DFW Airport Fantasy Redesign

[Matt777]

Hello everyone!

Due to the nonsensical and shocking Terminal F plans, I decided to play around with ideas of how DFW could be redesigned and expanded in a way that modernizes and improves the layout while leaving room for future growth. The current growth plans achieve neither despite their astronomical cost.

Obviously, this would be a massive, expensive undertaking. However, I think it sets up DFW for much more future growth potential as well as a passenger experience worthy of the 2nd busiest airport in the world and our growing region.

This is also meant to be a multi-decade plan, and is designed as to allow for phased growth as needed (unlike the airport board's current plans).

Here is the google maps link to my crude 2 phase design study:
MAP LINK: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid= ... sp=sharing

PHASE 1:
-Build new headhouse at South end of the property. This would require demolition of some old airport facility buildings which could be relocated elsewhere. At this point, check-in/security/baggage would be centralized here for all terminals, and exterior entrances to other terminals would be sealed.
-Build enormous parking facility attached to new headhouse, accessible by tram stop or by moving walkways towards headhouse.
-In this plan, existing remote parking lots would be phased out, and existing terminal adjacent parking garages would become new remote lots and employee lots until their adjacent terminals are demolished.
-New Terminal 1 in a spider shape that maximizes the amount of gates that can be fit in. The centerpoint would be a Skylink stop, surrounded by retail/dining, with moving sidewalks extending into each pier from the centerpoint. I figure each of these terminals could fit approximately 100 gates.
I imagine these to be kind of rounded and flowy in shape, not hard angled like in the google map. Think atrium, incorporating natural plants and trees as well.
-I imagine the center of each of the terminals to be something as stunning as the Jewel in the Singapore Airport. Soaring ceilings, natural light, plants/water, and of course tons of shopping and dining opening to the central atrium to increase airport revenue. Everyone would have to pass through these areas from the Skylink stop to the terminal piers.
-New Skyklink extension from existing lines into Terminal 1 and then into the headhouse. Completely within secured airside.
-New tram line from headhouse to parking to hotel development zone to rental car facility. This would be in the non-secure landside area only.


At the end of Phase 1, Terminal E could be demolished in preparation for the new Terminal 2. Terminal/Scam F would be rightfully cancelled and never built. Even with Terminal E demolished, this would be about a net gain of 65 gates.

PHASE 2:
-Build new Terminal 2 in the same design as new Terminal 1, adding about another 100 gates (net gain 165 gates at this point)
-Redesigned Terminal C would continue to operate for the foreseeable future.
-Terminal D would continue to operate for the foreseeable future. International passengers would continue to clear customs and collect baggage in Terminal D, and then take specialized secure nonstop trains to headhouse for exit or terminal re-entry. Utilizing same Skylink tracks.
-Connect Skylink as done in phase 1. Create a loop between Terminal D and C until future terminal on existing terminal A/B site is built.

At this point, Terminals A & B could be demolished, still leaving a net gain of about 95 gates from the start of the project. This does not include the additional gates being added at C in the current redesign project, so net gain would be 100+ gates.

The former Terminal A&B site could add a new international/domestic terminal (Terminal 4) when needed, and existing C&D could be demolished in the future when they are obsolete due to the added capacity at Terminal 4. Then, a new Terminal 3 could be built in the same manner as 1 and 2. If those 2 phases are completed, DFW could have about 400 gates compared to the current 174 gates. More than enough capacity to continue to fuel the area's economic growth.

Looking even further into the future, a new spider shaped terminal could be added in the area to the north of existing A/B where Express North parking and cargo facilities are. Another 100 gates could be accommodate there, if ever needed.

Other considerations would be connecting DART and TexRail, as well as sinking portions of International Parkway to accommodate new terminals overhead as well as mass transit lines.

Let me know what y'all think!!

[LuvBigD]

I have to admit, your design doesn't look workable to me. The first thing that came to my mind is how are they going to get those big airplanes in between those finger-like terminals. I think you are thinking too hard on this one.

[dfwcre8tive]

The Westside Terminal was an interesting idea.

https://www.airporthistory.org/dfw-rebuild-1.html

[I45Tex]

I have to admit, your design doesn't look workable to me. The first thing that came to my mind is how are they going to get those big airplanes in between those finger-like terminals. I think you are thinking too hard on this one.

IMG_2715.jpeg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eKQSsDCVoKM/ ... 202716.jpg

I would have thought that the new LaGuardia rebuild was thinking too hard, too, by having giant trusses that the aircraft taxi under...

It would work at the center of Matt's spider layouts to allow the aircraft to taxi through in either direction. He wanted architectural sense of arrival, so have the central terminal node stand way up high, higher than the tailfins passing underneath the floor, and then take radiating escalators down to the concourses. The central roadway spine would have to be rebuilt underground but that would be a net positive for aircraft movement, allowing all the terminals to become midfield terminals after all.

