flyPIT wrote:

As to your last point, while the previous ACAA administrations can be accused of "fiscal foolishness", this new team is delivering results and has the complete support of local gov't, businesses, universities, etc. Of course it is reasonable to ask if they are making the correct fiscal choice here - there is a 500+ page report linked above that answers these questions.

THIS.

I think it's instructive to look at how all of the other recently shuttered hubs are handling things; none of the other shuttered hubs are having to spend a billion plus on renovations, and pretty much all of them are older facilities than PIT; the whole thing smells a bit. PIT should be focused on keeping costs as low as possible to entice more carriers and frequencies; not rebuilding the Taj Mahal for a second time.

STL: Situation most like PIT's. Closed Concourse B and the end of C; far end of Concourse D are now E gates for Southwest. No demolition of existing facilities; much older terminal on the whole. Low-ish costs.

MEM: Demolishing Concourses A and C; and remodeling Concourse B. That whole facility is old and paid for, and these changes shouldn't increase costs significantly or at all.

CLE: Shuttered Concourse D, no other big changes, though C was renovated just before United left. It was also the hub that was least oversized compared to the local market.

CVG: Consolidated existing operations from two other very old, decrepid terminals into Concourse A, which Delta left. Demolished the relatively cheap regional Concourse C (Comair hub).

GSP psgr wrote:

STL: Situation most like PIT's. Closed Concourse B and the end of C; far end of Concourse D are now E gates for Southwest. No demolition of existing facilities; much older terminal on the whole. Low-ish costs.

MEM: Demolishing Concourses A and C; and remodeling Concourse B. That whole facility is old and paid for, and these changes shouldn't increase costs significantly or at all.

CLE: Shuttered Concourse D, no other big changes, though C was renovated just before United left. It was also the hub that was least oversized compared to the local market.

CVG: Consolidated existing operations from two other very old, decrepid terminals into Concourse A, which Delta left. Demolished the relatively cheap regional Concourse C (Comair hub).

Playing devil's advocate:
STL: Terminal 1 landside is too small, airside too many gates. Parking garage too small. Like you said situation like PIT. The difference is PIT is planning to do something about it while STL keeps putting lipstick on a pig. Why? Perhaps the debt from STL's $1 billion runway has something to do with it.

MEM: So that will be some major work at MEM; doesn't that validate what PIT is doing?

CLE: Like STL they keep putting lipstick on a pig. I don't think that's an example for PIT to follow. Plus CLE is also saddled with debt.

CVG: Same vintage terminal as PIT but IMHO has aged much better and whats left is much better suited for an O&D operation than PIT. They are taking on their own projects such as consolidated rental car garage to address their shortcomings.

Lets look at some others:
BNA: A very nice airport as is IMHO, yet they are planning $1.2 billion in improvements.

IND: I've been to the old terminal plenty of times; I thought the aesthetics were adequate and there was enough room to double the gates, landside portion, and covered parking if they needed to. Yet they went ahead with a new facility anyway.

MSY: similar to IND.


At PIT annual costs and inconvenience of the people mover, slow baggage claim, poor int'l arrivals experience, and deficiencies with the garage are sited as major factors in their decision. Not all of the airports above have all of those issues.

Well 1 thing you have to admit, PIT sure knows how to create a great dog and pony show. IMO, it''s an almost genius, albeit quite transparent, strategy to support the HQ2 proposal. No U.S.secondary city/county airport, with 1 seasonal legacy international flight, is going commit $1.1B on hopes and dreams - it's fiscally irresponsible.
Reality Check: http://www.alleghenyinstitute.org/wp-co ... 17No40.pdf

flyPIT wrote:

Lets look at some others:
BNA: A very nice airport as is IMHO, yet they are planning $1.2 billion in improvements.

BNA isn't analogous. In Nashville, we have an airport that breaks passenger records virtually every month with a significantly higher O&D percentage than the AA hub for which the terminal complex was designed. And yet, BNA's projects keep 80 percent of the extant landside and airside infrastructure.

What you call lipstick on a pig at places like CLE or STL some of the rest of us might call fiscal responsibility.

I'm sorry, I gotta be that person.

While its great that there has been a 500 page Master Plan done, I would have liked to see new figures from 2016.. I know they exist in the data sources (Diio), used for this project.

Sorry, just something I noticed. I think everyone else covered my thoughts on the runways

acentauri wrote:

No U.S.secondary city/county airport, with 1 seasonal legacy international flight, is going commit $1.1B on hopes and dreams - it's fiscally irresponsible.

So MCI, MSY, IND, and BNA are all fiscally irresponsible?

acentauri wrote:

Reality Check: http://www.alleghenyinstitute.org/wp-co ... 17No40.pdf

Reality Check? Lets see....

From the link:
"From 2010 through 2016 the passenger counts ranged between 7.88 million in 2013 and 8.31 million in 2016, with an average of 8.1 million thus far this decade. The projected total for 2017 is about 8.39 million slightly above the 2016 level"
The projected total for 2017 will be closer to 8.6 to 9 million with about 8% growth on the year.


"With PIT relying on origination and destination travelers, passenger growth will depend heavily on two factors: the gains in population and expansion of the economy, especially income and employment. Availability of very cheap flights and more nonstop
destinations can induce higher demand. However the effect is limited as shown by the recent experience at PIT."
Effect of more nonstop flights has been limited? Traffic was up 13% in the last reported month, not including Sept which had the TX and FL hurricanes. Load factors have kept pace as flights have been added.


"Clearly, added competition and carriers have done little to produce an appreciable rise in passengers."
Nonsense, see above. The paper compares numbers from 2007 when US was still winding down their focus city to today's levels. They need to look at recent trends, which show positive growth.


"And the planned reconfiguring seems to do little to enhance national transportation security"
Really? Major enhancements to the security checkpoint is a key component to this.


"Surely, the experience with the failure of the massive spending undertaken for the current terminal configuration to produce a self funding facility "
The current terminal IS a self funding facility! It is required to be by law. Were gambling revenues used toward the debt? Yes but it made little more than a dent and hardly a make or break item as far as the ability of the facility to be self funding.


"Stakeholders and the taxpayers ought to see exactly what the project portends in terms of financial viability."
Taxpayers have nothing to do with this.


"It is unlikely that the commonwealth will be prepared to come with another bailout."
Another bailout lol? I'm not aware of a first bailout.


"Indeed, that should not even be contemplated given the amount of money it has provided for roads and access to the airport already."
Well, that IS the State's responsibility.


