MSP Airport / Metropolitan Airports Commission

[mattaudio]

FBOs are terminals, just not commercial air service terminals- that may explain the naming question. Regarding filling in the lake, remember this plan which DID put a commercial terminal on the northwest corner?

Funny but related, I can no longer find the source but I once read the reason Terminal 1 was constructed along a new Hwy 5 in the late 1950s is because it was equidistant from both downtowns. A terminal closer to Cedar/62 would just not be fair to St. Paul, would it...

MSP Dual Track West Terminal 1994.png

[mister.shoes]

Good grief. The 62/77 interchange would have been an astounding nightmare.

[mattaudio]

[Silophant]

Honestly lol if the airport builds a second, parallel subway tunnel before we even officially consider one in downtown.

[mattaudio]

This just feels like more of a hack - at what point has this thing been hacked up too much?
- Rebuilding E and F is needed, but this will still have a dead end alley between the two. Curious why not rebuild as an island pier parallel to the headhouse and Rwy 4/22 instead of keeping the two finger piers.
- T2 end-to-end will be almost as crazy of a length as A-C-D-E in T1.
- They plan to reconstruct the Green/Gold ramp areas which I presume includes a good chunk of curbsides including shuttles, taxis, and commercial vehicles. I'm curious how this will look - those are awkward curbsides requiring a skyway to mezzanine level or tunnel on shuttle level to get across the primary arrivals/departures curbsides to the headhouse. But that mezzanine has the secret Delta bag check which I love to use. Short story, seems like there needs to be some more significant reconfiguration of curbsides, and maybe that's part of the plan not included here.

My previous ideas:
- Before the post office and hotel were built, I figured that would be a great area to build a second headhouse/landside as the international arrivals/departures area: Extend the landside tram to a third stop. Levels 1/2 would include new curbsides. The second level would also have an airside connection/mall area connecting high-G to the A/B/C rotunda. Finally, a third level above the facility would provide plenty of space for a relocated FIS. Gates on an extended G and expanded A/C would route arrivals up to this third floor and across the access roads to the central T1 FIS. This would give so much more expandability and flexibility on international gate expansion.
- Figure out a different airside tram system to connect T2, the T1 loop, and possibly future concourses northwest of 4/22.

[Trademark]

Where did you get this picture from?

[MNdible]

They're no longer proposing the taxiway connector at the southeast end of the parallel runways -- that's a change that could have eliminated a lot of taxiing the long way around the terminal and simplified ground operations significantly.

[commissioner]

This may be a longshot but is there any chance of MAC building a second aircraft viewing area where the old Speedway is? Nothing against the current one but when planes are using 30L to take off, by the time most of them get to the viewing area, all you see is the bottoms of the planes.

[Tcmetro]

Where did you get this picture from?

There's more info on this website:
https://www.mspairport.com/long-term-plan

Draft plan coming soon.

[LyndaleHoosier]

Anyone have a link to the full 1994 plan info that was referenced above?

[DanPatchToget]

Today is the 25th anniversary of Icelandair starting service to MSP from Reykjavik/Keflavik. Without them I can't imagine flying to Europe would've been affordable for the Twin Cities, especially when Northwest was still around.

[John21]

Today is the 25th anniversary of Icelandair starting service to MSP from Reykjavik/Keflavik. Without them I can't imagine flying to Europe would've been affordable for the Twin Cities, especially when Northwest was still around.

I worked at the Hyatt 20 years ago and their flight crews stayed at the hotel. Their surnames were quite the mouthful!

[mattaudio]

Anyone found details on how T1 FIS could be expanded? As seen above, this is the second highest priority project on their draft list and it says "ex. site" for the location.

Expanding at the existing site seems difficult for two reasons. First, the actual FIS space is constrained by being on primary levels 1-2 sandwiched between gates and concourses/headhouse. Second, it operates with a flexible sterile corridor on the outer edge of the concourse where the jetbridges land (the thing currently extended via the double jetbridge hack). But this must create operational headaches, correct? A jet deplaning to FIS from a higher G gate blocks boarding of lower G gates at the same time.

Whether at the current location in Low-G or at a new location (I long ago proposed a building between High G and A/C rotunda, now not likely due to Post Office location) wouldn't it make sense to do what other airports do and move FIS corridors and processing to another level?

Most large airports have vertical circulation at the jetbridge (either at pods connected by diverging skyways across a service road or with vertical circulation inside the terminal). Then arriving passengers do not conflict with boarding at other gates. Seems like the obvious solution for this is moving at least part of FIS up to a third floor, something easier to do away from the congested G/F/headhouse corner. But that would create other impacts for international baggage claim and recheck.

