...by Q2 2016.

YVR should welcome 20 million passengers in 2015 and it's current capacity is for 25 millions, a number that could be reached in five years.

I'm curious to see how and where they'll expand. Will they expand current concourses or will they remodel the southern end of the terminals?

http://www.timescolonist.com/busines...ion-as-it-nears-capacity-1.2104354

http://www.google.ca/maps/place/Vanc...1!1s0x0:0xba68ccac86348084!6m1!1e1

I'd say they can:-
1, easily relocated the long term parking to the North of the airport North of 26R/08L and expand the current US Pre-Clearance terminal to new one, and utilize the existing for International. Or,
2, extend existing International terminal gate area West

Something I found online doing a little research on SkyScraperCity



There are also talks of 4th Runway at YVR as well!



[Edited 2015-11-05 07:16:02]

YVR is one of the greatest airports in the world at spending other people's money in my opinion. Yes, it is a great airport but I would much rather it be a good airport which is cheaper to use than an amazing one with waterfalls and an aquarium if it was cheaper for the average consumer! On a beautiful January's day just looking towards to the North Shore mountains is out of this world.

Does it need another runway? Probably not; when I worked there a few years ago it was quite quiet in the winter and even in the summer months the taxi times to the runway from the terminal and additional hold times where always fairly minimal. I would much rather see YVR really use all of the space it has before digging another runway or building a new all singing & dancing terminal. Ideally I'd like to see YVR actually give back to the everyday fliers who have paid for all of it's bells and whistles!

YXXMIKE, YVR said it wasn't considering a new runway, but rather expanded passenger space. When you talk about YVR actually giving back to the everyday fliers (whatever that means) what do you mean exactly.

Quoting kdonohue (Reply 3):

I'd like to see the AIF reduced and money given back to the frequent fliers and families which use YVR

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 4): I'd like to see the AIF reduced and money given back to the frequent fliers and families which use YVR

Actually, of the major airports in Canada YVR has the lowest AIF (along with YXE & YQR):

Calgary, Alta (YYC) $30
Edmonton, Alta (YEG) $30
Halifax, N.S. (YHZ) $25
Montreal, Que. (YUL) $25
Ottawa, Ont. (YOW) $23
Regina, Sask. (YQR) $20
Saskatoon, Sask (YXE) $20
Toronto, Ont. (YYZ) $25
Vancouver, B.C. (YVR) $20
Winnipeg, Man. (YWG) $25

While I'd like to see it reduced as well, it could be worse.

S

Quoting pasu129 (Reply 1): Something I found online doing a little research on SkyScraperCity

Interesting illustration. If they were to build it all the new domestic parts, they would have to close the north-south runway. I'm not sure how is it used?

Quoting pasu129 (Reply 1): There are also talks of 4th Runway at YVR as well!

Indeed, as in their masterplan, but it doesn't seem to be the most pressing issue at the moment since they have reduced the number of movements by 50K iirc.

As the articles state, YVR is considering expansion westwards, eastwards and/or centrally. In my uneducated opinion, it would appear that eastward development is most likely and palatable.

No sense discussing runways that won't ever be approved and that are explicitly stated not to be under consideration at this time. When YVR floated the illustration above, it was likely to gauge public opinion years in advance of any perceived need. The initial reaction was a predictable and universal horror. Efficiencies are gained with larger aircraft (as per the article) streamlined ATC procedures and expanding the slot times, which have a long way to grow.

As for the 'wasted' money spent on facilities, I'd suggest that the AIF proceeds have created an exceedingly pleasant set of terminals that provide great value to the travelers using them and to the retailers dependent upon our custom. I'm sure YVR could shave a couple bucks off the AIF and offer us a dismal, purely utilitarian airport with no appeal whatsoever. But that false economy would result in millions fewer transient and connecting passengers upon whose voluntary patronage the airport, city and province relies.

I'm sure whatever will be conceived, will be a continuation of the exceptional airport terminal designs we enjoy today.

I really don't mind paying for the "frills", as a fairly regular user of YVR, I really enjoy the open air design, the exceptional pieces of art that they have on display, and I think the water features really add to the West Coast feel!
This is one airport that I enjoy spending time in, not only for the design, but it seems to be really well run, at least from a passengers POV.

Quoting pasu129 (Reply 1): There are also talks of 4th Runway at YVR as well!

They could use their 3rd one first... (I know, I know, flow control issues)

Actually, during the construction work on 26L, they used 26R/08L for the majority of take offs for a number of weeks. During peaks, which are 2-3 times a day for less than an hour only, it makes sense to use both runways for take offs and send all the D & E gate traffic + UPS off 26R/08L rather than send it all the way round to 26L/08R (though the spotter in me would not like that...)

Quoting pasu129 (Reply 1): 2, extend existing International terminal gate area West

I thought the design of the D gates to the west specifically had in mind unlimited expansion to the west.

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 2): Yes, it is a great airport but I would much rather it be a good airport which is cheaper to use than an amazing one with waterfalls and an aquarium if it was cheaper for the average consumer! On a beautiful January's day just looking towards to the North Shore mountains is out of this world.

At least they win the award every year for best in N America 

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 2): Yes, it is a great airport but I would much rather it be a good airport which is cheaper to use than an amazing one with waterfalls and an aquarium if it was cheaper for the average consumer!

In the grand scheme of things, those little nice touches don't actually cost that much money, and significantly improve the passenger experience.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 9): I thought the design of the D gates to the west specifically had in mind unlimited expansion to the west.