So yes, that document has now been fact checked. Written by two people not in the aviation business and fact checking it was like clubbing a baby seal. As a right wing conservative think tank I would think the Allegheny Institute would be tickled about a $1 billion infrastructure investment that will not use any taxpayer money.

Cubsrule wrote:

BNA isn't analogous. In Nashville, we have an airport that breaks passenger records virtually every month with a significantly higher O&D percentage than the AA hub for which the terminal complex was designed. And yet, BNA's projects keep 80 percent of the extant landside and airside infrastructure.

PIT also has a significantly higher O&D percentage than the US hub for which the terminal was designed - that's the problem. The O&D percentage at PIT is probably even higher than BNA's because BNA is a hub for WN. Furthermore BNA as it is is a much more convenient airport for the O&D traveler IMHO, yet they are still going to spend over a billion dollars. I'm sure they have done their due diligence; I have seen nothing to suggest PIT has not.

Cubsrule wrote:

What you call lipstick on a pig at places like CLE or STL some of the rest of us might call fiscal responsibility.

Might be fiscally responsible for now considering their debt previously mentioned, but sooner or later they will need to make more serious improvements. My point was they are not making those improvements because of that debt, not because they don't need improvements. So it was not an apples to apples comparison with PIT.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

While its great that there has been a 500 page Master Plan done, I would have liked to see new figures from 2016.. I know they exist in the data sources (Diio), used for this project.

I agree. The actual 2016 numbers have actually exceeded their projections from their 2013 numbers by a year already, so that's a positive.


The report linked is only a preliminary draft. I believe there will be an intermediate report then the final master plan.

flyPIT wrote:

acentauri wrote:

No U.S.secondary city/county airport, with 1 seasonal legacy international flight, is going commit $1.1B on hopes and dreams - it's fiscally irresponsible.

So MCI, MSY, IND, and BNA are all fiscally irresponsible?....................

You're grasping at straws to make a point. IMO, PIT is basing their entire Plan on being awarded Amazon's HQ2 and when they don't get it, no pie in the sky plan will support a $1.1B expenditure (for Pittsburgh). Pittsburgh's airport is more than adequate for its current 3-5 year metro growth projections (<0). So, unless Andrew Carnegie re-materializes to create another "steel" town, spending a billion $ on an airport that's likely going to be relatively stagnant for the foreseeable future is fiscally irresponsible.

acentauri wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

acentauri wrote:

No U.S.secondary city/county airport, with 1 seasonal legacy international flight, is going commit $1.1B on hopes and dreams - it's fiscally irresponsible.

So MCI, MSY, IND, and BNA are all fiscally irresponsible?....................

You're grasping at straws to make a point. IMO, PIT is basing their entire Plan on being awarded Amazon's HQ2 and when they don't get it, no pie in the sky plan will support a $1.1B expenditure (for Pittsburgh). Pittsburgh's airport is more than adequate for its current 3-5 year metro growth projections (<0). So, unless Andrew Carnegie re-materializes to create another "steel" town, spending a billion $ on an airport that's likely going to be relatively stagnant for the foreseeable future is fiscally irresponsible.

Your idea of Pittsburgh is stuck 15 years in the past.

acentauri wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

acentauri wrote:

No U.S.secondary city/county airport, with 1 seasonal legacy international flight, is going commit $1.1B on hopes and dreams - it's fiscally irresponsible.

So MCI, MSY, IND, and BNA are all fiscally irresponsible?....................

You're grasping at straws to make a point. IMO, PIT is basing their entire Plan on being awarded Amazon's HQ2 and when they don't get it, no pie in the sky plan will support a $1.1B expenditure (for Pittsburgh). Pittsburgh's airport is more than adequate for its current 3-5 year metro growth projections (<0). So, unless Andrew Carnegie re-materializes to create another "steel" town, spending a billion $ on an airport that's likely going to be relatively stagnant for the foreseeable future is fiscally irresponsible.

But you avoided the question. Are MCI, MSY, IND, and BNA all being fiscally irresponsible? Because those have or will spend a similar amount; that's a factual observation not grasping at straws. PIT is now growing at a respectable level. Parts of PIT are more than adequate and some are less than adequate but if you are only looking at 3-5 years out you are missing the bigger picture regardless. Which by the way was being formulated long before Amazon issued their RFP for HQ2. This plan has been in the works for a few years now. The powers that be in Southwestern PA are demanding the first and last impression of the city be world class, and its hard to put a dollar amount on that.

Everyone makes some good points about their concerns regarding this project. I just do not see the justification in spending $1B to actually reduce capacity both at the terminal and on the airfield. I think the ACAA needs to look at the past they claim they are trying to forget. The current terminal was built to replace a very aging and antiquated facility that had no possiblity of being expanded. It created additional capacity allowing growth. It also created various cost savings by way of its layout and airfield location. Now granted, a big problem was the primary benefactor of all this was USAir, which was a concerning basket to put all their eggs in. However, it was needed, USAir signed on, and it was built. Ten years later, they lost the hub, primarily due to the costs. Now, I am not agreeing with what USAir did, but their decision was not based on industry consolidation, as was the case in many other hub closures. It was primarily because they could not make the numbers work and had other options that would work.

My point is, the ACAA needs to be very conscious of the cost side of this. This is what the airlines are going to be looking at. Both now and with future service decisions.

Have any airlines come on the record public supporting this project? I am asking because many of the other expansion projects cited in this thread have had public airline support. MCI specifically required a public vote, and SWA publicly and financially supported the lobbying effort.

midway7 wrote:

Everyone makes some good points about their concerns regarding this project. I just do not see the justification in spending $1B to actually reduce capacity both at the terminal and on the airfield. I think the ACAA needs to look at the past they claim they are trying to forget. The current terminal was built to replace a very aging and antiquated facility that had no possiblity of being expanded. It created additional capacity allowing growth. It also created various cost savings by way of its layout and airfield location. Now granted, a big problem was the primary benefactor of all this was USAir, which was a concerning basket to put all their eggs in. However, it was needed, USAir signed on, and it was built. Ten years later, they lost the hub, primarily due to the costs. Now, I am not agreeing with what USAir did, but their decision was not based on industry consolidation, as was the case in many other hub closures. It was primarily because they could not make the numbers work and had other options that would work.

My point is, the ACAA needs to be very conscious of the cost side of this. This is what the airlines are going to be looking at. Both now and with future service decisions.

Have any airlines come on the record public supporting this project? I am asking because many of the other expansion projects cited in this thread have had public airline support. MCI specifically required a public vote, and SWA publicly and financially supported the lobbying effort.

