Richard L. Haury Sr.,
Senior Vice President,
USR Greiner Woodward Clyde (USA)
CLICK FOR BIO

Madrid, Spain Tuesday, 4 May 1999

Power Point Presentation

Introduction

I wish to speak on three points concerning airports serving the global cities of the 21st century as a strategic development resource. The first point is that when planning for expansion of the airports, a very long time frame should be considered. I suggest as long as 50 years but certainly longer than the traditional 20 years. The second point is to take an in depth look at the long range planning used at Denver. The third point is that the Preliminary Design process is the proper time where major decisions should be made by the owners, users, and maintainers of the airport and the final design period should be considered part of the construction process even when the "design-bid construct" form is used. Civilization, in the form of major cities, has always followed the advances of transportation-from walking and riding animals to boats and trains, automobiles and aircraft. We shape our cities to match our transportation systems.

I. Airports Need A 50 Year Plan

Exhibit one shows two curves developed by the Transportation Research Board for the US Department of Transportation. The lower curve assumes low competition, high fares, low GDP, high fuel prices, a substantial use of rail transportation for intra- city traffic of less than 500 miles, and an increase use of teleconferencing for business. With all of these factors slowing the growth of air transportation, a need still will exist to develop 2 ½ times the airport infrastructure, which existed in the early 1990's. The upper curve assumes high competition low fares; high GDP, lack of extensive intra-city train travel, and a continuous need for business travel even in the electronic age. Under these conditions, the need is to develop 5 times the existing airport infrastructure of the early 1990's.

II. A Look at How Several Airports Are Positioning To Meet That Need

Under these conditions, let's take a look at five airports. The five airports serve Orlando Florida, Denver, Colorado, Hong Kong, China, New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Guangzhou, China.

Orlando Airport

Orlando opened in 1981 with two airsides and one-half of the expected ultimate landside. (Exhibit 2). The passenger total at that time was six million annual passengers and the North complex was designed for 24 million passengers. Conventional wisdom was to plan for ultimate 50 gates and our intent to plan for 96 was tough to sell. Because we were planning so far ahead, we were reluctant to state that we were also reserving land to double the 96 gates in a future South complex. In 1998 Orlando had almost 28 million passengers with three airsides. Construction is presently under way to add the forth airside and increase the North terminal landside capacity to 30 MAP. Planning and site construction are proceeding to begin a south terminal complex to be connected by AGT to the North terminal and planned for a capacity of 40 MAP for a total Orlando Airport capacity of 70 MAP. Orlando will serve this passenger demand with four runways, three of which can operate simultaneously in IFR weather conditions. From beginning to end Orlando's demand and capacity will have increased almost twelve times.

Denver Airport

Denver opened in 1995 with three concourses out of a planned ultimate five concourses and a landside complex which can be doubled. (Exhibit 3).

The ultimate capacity of Denver is planned for 110 million annual passengers against an opening of 33 million. To accomplish the ultimate capacity at Denver will require between 10 and 12 runways with four simultaneously IFR landing streams and a total area of 53 square miles. (137 Sq. Km.).

Hong Kong Airport

Hong Kong was faced with the impending turn over of the territory to China. Their decision to recognize that planning for and implementing a long-term transportation infrastructure is a wonderful example of how their global city of the 20th century will remain a global city of the 21st century. Their 21st century airport required the creation of a new airport from the sea on an adjacent island. (Exhibit 4). Hong Kong's Chek Lap Kok airport provides for air service for the foreseeable future.

Louisiana Airport

New Orleans needs airport expansion. At least they need an additional runway at the existing airport. Before this can be accomplished, the environmental consequences of the expansion must be examined and reasonable alternatives explored. The Louisiana Airport Authority wants to explore, during the same time frame, the idea of an airport located between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

This airport would conceptually be of a different sort. (Exhibit 5).

The landside of this new airport would be separated from the airside in a similar manner to Orlando, but the distance would be 20 to 40 miles, (92 to 64 Km.) not 2,000 feet (0.6 Km.) The landside would be in several places, downtown New Orleans, the existing airport at New Orleans, the new airport and in Baton Rouge. The airside would be on a 25,000-acre site between the two cities. It would be planned as an intermodal facility with four runways and tremendous industrial growth potential serving water, road, rail and air transportation. The cities would then be joined by an intermodal transportation system with plenty of room to expand and with a long-range plan for development.

Guangzhou Airport

Guangzhou has also determined that its long-range future is not at the existing airport. A new site has been selected and a new airport plan has evolved. The new plan (Exhibit 6) recognizes that passenger needs are different when arriving at or departing from an airport. The plan is to provide the landside part of the arrival experience at airside to satisfy the passenger's desire to transfer from aircraft to surface vehicle in as short a distance and as quickly as possible. The plan for departing passengers is to provide a landside building, which will satisfy first phase 30 MAP demand with surrounding roadways like Tampa and Orlando. The 30 MAP first phase landside building, surrounded by roadways will be connected to a second similar landside building with an underground train station. The whole landside area would be surrounded by office buildings, parking structures, hotels, and convention/ meeting facilities- an Airport City.

Summary

Each of these cities is planning for an expanded airport well beyond the normal 20-year projections.