You would think so, but several clues indicate this may not be the plan. I can see removing runway 12/30 and the deicing bays, and expanding in a manner similar to LHR between two parallel runways. But why would they have built the new firehall where they did?

Eastwards expansion makes more sense, and allows the space required to accommodate any gate/terminal expansion over the next 50 years. It would also tie into the option of a new N-S taxiway that connect the thresholds of the 26s, running immediately west of the large northern AC hangar and Sea Island station. It's (relatively) easy to relocate the long-term economy & rental car parking lots and taxicab area.

There is current construction work happening at Pier A right now: a new ground-loading facility is being built (future gates A1-A10) which will be used mainly for WestJet Encore flights and possibly Central Mountain Air and Hawkair flights as well. Currently there are 3 temporary ground loading spots at A (A9, A10, A12; A8 is closed for apron expansion for the aforementioned project) and Encore already has to use B22 for extra Encore flights. Central Mountain Air and Hakwair predominantly use B23A through B23C (and occasionally B26), but all three airlines should fit in the new A, freeing up extra space in B22 to B26. Also, the temporary A tunnel blocks B11 and B12, so when the tunnel is gone, these gates will likely come back.

After that, I project that the B pier will be renovated/expanded. Once the props at B pier move over to the new A pier, B19 to B26 would not be used much anymore, so they could tear it down and expand it sort of like how they expanded C. Right now B27 and B28 are *rarely* used, and with B11 and B12 likely to come online again, these can hold the flights that were originally at B19 through B21.

For an international expansion, new gates could be built as an extension of D. Gates D59 thorough D63 were never built but they fit in that area without the need to move any of the taxiways. And if this is done, D73 and maybe D71 could be permanently re-designated E gates for more US-bound capacity. Alternatively, the gates can be slightly reconfigured and a E74 could be added for more narrowbody space.

In addition, in the recently new A-B Connector, gates B14 through B17 seem to have the ability to receive international arrivals (there's the overhead walkway which will eventually lead to the customs area). It's possible that some of WS's international flights (e.g. to Mexico or the future London flight) could operate from B instead, further freeing up space in D for international airlines. IIRC, B14/15 could "merge" together to form a widebody gate as well.

[Edited 2015-11-06 19:35:51]

Here's a recent video of potential future plans.

http://youtu.be/fpqhvKrcHtw?t=2220

Quoting briguychau (Reply 13): Here's a recent video of potential future plans.

Interesting to see all the possible options to expand. I haven't searched for it, but does anyone know if the crosswind runway is used a lot?

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 14): but does anyone know if the crosswind runway is used a lot?

It's used on at most 10 days a year generally. However, larger widebodies don't (read: are prohibited to) take off from the crosswind, so a lot of times there's a situation where 13 is used for landings and NB takeoffs and 08L is used for WB takeoffs (and select WB landings).

Quoting briguychau (Reply 15): It's used on at most 10 days a year generally.

In other words, not very essential and rather limited in usefulness.

Quoting briguychau (Reply 15): It's used on at most 10 days a year generally. However, larger widebodies don't (read: are prohibited to) take off from the crosswind, so a lot of times there's a situation where 13 is used for landings and NB takeoffs and 08L is used for WB takeoffs (and select WB landings).

They are not banned, its just that its only 7300' long so its no good for a widebodies to Asia or Europe if there is an alternate. I have seen PR 343 use it! It was on the LAS tag though. Also 767's on domestic flights.

It used to be used regularly for the medevac's and Pasco / Hawkair / Navajo's etc coming in from the island and northern BC. It has been stopped because of flow issues with these (usually slow) aircraft intersecting the main runways and it actually caused more delays than it solved, so now it is only used if there is a very strong crosswind, which is rare - 10 times a year sounds about right.

As I said earlier, they could improve congestion at peak times by using both runways for take offs. In reality this is for maybe an hour or so 2-3 times a day, there are large portions of the day, particularly in winter when there is nothing happening. There have been new airlines, new routes and frequencies, but a lot of the growth is also coming from larger aircraft not necessarily movement increases, so the emphasis is on growing the terminal rather than the rest of the airport. The exception is Encore with smaller aircraft resulting in the work necessary at the A gates.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 17): They are not banned, its just that its only 7300' long so its no good for a widebodies to Asia or Europe if there is an alternate. I have seen PR 343 use it! It was on the LAS tag though. Also 767's on domestic flights.

I said larger widebodies, along the lines of A346, B77W, B748, and A380.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 17): They are not banned, its just that its only 7300' long so its no good for a widebodies to Asia or Europe if there is an alternate. I have seen PR 343 use it! It was on the LAS tag though. Also 767's on domestic flights.

During really gusty conditions, a JL B747-200B landed on rwy 12 inbound from NRT albeit only for landing.

Quoting briguychau (Reply 13): Here's a recent video of potential future plans.

Thanks for the link. I still see relatively minor expansion projects over the next decade or so (some tweaks to the A & B piers, C pier and a westwards bump of the D gates). A new wing east of the existing E gates would allow many thousands of new travelers per day. Perhaps when approaching the 40+ million passenger mark, YVR might adopt the 'toaster rack' approach as seen in LHR. Long-term, this is likely preferred from a passenger perspective, rather than lengthening the 'octopus arms' of the terminals.

[Edited 2015-11-08 12:50:10]