[Matt777]

I have to admit, your design doesn't look workable to me. The first thing that came to my mind is how are they going to get those big airplanes in between those finger-like terminals. I think you are thinking too hard on this one.

One thing to remember is that I said “crude” design layout. It’s not meant to be an exact blueprint. The exact layout and placement would be different and the piers would be skinner because they would only really be seating and gate areas as retail/dining would mostly be concentrated around the center point of each terminal.

I used google maps to measure the distance available at the current terminal E/F site north to south, and how much distance Atlanta airport uses for 3 piers east to west along with surrounding taxi space, and it was almost identical at a bit over half a mile. Atlanta’s layout is considered to be super efficient. The main difference would be that my design concentrates 3 piers into once central people mover station versus a station at each pier like ATL.

Furthermore, wide body operations could be concentration at terminal D as virtually all of them are international flights anyway. Only smaller narrow body planes would need to navigate between piers, and the design could probably allow for wide bodies on the furthest edges of each pier anyway if truly needed.

AA has always complained how much it costs them to maintain check-in and baggage facilities at each terminal versus a central location. Let’s see if they would rather continue to pay that cost to keep Southwest Airlines out of DFW, which is likely the main driver behind the nonsensical terminal F proposal.

A glance at a portion of the ATL layout attached:

IMG_2676.png

[TAF]

Given that the transportation infrastructure to reach the airport (both roadway and rail) is designed around approaches from both the north and south, at least two 'head houses' will always have to be part of a future DFW. Any change to a south approach would then require a massive realignment of off airport transportation infrastructure which would likely never get enough funding to be completed. Using a two head house approach would also potentially allow for keeping the existing Skylink infrastructure. Start with a new south terminal and head house south of the E - F footprint and then move on to a second midfield terminal in the E -F footprint. The central spine road can be phased out as the reconstruction advances north. The tough choice would be do you next reconstruct C - D (C needs an overhaul in the worlds worst way but this would wipe out the 2 terminal attached hotels) continuing a northward progression of the reconstruction, or build the new North terminal and headhouse in the A-B footprint (arguably the newest infrastructure on the airport having received the full TRIP treatment in the 2010's). Either would work, but replacing C - D next makes the most sense.

Ultimate buildout would allow for customers to approach and park at either the north or south headhouse, rail connections from the north would be preserved and existing roadway infrastructure isn't lost. Baggage claim would be the main hurdle to overcome in this scenario, but this already exists today except with 5 potential shuttle points vs. 2 in the conceptual future state airport.

[I45Tex]

Terminal attached hotels are probably the cheapest part and, in any scenario, easiest to rebuild nearby.

[Matt777]

Given that the transportation infrastructure to reach the airport (both roadway and rail) is designed around approaches from both the north and south, at least two 'head houses' will always have to be part of a future DFW. Any change to a south approach would then require a massive realignment of off airport transportation infrastructure which would likely never get enough funding to be completed. Using a two head house approach would also potentially allow for keeping the existing Skylink infrastructure. Start with a new south terminal and head house south of the E - F footprint and then move on to a second midfield terminal in the E -F footprint. The central spine road can be phased out as the reconstruction advances north. The tough choice would be do you next reconstruct C - D (C needs an overhaul in the worlds worst way but this would wipe out the 2 terminal attached hotels) continuing a northward progression of the reconstruction, or build the new North terminal and headhouse in the A-B footprint (arguably the newest infrastructure on the airport having received the full TRIP treatment in the 2010's). Either would work, but replacing C - D next makes the most sense.

Ultimate buildout would allow for customers to approach and park at either the north or south headhouse, rail connections from the north would be preserved and existing roadway infrastructure isn't lost. Baggage claim would be the main hurdle to overcome in this scenario, but this already exists today except with 5 potential shuttle points vs. 2 in the conceptual future state airport.

My proposal doesn’t eliminate the existing D or C terminals anytime in the near future, so the hotels can stay. They can operate until D and a renovated C are obsolete, at which point the hotels will likely also be obsolete.

My proposal also doesn’t eliminate international parkway, so it can continue to operate and be sunken as needed under new terminal space.

The DART/Texrail stations can be moved with rail continuing south to the new head house in the median of international parkway, or the DART orange line could be rerouted to come in through the south to save time if that’s feasible. But it’s not necessary to have a north head house and would defeat the purpose of centralizing everything.

[longhorn]

The Westside Terminal was an interesting idea.

https://www.airporthistory.org/dfw-rebuild-1.html

This was AA's former CEO Crandall's idea. A shame he did not move on it in the early 90s.