denverhockeyguy

Flying in and out of Denver is great because you can be nearly anywhere in North America in < 4hrs. As a regular through the airport, I hate it... I feel with the trains, escalators, Pena blvd, etc. Its just an airport that has become tedious to get through. Although, I feel the same about Atlanta and LGA. For example, I'm a pretty big fan of DTW. Even BOS is pretty good.

DENviaLAX

B19 hasn't been used in years, mostly because the newer guppies have a much larger wingspan and they cant fit as many planes in the same space. B35 was also shut down years ago. However they've been replacing the concrete on each gate over the past several years and realigning some of the gates in the process. The B33-37 section was done most recently and now B35 is operational again and B33 was taken out of service. However now both B35 and B37 can handle up to 757s where as before B37 could only fit Airbus 319/320.

As they continue working their way down west on the north side I believe B19 will be put back in service again. That is still at least a year away so I'm honestly not sure why they installed the new sign already, unless it's just to test it out as others have said. I've seen it turned on a couple times though and it is an actual screen that will display some kind of information, so at least that aspect wont be going away.

mpw81

To be fair, it does have the old sign too, even though the gate isn't in use, or even usable (missing half of the bridge) as noted above.

But the ceiling is indeed that gross, yikes. Especially when you consider it's either coming out of, or being sucked into, the HVAC system.

RobotDoctor

Ugh, I really hate Blucifer.

mr8

I noticed the double signage as well! It’s a little blurry in the first photo, but it is there.

TravellingMan

100% agree.

It started with the ugly Westin building that ruined the aesthetic appeal of the sails. Then the RTD bus drop from the convenient 5th level to the dungeons of the transit center. After that it has been a downward spiral with the "disco" lights in the airport approach, the "never to complete" great hall expansion project, inadequate covered parking space (it shows full when not and available when full) etc.

There have been some nice touches like the water dispensers all over and the reduced in your face advertisements in the terminals and the expansive glass covering the gate areas which have not been blocked by ads. Now if only they can attract few more international carriers, that would make it useful (TK, AF/KL, EK etc.)

I do hope they dont expand Pena Blvd. Then they will actually try to make Transit work and reduce congestion.

tods27

I would agree with this. Generally, I don't have any traffic problems when taking Pena Blvd, but I have heard that it's really bad in the AM when a lot of employees are heading out to work. Since I try to avoid 6:00 AM flights, I'm usually not caught in traffic.

I'd happily take the train if it didn't take so long. For me, it's 1:15 door to door on the train (walk to light rail, connect at Union Station, then take A line) vs 30-40 minutes by car. I think that there are some light-rail/bus combos that are a little bit shorter, but it's not convenient for overnight work trips. I have taken the train when going on vacation and/or week long work trips (usually Europe, so I'm pretty fried when I land in DEN).

TravellingMan

I usually take the AB bus which takes about the same time as driving, so cannot beat that as long as you dont miss one. (The next one is usually 30 or 60 minutes later). But whenever I have taken the A line, the first thing I noticed that it was slow. For a line that was just recently completed, how could they settle for a design that has crossing right out of the airport and is so slow? I shudder to think of whatever they will come up with for the Denver-Boulder train line.

If they were serious about transit, then the transit center would have moved to the 5th level with automobiles sent to the dungeons. The current design indicates that the designer and the approver never take transit. So you have a cheap solution that meets requirements on paper.

mpw81

Denver Boulder train likely not happening in my life time. Whenever they do ridership studies they find that everyone who lives in Boulder wants to live in a city with a train... But hardly anyone would actually ride it.

I love the train. I've even trained (no pun) my in laws to take it to 38th and I go have a beer at Black Shirt and wait for them. I'm a little put off by the fact that the guy checking my ticket (twice) needs to have a gun, but whatever. I lived in Logan square for 2 years and rode the blue line daily and I never felt like I needed a security guard with a gun on it.... Mostly.

windowflyer89

This new B19 sign is likely just a full-scale design mockup of the future sign standard that's shown in the rendering. In design, mock-ups of varying scale and quality are often constructed in order to evaluate certain aspects of the design. It looks like this mock-up in particular will test the technical visual aspects of the sign:

• Font type
• Font size
• Colors
• Overall dimensions
• Mounting height above the floor

What leads me to believe this is a design mockup:

• The finish quality of the sign in the photo is nowhere near what a permanent sign would look like.
  • The weld on the right hand side is very rough
  • The materials are cheap - very rough extruded aluminum, a repetitious pasted paper-like quality in the black area above the numbers.
  • Sign is thin (no bulk like the rendering)
  • Sign is not illuminated like a final sign would be
• But the size and proportion of this sign, as well as the location of information on the sign, seem to reflect that of the new signage.
  • Black bar at the bottom is where the destination city screen would go (just like the render shows)
  • Black area above the gate number is for advertising (just like the render shows)
  • "Gap" (though built solid in this sign) between the gate number and the advertising space seems to be the same size as gap shown in the render

ExplorerWannabe

I really believe DEN is a crap airport and have ever since it was built late with a bloated budget on sub-standard soil with sub-standard concrete. Look in the archives of the Denver Post for the stories on THAT. Pena and Romer sold a bill of goods to get the county residents to agree to the project but I hadn't heard rumors of Pena or his family owning the land directly. Anything like that would be immediately obvious from a search of land records.

That was more or less what I'd heard. In particular it was the land for the toll road that I'd heard was owned by Pena donors.

Because the city name in the example you show here is SO readable at a distance? Concern about HD displays versus dots are just flash. I'm far more concerned about (in no particular order):

1. The displays being current with planned flights and gate assignments
2. The displays being legible from a distance
3. The length of the hike I have to do when connecting at DEN
4. Time to go through security at DEN (for the rare times I will originate at DEN -- most times, I'd rather use DEN as a connector than originate there)
5. A place I can plug in and recharge electronics where the socket's not so loose the chargers fall out immediately
6. Having enough seating at the gate

To be fair, I don't care if the gate signs are non-electronic and lack the city name as long as the gate number is visible from a distance and the IT infrastructure that provided me the gate assignment on either app or terminal information board is correct and timely. Getting bounced from one terminal to another and back like I've had happen at LAX is just annoying.

DENflyer3

Why does everyone complain about the Pena Traffic? I really am serious about this? The only times I use it are from the Tech center during afternoon rush hour. There are always slowdowns from traffic getting off (especially Tower Road). I've never seen a problem in the morning. The rest of the time, I take 470 in, no problems at all. If you hate Pena, just go another 5 miles up I-70 to 470 and take the back door in. Tada!

And of course donors gave money to Pena, they owned land and wanted him reelected to get it done. Nothing to see there.

DELee

"Hey friendly donor, my back is really itchy..."

David

DenverBrian

Because with LCD panels, you can easily expand fonts, city names, whatever you want, to whatever size you want, without paying for expensive hard metal signage that you have to change whenever styles, trends, etc. change. @:-)

Don't know why LAS has the city name relatively small, but that doesn't preclude DEN from doing it differently. I was noting the concept.

RobotDoctor

When comparing DIA to Stapleton I think having more land and more runways leads to less flight operation issues due to weather. I remember delays due to summer thunderstorms or winter snows being more prevalent at Stapleton. That said, had Stapleton developed onto the old Rocky Mountain Arsenal then maybe it would have been a more efficient airport. At the end of the day the concept of DIA was being pushed hard, very hard. Was it due to necessity or political motivation? At this point does it really matter since it is what it is.

I believe the original budget was something like $1.8 billion. That obviously was a low ball total (as these things usually are). The final costs were over budget in the neighborhood of $2 billion to bring the final cost of the original DIA to nearly $4 billion. In comparison look at these figures for JFK. To have a complete airport with 5 runways, main terminal, 3 aircraft terminals, 2 hub airlines and complete infrastructure for less than $5 billion with a huge amount of land to expand (up to 12 runways and 5 airplane terminals) doesn't seem to be such a bad concept afterall.

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/4/1793...omo-renderings

Yes, crap concrete. Look who was the concrete contractor and his relationship to Pena. Original concrete was poured at a mix ration less than what was specified. Within 5 years major concrete work was already in need.

Sub-standard soil? Welcome to Colorado where it is all sand/clay based. The old Rocky Mountain Arsenal was an area that required massive cleanup due to storage of nuclear waste materials. By the late 80s and early 90s the cleanup was essentially completed. That said, same soil base there, too.

The projected passenger usage was over inflated and has never met the 77+ million that was sold to the voters. Was it a bill of goods? Probably, it sure appears that way. I can agree with that. However, for me it is easier to access coming in from Northern Colorado as I can totally avoid Thornton, Northglenn and Denver and I-25 and I-270, especially during rush hour. That always was a horrid experience and I can only imagine how it would be now that Denver and surrounding areas have 29 years of growth.