Apparently the airlines are on board with the project, after several months of debating 3 different options. I know currently WN is dissatisfied with the automated baggage delivery system (a carryover from the US hub) between airside and landside...last year they developed an agreement to use it jointly with AA, but have since reverted back to manually hauling bags airside to landside because of the slowness of the system. And because of the distance between airside and landside, that can be a lengthy haul from the ends of the A and B concourses.

The CPE is projected to decrease with the project, due to the the bonds from the construction of the current terminal being paid off next year, and with additional revenue from natural gas drilling on the property.

I was skeptical initially of spending money to decrease capacity, but after reading the master plan, and being realistic of what passenger counts will be over the next 20-25 years, I'm a convert, and excited about the project. The APM is an expensive to maintain and operate, unnecessary pain, between airside and landside...the security queue is congested and cramped, and there is just so much unneeded space throughout the terminal...counters, offices, baggage claims, gates...after the project is complete, the terminal will have 51 gates, which is more than enough since the majority will be CUTE, and be controlled by the airport (I'd venture to say only about 30-40 are currently needed on a daily basis if they were utilized efficiently).

Christine Cassotis (CEO of the ACAA) hasn't done anything so far to make me distrust her judgement...there's still a ways to go with improving west coast service, perhaps non stop service to London, but they're aware of what needs done. If anything, similar to what FlyPIT has stated on the forum, I'm not sure some if the airfield changes (eliminating 10R/28L) are appropriate, but time will tell.

Jshank83 wrote:

PIT in my opinion is usable and in good shape as is, but they are going to pay 1 billion to save 25 million a year or something like that.

You're missing the part about what happens next. PIT is usable as is, yes. The ACAA can go along, spend a hundred million or so (I'd have to look at the document) to fix up the international arrivals flow and make various essential changes, then limp along pouring 25 million per annum into money sinks. THEN the terminals really start to come apart and now you get to spend over $1billion, plus all that money that was spent on the APM and baggage and moving parts, PLUS all those years of a passenger experience that is more complex, time consuming, and aggravating (TSA bottleneck, etc) than it had to be.

Better IMO to spend the money now, close the money sinks, and have a better passenger experience all around.

flyPIT wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

BNA isn't analogous. In Nashville, we have an airport that breaks passenger records virtually every month with a significantly higher O&D percentage than the AA hub for which the terminal complex was designed. And yet, BNA's projects keep 80 percent of the extant landside and airside infrastructure.

PIT also has a significantly higher O&D percentage than the US hub for which the terminal was designed - that's the problem. The O&D percentage at PIT is probably even higher than BNA's because BNA is a hub for WN. Furthermore BNA as it is is a much more convenient airport for the O&D traveler IMHO, yet they are still going to spend over a billion dollars. I'm sure they have done their due diligence; I have seen nothing to suggest PIT has not.

I understand that you are defensive about this, but you need to read what I said more carefully. BNA is keeping the vast majority of its infrastructure despite significant changes in passenger composition and ever increasing passenger counts. There are times during the day when every baggage carousel is in use and some are overtaxed, and BNA is just about out of ticketing space. Totally different.

PITingres wrote:

atypical wrote:

In 1992 the New York Times published "Pittsburgh Builds Airport of Future Now"
In 2017 the Allegheny County Airport Authority responded, "Just Kidding"

One of two things is going on here, neither is good.
1. Allegheny County Airport Authority is so corrupt it is going to saddle the area with another $1 bil to tear down and rebuild half of everything they did in 1992.
2. The 1992 planing was so poor that they the facilities could not rehabilitated and $1 bil is required to demolish and rebuild them so they are sufficient to meet the current requirements. By past performance those paying for these improvements should be prepared to it again in 2045.

I think you're being excessive. The 1992 terminal (planned a decade before, as pointed out by others) was meant to serve mostly connecting traffic. It's too large and too expensive to run for the current traffic, which is 96% O&D and less than half the pre-dehub level, according to the planning document, as opposed to almost half O&D and half connecting in 2004. You simply don't plan for an unexpected de-hub and halving of traffic levels, and had the original planners done so, they would rightly have been labeled a bunch of idiots.

You don't tweak an existing terminal to be efficient for such a complete change in traffic requirements, just like you don't rebuild a semi-truck into a sports car. Thinking that such a thing is possible is being entirely unrealistic.

I don't pretend that the ACAA has run the existing terminal efficiently (I have no inside info one way or the other), and I'm puzzled by a few aspects of the new plan. Overall, though I think it's a decent plan whose time has come. PIT will never be a hub going forward, barring some entirely unforeseen development, and the right thing to do is to build an airport for today's traffic and not yesterday's.

Did you actually read the planning document, or are you just whinging?

Yes, I read it and I also added facts the ACAA declined to mention...

"The airport is adept at slight of hand tricks when discussing the financial situation. The tram for example got finished with an $11 mil modernization in 2016. *flush* The $25 mil a year to operate the tram is not supported in the 2017 budget the airport authority released. Considering the operating budget was $107 mil for the entire airport, to have the tram to take up almost 1/4 the budget makes poor planning just that much more obvious."

Facts are not winging anything. Have I falsely stated something? If not my "slight of hand trick" statement firmly stands. Riddle me this Batman, how should the ACAA be judged when they come with this proposal one year after spending $11 million to modernize the tram? If they are going to tear it up they shouldn't be modernizing. The tram can be kept running dependably without it:

New underframes & interiors: Waste since these components were serviceable, particularly since their proposed future lifespan is limited.
Wiring, lights & air conditioning for trains: More waste without solid documentation they would not last through until the new landside opens.
Refurbished station doors: See above.
New digital dynamic signs on boarding platforms: The old signage wasn't an issue. Certainly NOTHING so wrong that can justify replacing it with digital at this time.
New mechanical & electrical components system-wide: And the ACAA is silent on demonstrating that any of these items is necessary to keep the system operating until the new landside is finished. How convenient.



And this brand new terrazzo floor the airport spent 18 months and $4 million on in 2016 to replace uninspired, dated tile flooring. It's gone. The renderings show a new post security atrium and connections to the airside but that floor is gone. Anyway, the escalators are going which will leave huge blank spots in the 1.5 acre graphic. How is this anything but a waste?


