having ATC staffing issues at Denver tracon/tower or just flow control issues? Just did my usual afternoon flightradar check and am noticing quite a few planes in holding patterns to the west of here (Fort Collins) and the weather is almost perfect at the moment.

Appears to be wind related. Last hour showing due east winds at 18kts. The TAF is forecasting a switch to gusty sounds winds around 1640 lcl. A couple of aircraft appear to be diverting while others hold for the winds to swing around.

Yeah I saw a dozen or so go-arounds. Wind shift. Holds are to “turn the airport around”

What does the layout of the new 6th floor security look like? Where is the entrance and what is the alignment of the escalators to the trains?
I wonder if they could build a mirror image of it on the East side? My preference would be to have two securities, East and West that fed the train and the A bridge directly, thus removing security on the A bridge.

With the extremely high volume of crowds, I have no idea how the Security lines and checkpoints are all somehow supposed to fit on Level 6. They barely seem to fit in the Great Hall on level 5 as it currently is.

I wonder if a quick, easier fix for crowds could be to move the WN check-in to the northeast corner of level 6, and move F9 to WN’s current check-in location? Currently, DEN’s two largest carriers, WN and UA, mostly all go through security on the south side of the Great Hall. Route UA through south security, and WN through north security.
With F9’s greatly reduced schedule at DEN from what they once had, they shouldn’t cause too much over crowding at security.

There also needs to be more trains circulating from the terminal to the concourses. There are not enough escalators from the train stations to the main part of the concourses.

Fix the bathrooms. Make them match the newer bathrooms on the concourse extensions. That is a must. Also, update the signage. This should happen with the concourse renewal project over the next several years.

I think it will get better over time, but not before it gets worse first.

swapping ticket counters wouldn't do anything. F9 is actually in a great spot, as is DL/AA who can simply advise anyone they check-in to walk around the corner and take the bridge.

airlinewatcher1 wrote:

With the extremely high volume of crowds, I have no idea how the Security lines and checkpoints are all somehow supposed to fit on Level 6. They barely seem to fit in the Great Hall on level 5 as it currently is.

Good point. I haven't seen a detailed plan of the new 6th floor security. If they took out 1/6 of the check in counter space or curb fronage from a 1995 airport for the demand 25 years later, I wouldn't consider that progress. I think if they build a lid over the entire north security on 6 that would buy them more square footage on level 6. Once there is a lid over security north level 5, wouldn't that solve the problem of it being exposed to an unsecure area from above, and they could still utilize that space as security as well.

DenverTed wrote:

What does the layout of the new 6th floor security look like? Where is the entrance and what is the alignment of the escalators to the trains?
I wonder if they could build a mirror image of it on the East side? My preference would be to have two securities, East and West that fed the train and the A bridge directly, thus removing security on the A bridge.

Here is an older overview of level 6 the general shape should match what is below but some of the finer details may have changed. The checkpoints on the West and East sides will both be larger than the current South screening.



The plan is to build a matching checkpoint on the East Side, at that point A bridge screening would close and both the East and West screening passengers would be able to access the bridge after screening.

theAviationGeek wrote:

AndoAv8R wrote:

Speaking of congestion are they having ATC staffing issues at Denver tracon/tower or just flow control issues? Just did my usual afternoon flightradar check and am noticing quite a few planes in holding patterns to the west of here (Fort Collins) and the weather is almost perfect at the moment.

Appears to be wind related. Last hour showing due east winds at 18kts. The TAF is forecasting a switch to gusty sounds winds around 1640 lcl. A couple of aircraft appear to be diverting while others hold for the winds to swing around.

Wind-related indeed; no staffing issues in the towers. There were gusts upward of 30kts for a short bit while we re-sequenced inbounds. Outbounds weren’t affected unless their inbound aircraft diverted, which did result in a couple of cancels.

It'll be windy again today at DEN, too

Went through DEN this past weekend and was thinking to myself that a tunnel a level below the trains might make sense.

After my experience, going to be avoiding booking any connections here going forwards. Been a huge fan of the place for years but it's clear that it's all being pushed to the brink. Everything was hanging on by a thread, creating a pretty miserable experience. Food lines were insane at literally every spot (we tried at least 6 places), closed UA clubs, one bathroom I was in had SIX sinks broken before I found one that worked, two of which were wrapped in trash bags. Some stuff I understand (staffing is tough right now), but how can an airport this successful be letting basics like bathrooms fall apart so much?

I always lament the dehubbing and loss of flights at my home airport PIT, but I gotta say I breathed a sigh of relief upon returning home. Even with the loss of traffic, they have managed to replace...you know...25 year old sinks. Parts of DEN were legit giving me Greyhound station vibes. Hopefully some of these things can be solved soon. It used to be such a dependable and pleasant connection, far preferable to Chicago.

Small A West Update

Looking towards the existing concourse


From the 2nd sub core looking to the west


Last section of the concourse with the glass end/patio


Glass install has started on the FIS corridor

My longterm solution would be to move runway 35L 2000' to the East. Then they should build a new linear train line to the East ends of all the concourses and a second terminal 2000' East of the current one that lines up with the train line. Then they would have enough room to extend A,B,and C another 1000' East. At the new terminal they could have gates directly off the terminal facing A, and a connected concourse running North-South. Since the alleys are so wide, I assume they could close 1/2 the alley and build it open trench style, and still have one or two taxi lanes open in the alley. I believe the original train lines were dug open trench, and not tunneled.

quick question: where do the RTD buses drop arriving passengers; is at the transport center bottom of the south side or do they use the transportation drop off lanes on level 5 near baggage claim? thanks in advance for any info.

^ Transportation center under the hotel.

DenverTed wrote:

My longterm solution would be to move runway 35L 2000' to the East. Then they should build a new linear train line to the East ends of all the concourses and a second terminal 2000' East of the current one that lines up with the train line. Then they would have enough room to extend A,B,and C another 1000' East. At the new terminal they could have gates directly off the terminal facing A, and a connected concourse running North-South. Since the alleys are so wide, I assume they could close 1/2 the alley and build it open trench style, and still have one or two taxi lanes open in the alley. I believe the original train lines were dug open trench, and not tunneled.

I'm not sure that moving the runway would be cheaper than just digging trenches under existing taxiways and adding a new train loop, similar to IAD. If you made A, B and C any wider than they are, then you would also have to consider adding trains within each concourse, similar to DTW.