I don't know if the Silver Ramp precludes a future extension of the landside tram, but I'm guessing the Post Office precludes a new terminal structure between High-G and the A/C rotunda. If the Post Office wasn't there, then that space could be the perfect spot for a second T1 landside (connected by tram to Ground Transportation and the existing airside) already aligning with the hotel skyway. With a double-level connection to G and A/C, then smaller remodel projects in the future would allow gates on both sides of the airfield to be FIS-capable.

[MNdible]

I feel like I've heard talk about FIS moving to the third level near the existing location, so that might be the plan.

I also understand that both of the existing trams are approaching the end of their lifecycle, so there may be more ambitious plans for those when they get replaced. With the extension of the G concourse, that side will likely also need a tram, and if the new F gets aligned with G (and same with E and C), the trams could theoretically run the whole length of those concourses in a straight shot.

[mattaudio]

I also understand that both of the existing trams are approaching the end of their lifecycle, so there may be more ambitious plans for those when they get replaced. With the extension of the G concourse, that side will likely also need a tram, and if the new F gets aligned with G (and same with E and C), the trams could theoretically run the whole length of those concourses in a straight shot.

msp-alt.png

It would be quite a bit more useful if the tram was an entire loop. This was one of my general concepts from 5-10 years ago. Underground landside tram extended to a T1-B curbside (black) and landside terminal (green) over what is now the parking payment loop. Airside tram rebuilt a level above the existing concourses similar to DFW SkyLink or MIA Terminal D or IAH train. It might be impractical, but an airside train could also dive 3 floors down beneath grade to connect to stations at T2 or even hypothetical island concourses northwest of Rwy 4/22.

[mattaudio]

I found my source map from a decade ago and did some quick ideation based on their current plans.

Facilities:
- New T1b/International curbside (black) and headhouse (green) midfield atop the parking pay area, with direct connections to the proposed rebuilt A concourse, existing Intercontinental hotel, and additional G expansion.
- Extension of existing/rebuilt landside tram under Silver Ramp and Post Office to T1b/International headhouse.
- New access road flyover(s) between Silver Ramp and Post Office to route traffic between Hwy 5 and T1b curbsides.
- Top floor of T1b/International structure is expanded FIS facility (red) with sterile connections to gates along A/C/G with near limitless ability to expand FIS-compatible gates. Hypothetically each side of the airfield could even be split to support two security zones with different tiers of entry screening if that ever becomes a thing.
- Maintains crossfield taxiway option in the future.

Airtrain:
- Connects all concourses in T2 and T1 behind security.
- OMF somewhere south of T2/Delta Cargo along 34th Ave.
- Transitions above-ground at the end of reconstructed E pier, then above existing gates for D and C, hypothetical T1b, and G extension.
- Uses the former parking exit space between the access road and mid-G gates to dive back underground to hit T1-South, G, and reconstructed F.
- Can be extended beyond F to midfield concourses beyond Rwy 4/22.

[DanPatchToget]

It would definitely be a decade(s)-long project at a minimum to get rid of that airport, but it's terrible land use by any measure and should be done. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, a St. Paul mayor made it their personal project to get it done.

Hopefully it's not like how Richard Daley got rid of Chicago's Meigs Field.

I wouldn't oppose the idea of closing STP as long as the other airports in the region can handle the relocation of traffic, though I'm sure several businesses would fight tooth and nail to keep STP open.

[VacantLuxuries]

Not just businesses. I don't think the MAC would even entertain talking about closing STP, let alone taking the steps to plan for that capacity to be absorbed at other airports.

At the bare minimum, I think you'd need another east side airport to be expanded to at least the size of Flying Cloud, possibly larger. I don't think there's room at the West St. Paul airport, and I can't imagine an expansion like that going over well at Lake Elmo.

[Trademark]

Not just businesses. I don't think the MAC would even entertain talking about closing STP, let alone taking the steps to plan for that capacity to be absorbed at other airports.

At the bare minimum, I think you'd need another east side airport to be expanded to at least the size of Flying Cloud, possibly larger. I don't think there's room at the West St. Paul airport, and I can't imagine an expansion like that going over well at Lake Elmo.

What are these non commercial flights that use Downtown St Paul airport? What markets do they serve?

[Tcmetro]

I believe Downtown St. Paul is used for a lot of executive private jets. With a lot of F500 HQs in the region there's a fair amount of traffic. IIRC, the National Guard makes good use of it too.