The ACAA is disingenuous about the whole plan. They have thrown away at least $15 mil and is nothing to indicate this plan isn't more down the drain. Until they give a good accounting for that $15 mil in relation to this plan they are just another set of crooks.

atypical wrote:

The tram for example got finished with an $11 mil modernization in 2016. *flush*

Flush? The refurbished trams will need to soldier on for 8 years after they were rebuilt. Hardly a waste. And that's assuming the new terminal will be on time.

atypical wrote:

Riddle me this Batman, how should the ACAA be judged when they come with this proposal one year after spending $11 million to modernize the tram? If they are going to tear it up they shouldn't be modernizing. The tram can be kept running dependably without it:

New underframes & interiors: Waste since these components were serviceable, particularly since their proposed future lifespan is limited.
Wiring, lights & air conditioning for trains: More waste without solid documentation they would not last through until the new landside opens.
Refurbished station doors: See above.
New digital dynamic signs on boarding platforms: The old signage wasn't an issue. Certainly NOTHING so wrong that can justify replacing it with digital at this time.
New mechanical & electrical components system-wide: And the ACAA is silent on demonstrating that any of these items is necessary to keep the system operating until the new landside is finished. How convenient.

This was the first major rehab since the trams were built in 1992.
"The $10 million project is the first major overhaul of the transportation system since the new airport opened in 1992."
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2014/09/25/Delays-expected-at-airport-due-to-work-on-people-mover-trains/stories/201409250315

Do you have any documentation illustrating what components were still good until at least 2023, or are you just speculating without facts with your grocery list above? I'm thinking its the latter. Are you seriously suggesting they should operate for at least 31 years without a major overhaul? How'd that work out for DEN last week, with a system that is not as old as PIT's?

atypical wrote:

And this brand new terrazzo floor the airport spent 18 months and $4 million on in 2016 to replace uninspired, dated tile flooring. It's gone. The renderings show a new post security atrium and connections to the airside but that floor is gone.

No, its not. I assume this is the rendering you speak of:

This is the view from the new security checkpoint, towards the atrium. This entire area is part of the new structure. Pages 262-264 clearly illustrate the location of this area:
http://pittransformed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DRAFT_PIT_MPU_consolidated_2017-10-27_OPTIMIZED.pdf
Location of TSA on page 262
Location of atrium on page 264

Does that mean the new floor will stay? Well we don't know that either. The airside building will be refurbished as part of this plan but we have not seen renderings of the current airside core as of yet. But as of now it is incorrect to state the current floor will be removed and is therefore a waste.

atypical wrote:

The ACAA is disingenuous about the whole plan. They have thrown away at least $15 mil and is nothing to indicate this plan isn't more down the drain. Until they give a good accounting for that $15 mil in relation to this plan they are just another set of crooks.

So of this $15 million $4 million is for the floor and $11 million for the tram. You are clearly incorrect about the floor, and only offer speculation that the tram should be good for at least 31 years without an overhaul. Like I said they will get a good 8 years of use from the overhauled trams so hardly a "waste".


I'd like to reiterate this is only a draft plan. There will be many changes before the final draft is final. Nor do I think it is a perfect plan either - I have major issues with their choice of runway to close as explained previously. But as far as the terminal I think it is the right move. I even warmed up to the idea of having ticketing and baggage claim on the same level.

flyPIT wrote:

atypical wrote:

The tram for example got finished with an $11 mil modernization in 2016. *flush*

Flush? The refurbished trams will need to soldier on for 8 years after they were rebuilt. Hardly a waste. And that's assuming the new terminal will be on time.

atypical wrote:

Riddle me this Batman, how should the ACAA be judged when they come with this proposal one year after spending $11 million to modernize the tram? If they are going to tear it up they shouldn't be modernizing. The tram can be kept running dependably without it:

New underframes & interiors: Waste since these components were serviceable, particularly since their proposed future lifespan is limited.
Wiring, lights & air conditioning for trains: More waste without solid documentation they would not last through until the new landside opens.
Refurbished station doors: See above.
New digital dynamic signs on boarding platforms: The old signage wasn't an issue. Certainly NOTHING so wrong that can justify replacing it with digital at this time.
New mechanical & electrical components system-wide: And the ACAA is silent on demonstrating that any of these items is necessary to keep the system operating until the new landside is finished. How convenient.

This was the first major rehab since the trams were built in 1992.
"The $10 million project is the first major overhaul of the transportation system since the new airport opened in 1992."
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2014/09/25/Delays-expected-at-airport-due-to-work-on-people-mover-trains/stories/201409250315

Do you have any documentation illustrating what components were still good until at least 2023, or are you just speculating without facts with your grocery list above? I'm thinking its the latter. Are you seriously suggesting they should operate for at least 31 years without a major overhaul? How'd that work out for DEN last week, with a system that is not as old as PIT's?

Let’s review. No apparent major maintenance until right around the time they decide to tear out the tram. How is that responsible?

Cubsrule wrote:

Let’s review. No apparent major maintenance until right around the time they decide to tear out the tram. How is that responsible?

1/ Again, the tram won't be torn out until 8 year or so since that work was completed.
2/ The decision that the tram would be torn out was not made when they started that work, but we've already been over that. In fact Ms. Cassotis wasn't even here yet when they started that work.
3/ You are assuming the original trams would have continued to be reliable until at least 2023. The powers that be said a major overhaul was needed in 2014. Until someone comes along with some proof or documentation that shows otherwise I will go with the what was done.

Keeping the current system reliable and safe seems totally responsible to me.

flyPIT wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Let’s review. No apparent major maintenance until right around the time they decide to tear out the tram. How is that responsible?

1/ Again, the tram won't be torn out until 8 year or so since that work was completed.
2/ The decision that the tram would be torn out was not made when they started that work, but we've already been over that. In fact Ms. Cassotis wasn't even here yet when they started that work.
3/ You are assuming the original trams would have continued to be reliable until at least 2023. The powers that be said a major overhaul was needed in 2014. Until someone comes along with some proof or documentation that shows otherwise I will go with the what was done.

Keeping the current system reliable and safe seems totally responsible to me.

No major maintenance for twenty plus years seems safe and responsible to you? Again, I realize that this is personal for you for whatever reason but let’s at least apply some logic.

Cubsrule wrote:

No major maintenance for twenty plus years seems safe and responsible to you? Again, I realize that this is personal for you for whatever reason but let’s at least apply some logic.

Who said there was no maintenance? Of course there was maintenance all throughout 20 years. This however was a complete rebuild by the manufacturer which included the removal of the trams one car at a time. A "D" check for the trams.

As far as taking things personal, not at all but I do find it kind of funny that I am the one supplying the facts, timelines, and links to documents/articles yet I am the one accused of not applying some logic?

flyPIT wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

No major maintenance for twenty plus years seems safe and responsible to you? Again, I realize that this is personal for you for whatever reason but let’s at least apply some logic.

Who said there was no maintenance? Of course there was maintenance all throughout 20 years. This however was a complete rebuild by the manufacturer which included the removal of the trams one car at a time. A "D" check for the trams.