TABLE I.
GROWTH POTENTIAL FOR SELECTED AIRPORTS
	1998	Future	Multiplier
· Orlando, Florida	28	70	2 ½
· Denver, Colorado	37	110	3
· Hong Kong, China	28	100	3 ½
· Louisiana, USA	10	TBD	TBD
· Guangzhou, China	12	70	6

III. An In-Depth Look at Denver

Denver approached the task of developing a plan and a place for its long- range airport in seven steps. It began with the realization that Denver, Colorado is a natural, US hub. It is centrally located in the country both in north /south, and east/west directions as shown on (Exhibit 7).

The first step was taken in the air. What were the possible airway paths, which could be developed by the FAA to allow aircraft to land and take off simultaneously in all weather conditions? Four separate approach and departure paths were developed. During normal weather conditions aircraft can approach from the south and east and depart to the north and west or reverse the direction for wind or traffic conditions. The second step was runways. How could runways be configured to provide for landings and takeoffs strips without intersections? The answer came with three runways on the east and two on the north for landing and three runways on the west and two on the south for takeoff. (Exhibit 8). These could be reversed if wind direction or traffic was from the south or east. During IFR weather four simultaneous landing strips in a north/south direction were needed. Because there was no criteria at that time for four simultaneous runway streams at one airport, space for two additional north/south runways was added to the east and west so that the airport could function as if it were two separate airports joined together.

The third step was to locate a place. The runway configuration demanded a site of about 53 square miles (130 Sq. Km.) The city and county of Denver's total was 110 square miles (284 Sq. Km.) The airport site obviously couldn't fit into the city without moving the city. (Exhibit 9). The Metropolitan Denver Area is outlined by the existing, and planned ring road know as 470. Fitting a 53 square mile (137 Sq. Km.) site inside the ring road could be done only with massive relocation of people and businesses except at one possible location, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. However, The Arsenal was both too small and too polluted. Development to the North, Mountains to the west, development to the south and topography and development to the southeast left only one site. A great site in the Northeast available for $240 million with minimal displacement of people and existing farm land with the possibility to protect the ultimate airport.

The problem was that the site was in adjacent Adams County, and Denver wouldn't proceed with development until the land was transferred by vote of the people from Adams to Denver County. A compromise was reached whereby Denver got the airport site and Adams County got the peripheral development.

The fourth step was surface transportation. The surface transportation solution required the agreement of several organizations. First, the airport agreed to build a connecting road to I-70 with interchanges at E-470, an future Rocky Mountain Arsenal road connection to the city and at development roadways along the way. The airport also had to provide right-of -way for a rail connection and plan for a rail landside building station. The E-470 Authority had to agree to serve the airport. The Colorado State DOT had to agree to build major modifications to Interstate highways 70 and 225. Local agencies also had to agree to various roadway improvements.

The fifth step was buildings. Because of the high degree of aircraft maneuvering efficiency built into the plan, the ideal building configuration was a series of straight-line buildings, similar to the configuration so successfully accomplished at Atlanta. Because Denver is planned to be a hub for eventually three airlines, the best hub configuration is also a straight line. The landside building configuration was one with roadway access and parking structures on both sides.

The sixth step was movement of people and baggage. People movement within the long airside buildings was provided by two methods. One was a shuttle AGT that could move at a level above the boarding level and the second was European style moving sidewalks, which were 1-½ times wider and moved 1-½ times faster than those used in American practice. With these internal aids to passenger movement, a 60-gate hub could be developed in one building which meant that the AGT did not have to move connecting passengers. People movement between buildings had to be multi-car AGT trains. Walking distances between the ultimate five airside buildings was too long for convenience and connection times. By providing switches between parallel tracks located between each building a capacity of one half-normal could be achieved even in an emergency with a failed car or section of track.

The ideal baggage solution was planned to be one where each bag could be transported individually to reach its destination. The labor and time savings for this type of system would be worth the capital and operating cost. Also, the system would allow for a reduced turn around time for the hub airlines. Consequently, basements were added to the buildings and tunnels were added between buildings. The first decision was to stop with these improvements, go with an initial tug and cart conventional baggage system and wait for a DCV (destination coded vehicle) system to be perfected elsewhere. With United Airlines decision to proceed with Denver as a major hub, it became desirable to be the first to implement this system. As the world knows, this system did not work on schedule, but I am happy to report that United has continued to improve the system and it will soon do what the engineers and planners had envisioned from the beginning.

The seventh step was aesthetic. Denver was designed with functional architecture in mind with one exception. We believed that in the passenger transition from the landside ticket counter to the train, an opportunity to express architecture of place existed. Fentrus Bradburn Association of Denver Colorado with their use of a fabric roof exactly achieved our fondest dreams. (Exhibit 10).

IV. Recommended Procedure for Implementing A Major Project

After 35 years of major airport practice, I am convinced that management of the preliminary design process is the key to a successful project. Owners and users must have in-depth, shared days-long opportunities to understand what is to be built its schedule and cost. Agreement on scope, time, and budget needs to be made at this point in the process. Then the owners and users should stay out of the process while the designers and contractors build the owner's project. Additions, modifications and changes should be undertaken only for the must serious of circumstances, not just to accommodate a "better idea". The cost of changes is always more than anticipated and the disruption of designers and construction workers results in a poorer quality product.

Summary

To sum up, my recommendation is to take a long look at an airport's future needs and plan beyond what you can reasonably be predicted. Even if the decision is to stay in place for the near term, the long-term look will be invaluable as transportation systems are planned for the 21st century. The most important thing is land as a place to allow future development to occur in an orderly manner. Plan for the long term and build for the short term. While building, give the designers and contractors time to build without changes and everyone will profit.