MSP Airport / Metropolitan Airports Commission

[MNdible]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, MSPtoMKE.

I had heard, though, that Great Lakes was going to be moving to T2, which doesn't make much sense to me, since (as you suggested) those A and B Concourse gates will likely be less and less useful to Delta, and since most people flying on Great Lakes likely will want to connect to a Delta flight.

I do think that many of the A and B concourse gates can accommodate 76 seat planes, which will probably be replacing a number of the 50 seaters.

[mulad]

The 4th runway was finished in 2005. It was said at that time the current setup should handle 700,000 - 750,000 yearly movements without causing unacceptable delays. The projection for 2030 is 630,837 total movements so still well under capacity.

I guess I didn't realize that the perpendicular runway (the most perpendicular one, anyways) was an actual runway, because it looks like it kind of intersects with the two "Main" runways.

Yeah, the parallel runways (12R/30L and 12L/30R) have long been the workhorses of the airport. As MSPtoMKE said, the roughly perpendicular runway (4/22) doesn't get used as much since takeoffs and landings there can interrupt the flow on the parallel ones. The 17/35 north-south runway alleviated that problem a lot when it opened (though I still really miss the row of hangars along I-494 that were taken out when it was constructed...).

Also, one thing that continues to fascinate me is the difference in design and use between airports (and terminals) that cater primarily to O&D versus connecting operations. T1 is primarily a connecting operation, and I bet moving non-SkyTeam out would reduce O&D functions in the terminal by 30-50%. Terminal 2 is nearly 100% O&D and needs many more O&D facilities, whereas T1 mainly needs ramp space, gate space, and easy connectivity between gates. That's why this plan to create a new international arrivals area (in essence another quasi-terminal with departure/arrival roads, check in, bag claim, etc) would add a third such area to the mix. LAX, largely an O&D airport, has a similar but bigger layout to the logical extension of T1 in this regard, with many terminals arranged in a U shape.

I didn't realize there was such a big difference between connecting and O&D operations between Delta and the other companies, so I guess the change makes more sense to me. That also might explain the price differential between Delta and the other airlines, though I'm not sure which is the cause and which is the effect.

I went to the open house this evening, and there are some other advantages to shifting more operations to Terminal 2. Humphrey is closer to that 17/35 north-south runway, so flights arriving and departing on that runway could become concentrated there without having long taxiing operations to Terminal 1. They're also saying that the Terminal 1 parking ramps are under capacity by about 8,000 spaces, so having more airlines at Terminal 2 would balance that out quite a bit (they'd still want to expand the ramps at Terminal 2, though).

The Post Road interchange is planned to be upgraded with a fairly standard diamond, as far as I can tell. It would be built a bit south of the current bridge (so that the existing one can remain in operation during construction), taking out the SuperAmerica in the process (not like I particularly care, but the presenter I was talking to brought it up). There are probably also some historical artifacts that will be dug up in the process.

The I-494/34th Avenue interchange is planned to be converted into a diverging-diamond interchange -- and that looks like it's a near-term upgrade: in the Metropolitan Council 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Plan, according to one board. I-494 will be widened south of the airport, and it looks like Airport Lane/78th Street will be shifted north a bit and widened.

[Neptune]

Apparently MSP is kicking around the idea of building a small hotel, tucked into the existing parking lot across from the entry to the airport’s main Lindbergh Terminal. Airport staff hope to eventually build a full-service conference and meeting hotel of 250 rooms or more as part of the airport’s long-term plan.

http://finance-commerce.com/2012/09/dev ... cro-hotel/

[min-chi-cbus]

If you want to be a major player in the airport world you HAVE to have AT LEAST one major hotel/conference center that is actually on-site! I'm surprised this isn't a bigger feature of the redevelopment actually.

[mattaudio]

This sounds like it would be squished between the T1 entrances and the closest parking ramp? Wow, not much space. I thought the plan was always to build a hotel east of the existing parking ramps and the C-G skyway.

[seanrichardryan]

I was trying to figure out if it was to be built on the small lot on your left next to the ramp as you exit the drop off area or actually somehow squished into the ramp itself. Need a copy of that RFP.

[Andrew_F]

^The looks like the mostly likely spot to me. Doesn't seem like a bad idea to build it, unless they use it as rationale to delay construction of a real hotel, which really needs to happen.

[mattaudio]

They could fit a hotel in that spot? It's one lane with parking on each side... probably 30 feet at most.

[seanrichardryan]

The key is Micro. Small rooms, few services, non-existent lobby spaces.

[MNdible]

If you want to be a major player in the airport world you HAVE to have AT LEAST one major hotel/conference center that is actually on-site! I'm surprised this isn't a bigger feature of the redevelopment actually.

The article is pretty clear that this is a short term solution until the site for the larger hotel is opened up in future phases of the master plan.

[LRV Op Dude]

The I-494/34th Avenue interchange is planned to be converted into a diverging-diamond interchange -- and that looks like it's a near-term upgrade: in the Metropolitan Council 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Plan, according to one board. I-494 will be widened south of the airport, and it looks like Airport Lane/78th Street will be shifted north a bit and widened.

[BBvideo 425,350]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5JtZMPTNAY[/BBvideo]

It will be interesting how it works with light rail in the middle.

[mnmike]

What I got from the article is that the plan is to actually convert part of the parking ramp directly across from the main entrance? It said the plan was for it to be "built into" the current parking structure.

[mattaudio]

I wonder what Chuck would think of a center-island LRT station instead of a "pedestrian ditch" in the DDI....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWG49xlZ_eQ

Actually, if they hadn't built the American Blvd station to the south, and the bridge was a little wider, it would actually be a good idea so that the station would also serve Ft. Snelling Cemetery and the Delta office buildings.

[beykite]

It will be interesting how it works with light rail in the middle.

Yea it will be the first one in the country to involve light rail (assuming someone else doesn't build one first). The only thing I can think of is that all traffic, except for right turns,would have to stop while light rail went by. If anything I would think a SPUI would make more sense with light rail, but I'm no traffic engineer.

[min-chi-cbus]

If you want to be a major player in the airport world you HAVE to have AT LEAST one major hotel/conference center that is actually on-site! I'm surprised this isn't a bigger feature of the redevelopment actually.

The article is pretty clear that this is a short term solution until the site for the larger hotel is opened up in future phases of the master plan.

I guess it wasn't so clear to me. How far into the future is this going to be (since you know the article so well)?

[MNdible]

Wasn't trying to be snarky, but you seemed to be suggesting that nobody realized that they needed a bigger hotel.

The master plan includes a location for a large, flagged hotel with meeting space, but they can't build that out until the access road is reconfigured and the post office is demolished. So it's a way out in the future. They know that's what ultimately needs to happen, and this is only a short term fix (albeit one that may still be more appealing to budget conscious travelers who need to stay the night to catch an early flight).

It's a master plan, so any dates you see in there aren't worth the paper they're written on -- the build-out will be entirely dependent on funding availability, the economy, passenger loads, and the price of tea in China.

[min-chi-cbus]

^And don't forget the economy in Spain and Greece!

Thanks.

[LRV Op Dude]

[BBvideo 425,350]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVl_EjqPNA8[/BBvideo]

[PhilmerPhil]

LRV Op Dude, do you think you could post a short description when you post videos. Many of us check this site while on our phones or at work and it's not always appropriate to play videos in that's settings. A short description would let us know if it's something worth putting on headphones for or saving for later. Thanks!

[mattaudio]

Looks like we'll get to see Air France A340-300 five days a week next summer... AF is launching a seasonal flight to supplement the daily Delta CDG flight.