As far as taking things personal, not at all but I do find it kind of funny that I am the one supplying the facts, timelines, and links to documents/articles yet I am the one accused of not applying some logic?

We're saying the same thing. PIT didn't "D check" the tram for twenty plus years and then wonders why it is a money pit.

If ACAA had been better managed for the last 30 years, the picture would be a lot different today. Heck, Pittsburgh might still have a hub.

Cubsrule wrote:

We're saying the same thing. PIT didn't "D check" the tram for twenty plus years and then wonders why it is a money pit.

If ACAA had been better managed for the last 30 years, the picture would be a lot different today. Heck, Pittsburgh might still have a hub.

No doubt the ACAA had been mismanaged for the past 30 years, specifically interference from the Allegheny County gov't. For example the prior County Exec wanted to use PIT's gas drilling royalties for the County's general fund when this was clearly not allowed per federal guidelines. This delayed the gas drilling at PIT by a few years. That's just one example. You mention the US hub, and I would add losing British Airways as well in 1999. While revenue guarantees were not the industry standard as they are now I think something could have been put together to keep them.

I just don't think all the failings of the prior administrations should be held against the current team who are showing positive results at the airport.

flyPIT wrote:

[
IND: I've been to the old terminal plenty of times; I thought the aesthetics were adequate and there was enough room to double the gates, landside portion, and covered parking if they needed to. Yet they went ahead with a new facility anyway.

The new terminal at IND was completely justified, for sooo many reasons. Also, to your point about doubling gates, the terminal design was flawed to begin with anyway, so even if you could double the gates it would be foolish to invest more money into a flawed terminal.

flyPIT wrote:

Do you have any documentation illustrating what components were still good until at least 2023, or are you just speculating without facts with your grocery list above? I'm thinking its the latter. Are you seriously suggesting they should operate for at least 31 years without a major overhaul? How'd that work out for DEN last week, with a system that is not as old as PIT's?

Does that mean the new floor will stay? Well we don't know that either. The airside building will be refurbished as part of this plan but we have not seen renderings of the current airside core as of yet. But as of now it is incorrect to state the current floor will be removed and is therefore a waste.

This goes back to the AACA not doing their job. It isn't my responsibility to hunt down what they should be disclosing. And yeah, I am damn sure the "New digital dynamic signs on boarding platforms" is unnecessary.

Until the AACA does their jobs making the disclosures on how the recent projects are justified with the new plans they are suspect. That floor is not shown in any renderings plus it will have huge gaps where the current escalators are. Terrazzo is not a material that can be patched or be made with separate pours. Good luck getting dye lots right too. The only thing they can do is put down a thin metal separator and pour where the the escalators are once the floor gets installed and then make a new pour in that area. It will look like crap and that artistic floor will no longer be artistic (unless the airport is willing to pay a hefty sum and that is assuming it can be done). So whether they use it or not that $4 mil was wasted. The only way it isn't a waste is if it is done AFTER they build the new landside. And if the stores are not going to be there any longer it will cost more and more to rectify.



No matter how it get's cut its malfeasance. There is no way to give the AACA a pass unless a blind eye is turned to a lot of things. Until they make a disclosure there are far too many legitimate questions that require answers. Until the AACA comes clean it is not unwise to assume that they are dishonest, incompetent, or both. They have done nothing to earn trust of $1 bil taxpayer dollars (bonds will be sold and the taxpayer is going to be responsible if the AACA cannot make payments) on a project they could already be screwing up.

atypical wrote:

It isn't my responsibility to hunt down what they should be disclosing.

If you insist the documentation and cost/benefit information the ACAA has put out is fraudulent and deceitful, then actually the onus IS on you to prove otherwise. Short of that all you can offer is pointless babble.

atypical wrote:

And yeah, I am damn sure the "New digital dynamic signs on boarding platforms" is unnecessary.

Lol and how much did they cost in the grand scheme of things? Its called updating and every airport does it. I guess we could go back to using these too:

atypical wrote:

Until the AACA does their jobs making the disclosures on how the recent projects are justified with the new plans they are suspect.

500+ page draft, dedicated website, public meetings, etc. How are they not disclosing this project's justification?

What's it like going through life being so cynical?

atypical wrote:

That floor is not shown in any renderings plus it will have huge gaps where the current escalators are. Terrazzo is not a material that can be patched or be made with separate pours. Good luck getting dye lots right too. The only thing they can do is put down a thin metal separator and pour where the the escalators are once the floor gets installed and then make a new pour in that area. It will look like crap and that artistic floor will no longer be artistic (unless the airport is willing to pay a hefty sum and that is assuming it can be done). So whether they use it or not that $4 mil was wasted. The only way it isn't a waste is if it is done AFTER they build the new landside. And if the stores are not going to be there any longer it will cost more and more to rectify.

Of course there are gaps where the escalators are. That's where the new building will meet the old and obviously that hole will need to be filled in. Terrazzo can't be done with separate pours? Odd, because that is exactly how they did the new floor. I watched them do it in sections on an almost bi-weekly basis. It looks great, and the fact the outer edges are tan will make it easier to mate with the lighter tone of the new building's floor shown in the renderings.

atypical wrote:

No matter how it get's cut its malfeasance. There is no way to give the AACA a pass unless a blind eye is turned to a lot of things. Until they make a disclosure there are far too many legitimate questions that require answers. Until the AACA comes clean it is not unwise to assume that they are dishonest, incompetent, or both.

atypical wrote:

They have done nothing to earn trust of $1 bil taxpayer dollars (bonds will be sold and the taxpayer is going to be responsible if the AACA cannot make payments) on a project they could already be screwing up.

Again, this will not be taxpayer funded. The only way this gets a taxpayer bailout is if the ACAA declares bankruptcy and defaults on those bonds. It didn't happen when US bailed, and certainly won't happen now.

flyPIT wrote:

atypical wrote:

I'd like to reiterate this is only a draft plan. There will be many changes before the final draft is final. Nor do I think it is a perfect plan either - I have major issues with their choice of runway to close as explained previously. But as far as the terminal I think it is the right move. I even warmed up to the idea of having ticketing and baggage claim on the same level.

100% agree, but for a draft plan, its a poor draft, especially in the air service analysis part, using 2014 analysis to inform future projections (showing decrease in traffic), when I am sure in 2 years that numbers have changed drastically (gone up a bit I'm guessing).

How much will this matter? Probably not much, but it also makes you stop and think for a minute about what is going on, and did they use this to inform the runway closure maybe?

I'm sure I'm a bit out there with my thoughts, but It just weird me out.

flypit - it is understood that the plan is not taxpayer funded. However, with the current terminal, while taxpayers did not have to bail it out directly, one could easily argue that taxpayers paid a heavy price with the loss of the hub, jobs, economic effect on the area. In reality, the taxpayer finds themselves financially impacted under most negative scenarios. This is one reason why people need to start looking at these types of projects, being touted by public officials, but backed by John Q taxpayer.

Once again, the current terminal, in light of the existing facilities in the 1980's made absolute sense. However, even with full USAir hub support and a 30 year lease, the hub still fell apart due to costs. This new proposal, to spend $1B to actually reduce capacity both on the airfield and with terminal facilities just does not add up. Is there full airline support? Is this support in the form of a reaffirmed and signed lease for the bond repayment period? I am not saying the airlines should make this decision, but they should have a strong say be committed as part of the process.

The plans as initially proposed would be a big improvement over the current facilities. It would be a great gateway for the world to arrive and depart from western PA. I hate throwing cold water on this whole deal, but not as much as I would hate to see PIT stuck with another white elephant saddled with costs that no one is willing or able to work with.

flyPIT wrote:

If you insist the documentation and cost/benefit information the ACAA has put out is fraudulent and deceitful, then actually the onus IS on you to prove otherwise. Short of that all you can offer is pointless babble.

I never insisted anything of the sort. You are taking liberties with my statements by discarding the salient and injecting words that are not mine. I have not done this to you but I am more than happy to end any discussion with you if you continue such tactics. I have not and will not treat you in such a ill manner and if you are unable to be civil then we have nothing further to discuss.

That being said I am going to quote myself because I have already defined my stance and it has not changed:

"Until the ACAA does their jobs making the disclosures on how the recent projects are justified with the new plans they are suspect."

This is information that the public deserves to know. This disclosure of information directly reflects on ACAA competence and/or honesty. I have raised many points that indicate potential issues with ACAA. The ACAA certainly might have solid justification for authorizing such projects but the public deserves that information. If the management has failed their duties (which I believe is the case) in the past the public needs to be afforded that information so that measures can be taken prior to further mistakes.

flyPIT wrote:

Lol and how much did they cost in the grand scheme of things? Its called updating and every airport does it. I guess we could go back to using these too:

I have made it clear the tram modernization is not the central issue but it's the ACAA management of projects. Say the signage wasn't needed to maintain the tram system effectively through the anticipated remaining useful life. Say it only is $50,000 of the $11,000,000 project and no one is going to be concerned with such a small mistake. If it was only $50,000 I certainly wouldn't care. If it was flawed oversight by ACAA that caused the issue that same flawed oversight would equate to $4,500,000 on a $1,000,000,000 project. I don't think many people would Lol that and this is information the public deserves to know. This is the disclosure I spoke of earlier.

flyPIT wrote:

atypical wrote:

Until the AACA does their jobs making the disclosures on how the recent projects are justified with the new plans they are suspect.

500+ page draft, dedicated website, public meetings, etc. How are they not disclosing this project's justification?

Please point me to the document and sections where the terrazzo floor and tram modernization projects are integrated into the new renovation. This is the disclosure I stated in the quote above. If it is there and I missed it I have no problem talking the blame for not being properly informed and making false statements.

flyPIT wrote:

atypical wrote:

The only thing they can do is put down a thin metal separator and pour where the the escalators are once the floor gets installed and then make a new pour in that area.

Of course there are gaps where the escalators are. That's where the new building will meet the old and obviously that hole will need to be filled in. Terrazzo can't be done with separate pours? Odd, because that is exactly how they did the new floor. I watched them do it in sections on an almost bi-weekly basis. It looks great, and the fact the outer edges are tan will make it easier to mate with the lighter tone of the new building's floor shown in the renderings.

Terrazzo is done in one pour. It can't be poured at multiple times because that will create a seam, cracking, and eventual loss of material at the joint. As I said above, new Terrazzo pours require a metal separator because pours never directly abut each other. Large Terrazzo projects are not usually a single floor but multiple floors created separately.

flyPIT wrote:

Again, this will not be taxpayer funded. The only way this gets a taxpayer bailout is if the ACAA declares bankruptcy and defaults on those bonds. It didn't happen when US bailed, and certainly won't happen now.

I was specific on the local taxpayer liability as only the guarantor. Municipal bonds (state and local governments, agencies, or public utilities) defaults are not unusual. On average, a municipal bond is defaulted on about every year and a half.

The ACAA statement, "The the new landside building wouldn't include the use of taxpayer dollars" is a blatant lie. The ACAA has stated they intend to apply for grants from the AIP program and all those funds are derived from taxes.

midway7 wrote:

flypit - it is understood that the plan is not taxpayer funded. However, with the current terminal, while taxpayers did not have to bail it out directly, one could easily argue that taxpayers paid a heavy price with the loss of the hub, jobs, economic effect on the area. In reality, the taxpayer finds themselves financially impacted under most negative scenarios. This is one reason why people need to start looking at these types of projects, being touted by public officials, but backed by John Q taxpayer.

That could be said about any large business going out of business. Does that mean we should stop building and improving infrastructure? Absolutely people should look at these projects. Read the material, go to the presentations, ask questions, etc. No one is saying they shouldn't.

midway7 wrote:

Once again, the current terminal, in light of the existing facilities in the 1980's made absolute sense. However, even with full USAir hub support and a 30 year lease, the hub still fell apart due to costs. This new proposal, to spend $1B to actually reduce capacity both on the airfield and with terminal facilities just does not add up. Is there full airline support? Is this support in the form of a reaffirmed and signed lease for the bond repayment period? I am not saying the airlines should make this decision, but they should have a strong say be committed as part of the process.

It has been said the airlines are being supportive and have been involved in the process and yes there will still be leases going forward. The only way the taxpayer is on the hook for this is if the airlines all leave PIT. Passenger traffic is increasing and costs will continue to decrease so that scenario will not play out. There are many reasons the US hub at PIT fell apart; costs at PIT were only one item.

The part about reducing capacity is such a small part of this plan. The new terminal at MSY and MCI will be smaller than the old ones so its not unheard of.

atypical wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

If you insist the documentation and cost/benefit information the ACAA has put out is fraudulent and deceitful, then actually the onus IS on you to prove otherwise. Short of that all you can offer is pointless babble.

I never insisted anything of the sort. You are taking liberties with my statements by discarding the salient and injecting words that are not mine.

Oh really? These are your words, are they not?

atypical wrote:

In fact that if this is true, then it is so fiducially irresponsible that the Allegheny County Airport Authority engaged in fraud.

atypical wrote:

The airport is adept at slight of hand tricks when discussing the financial situation.

atypical wrote:

The ACAA is disingenuous about the whole plan.

atypical wrote:

Until the AACA does their jobs making the disclosures on how the recent projects are justified with the new plans they are suspect.

atypical wrote:

Say the signage wasn't needed to maintain the tram system effectively through the anticipated remaining useful life. Say it only is $50,000 of the $11,000,000 project and no one is going to be concerned with such a small mistake. If it was only $50,000 I certainly wouldn't care. If it was flawed oversight by ACAA that caused the issue that same flawed oversight would equate to $4,500,000 on a $1,000,000,000 project. I don't think many people would Lol that and this is information the public deserves to know. This is the disclosure I spoke of earlier.

Why are you linking the signage to the maintenance of the tram system? Why aren't we saying the signage was part of the airport's ongoing updates to keep the facility fresh and modern, which again was done before this future plan and will have a good 8 years or so of useful life? For someone who is complaining about disclosure you sure are making a lot of assumptions in your posts. Then to springboard from that to this $4,500,000 figure you pulled out of nowhere, then to jump from that fictional figure and state the oversight from the ACAA is flawed. I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time here.

atypical wrote:

Please point me to the document and sections where the terrazzo floor and tram modernization projects are integrated into the new renovation.

Why should there even be a document about the tram overhaul being integrated into the new renovated terminal when the tram will not be integrated in to the new renovated terminal? As already explained, the tram overhaul was a separate project at a different time which needed to be done to continue the safe and reliable service of the tram. If you feel that work did not need to be done in 2014 then the onus is on you to show otherwise. Still waiting.

atypical wrote:

It can't be poured at multiple times because that will create a seam, cracking, and eventual loss of material at the joint. As I said above, new Terrazzo pours require a metal separator because pours never directly abut each other.

Have you even seen the new floor? It has those little metal separators all over! AGAIN, it was done in sections over the course of a year. Look at your own diagram. If they had to poor the whole thing at once they would have had to close the entire airside core, which in turn would have shut down the whole airport. Some pics where you can see the separators if you zoom in:

http://www.post-gazette.com/image/2015/ ... ocal01.jpg

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnew ... 1200%2C960

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P65HDILAqdU

atypical wrote:

Large Terrazzo projects are not usually a single floor but multiple floors created separately.

Thank you!

Why are you even talking about the floor still? You assumed incorrectly from a rendering that it will be removed, then you assumed incorrectly again that it cannot be meshed together with a new floor where the escalators are.

atypical wrote:

The ACAA statement, "The the new landside building wouldn't include the use of taxpayer dollars" is a blatant lie. The ACAA has stated they intend to apply for grants from the AIP program and all those funds are derived from taxes

The AIP program is funded by the FAA's Airport and Airway Trust Fund which in turn is funded by excise taxes on airline tickets, fuel surcharges, etc. In other words the users of the system are paying for it, not taxpayers in the traditional sense from a general fund.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

atypical wrote:

...I am going to quote myself because I have already defined my stance and it has not changed:

"Until the ACAA does their jobs making the disclosures on how the recent projects are justified with the new plans they are suspect."

This is information that the public deserves to know. This disclosure of information directly reflects on ACAA competence and/or honesty. I have raised many points that indicate potential issues with ACAA. The ACAA certainly might have solid justification for authorizing such projects but the public deserves that information. If the management has failed their duties (which I believe is the case) in the past the public needs to be afforded that information so that measures can be taken prior to further mistakes.

There's a public planning document, there were and will continue to be public meetings, there have been talks with the airlines, there have been press releases. If that's not enough disclosure and justification for you, then I'd have to say you're not a defender of the public interest, you're just on a witch-hunt or troll roll.

There is no need for the current ACAA staff and management to engage in a breast-beating display blaming past management, which is what you seem to be after. Avoiding past mistakes is one thing, wasting time on a blame game is a different and non-constructive thing.

This is making my ass hurt as a Pittsburgh native (now a DC transplant), but it doesn't surprise me in the least Allegheny Co, and the commonwealth have a deep history of being in bed with corruption and "family" business when it comes to capital improvement and public infrastructure projects. I really have little faith ACAA does not have any backdoor shenanigans going on with this "right-sizing" project. Just hearing this reminds me of the back door dealings and incompetence with I-79 reconstruction project between the WVA boarder and Washington at I-70 interchange back in the 90's.

This arguing is so tired at this point. The terminal is going forwards, and all the bitching in here isn't going to stop it. It's obvious that some of you have some strange axes to grind that you're holding onto from the past. I think a fresh start to the building will help Pittsburghers finally put to rest any old feelings carried over from the USAir hub days. It's a much needed psychological reset for the region. And as someone who uses the airport almost every week, I am looking forward to the improvements. Can we all agree to disagree here and move on? No need to keep talking in circles.

flyPIT wrote:

atypical wrote:

I never insisted anything of the sort. You are taking liberties with my statements by discarding the salient and injecting words that are not mine.

Oh really? These are your words, are they not?

atypical wrote:

In fact that if this is true, then it is so fiducially irresponsible that the Allegheny County Airport Authority engaged in fraud.

atypical wrote:

The airport is adept at slight of hand tricks when discussing the financial situation.

atypical wrote:

The ACAA is disingenuous about the whole plan.

atypical wrote:

Until the AACA does their jobs making the disclosures on how the recent projects are justified with the new plans they are suspect.

Excellent job of quoting me but none of those quotes mean that I "insist the documentation and cost/benefit information the ACAA has put out is fraudulent and deceitful" without some truly creative interpretation.

flyPIT wrote:

Why are you linking the signage to the maintenance of the tram system?

From http://www.airportimprovement.com/artic ... ain-system

"Project Elements: New underframes & interiors (wiring, lights & air conditioning) for trains; refurbished station doors; new digital dynamic signs on boarding platforms; new mechanical & electrical components system-wide"

flyPIT wrote:

For someone who is complaining about disclosure you sure are making a lot of assumptions in your posts. Then to springboard from that to this $4,500,000 figure you pulled out of nowhere, then to jump from that fictional figure and state the oversight from the ACAA is flawed. I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time here.

I apologize for not including my Fourier Series transform showing how the equivalence of $4,500,000 to $1,000,000,000 is the same as $50,000 to $11,000,000.

flyPIT wrote:

atypical wrote:

The ACAA statement, "The the new landside building wouldn't include the use of taxpayer dollars" is a blatant lie. The ACAA has stated they intend to apply for grants from the AIP program and all those funds are derived from taxes

The AIP program is funded by the FAA's Airport and Airway Trust Fund which in turn is funded by excise taxes...

With precision you have shown exactly why that statement is a lie.

New video:
http://pittransformed.com/industry-day-online-presentation/

Architectural firm will be selected in May.
http://www.flypittsburgh.com/newsroom/news-releases/airport-authority-issues-rfq-for-architectural-and

Apologies if this thought was already introduced, but would it have made sense to keep the old terminal, and keep short to medium term costs a little lower by offering a sweetheart deal to an airline that might really benefit from a cheap eastern-ish hub, say Alaska?

They could keep maintenance costs at or lower what they would be anyway, alaska gets to develop their network east of the mississippi well below market cost, and then later they negotiate a more mutually beneficial deal.

If Alaska's at all exploring non-merger expansion, cant think of anywhere else they'd receive a comparable deal (except maybe stl?). Seems like there could be a lot of natural alignment for something like that...

[quote="flyPIT"]

Playing devil's advocate:
STL: Terminal 1 landside is too small, airside too many gates. Parking garage too small. Like you said situation like PIT. The difference is PIT is planning to do something about it while STL keeps putting lipstick on a pig. Why? Perhaps the debt from STL's $1 billion runway has something to do with it.[quote]

Actually I find Terminal 2's landside to be too small for the ops WN is running through there, there always seem to be crowds at the counters and a healthy number of people waiting in the security lines. Not so much in T1 as in the past. Maybe its just me and I usually depart STL before 9am. And yes, the runway debt is still an issue regarding funding. In a perfect situation Concourses A & C would have been turned into one long two sided concourse with a large central security processing area in the central core about where part of B is now. PIT has a much more spacious set up to work with as opposed to STL, or CLE for that matter.

AaronPGH wrote:

This arguing is so tired at this point. The terminal is going forwards, and all the bitching in here isn't going to stop it. It's obvious that some of you have some strange axes to grind that you're holding onto from the past. I think a fresh start to the building will help Pittsburghers finally put to rest any old feelings carried over from the USAir hub days. It's a much needed psychological reset for the region. And as someone who uses the airport almost every week, I am looking forward to the improvements. Can we all agree to disagree here and move on? No need to keep talking in circles.

I can swear most Pittsburgher's say this EVERYTIME we tear something that's still somewhat new down, whether's it's an airport, a stadium or a highway (cough, I-79/279, I-70, PA Turnpike, US-22). I'm still amazed that the inclines, subway/trolley still run by the way we tear things down.

flyPIT wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

STL: Situation most like PIT's. Closed Concourse B and the end of C; far end of Concourse D are now E gates for Southwest. No demolition of existing facilities; much older terminal on the whole. Low-ish costs.

MEM: Demolishing Concourses A and C; and remodeling Concourse B. That whole facility is old and paid for, and these changes shouldn't increase costs significantly or at all.

CLE: Shuttered Concourse D, no other big changes, though C was renovated just before United left. It was also the hub that was least oversized compared to the local market.

CVG: Consolidated existing operations from two other very old, decrepid terminals into Concourse A, which Delta left. Demolished the relatively cheap regional Concourse C (Comair hub).

Playing devil's advocate:
STL: Terminal 1 landside is too small, airside too many gates. Parking garage too small. Like you said situation like PIT. The difference is PIT is planning to do something about it while STL keeps putting lipstick on a pig. Why? Perhaps the debt from STL's $1 billion runway has something to do with it.

MEM: So that will be some major work at MEM; doesn't that validate what PIT is doing?

CLE: Like STL they keep putting lipstick on a pig. I don't think that's an example for PIT to follow. Plus CLE is also saddled with debt.

CVG: Same vintage terminal as PIT but IMHO has aged much better and whats left is much better suited for an O&D operation than PIT. They are taking on their own projects such as consolidated rental car garage to address their shortcomings.

Lets look at some others:
BNA: A very nice airport as is IMHO, yet they are planning $1.2 billion in improvements.

IND: I've been to the old terminal plenty of times; I thought the aesthetics were adequate and there was enough room to double the gates, landside portion, and covered parking if they needed to. Yet they went ahead with a new facility anyway.

MSY: similar to IND.


At PIT annual costs and inconvenience of the people mover, slow baggage claim, poor int'l arrivals experience, and deficiencies with the garage are sited as major factors in their decision. Not all of the airports above have all of those issues.

How about PIT just.... Fix those problems? No need to start from scratch. Over-spend just because others have? Really??

Ord786 wrote:

Apologies if this thought was already introduced, but would it have made sense to keep the old terminal, and keep short to medium term costs a little lower by offering a sweetheart deal to an airline that might really benefit from a cheap eastern-ish hub, say Alaska?

They could keep maintenance costs at or lower what they would be anyway, alaska gets to develop their network east of the mississippi well below market cost, and then later they negotiate a more mutually beneficial deal.

If Alaska's at all exploring non-merger expansion, cant think of anywhere else they'd receive a comparable deal (except maybe stl?). Seems like there could be a lot of natural alignment for something like that...

By "keep the old terminal," are you referring to the one used from 1952 to 1992 and torn down in 1999/2000? I wondered that myself, only for someone to respond saying it was a dungeon. There was just no way of expanding it any further as it would have meant axing the cross runway.

GSPSPOT wrote:

How about PIT just.... Fix those problems? No need to start from scratch. Over-spend just because others have? Really??

Just fixing the problems is what the new setup does. Otherwise you're simply polishing a turd. I for one have no interest in dealing with undersized / non expandable TSA areas, train rides, baggage delays, etc going forward indefinitely. If money is to be spent, it might as well be spent making the airport into an O&D airport, since that's what it is likely to remain for the foreseeable future.

Ord786 wrote:

Apologies if this thought was already introduced, but would it have made sense to keep the old terminal, and keep short to medium term costs a little lower by offering a sweetheart deal to an airline that might really benefit from a cheap eastern-ish hub, say Alaska?

They could keep maintenance costs at or lower what they would be anyway, alaska gets to develop their network east of the mississippi well below market cost, and then later they negotiate a more mutually beneficial deal.

If Alaska's at all exploring non-merger expansion, cant think of anywhere else they'd receive a comparable deal (except maybe stl?). Seems like there could be a lot of natural alignment for something like that...

If you mean the 1952 terminal, that would have been impossible because USAir would not commit to the 1992 terminal unless it was agreed to that the 1952 terminal would not see airline use by the competition.

If you mean the 1992 terminal, there would be space for AS to still do this, although costs would be higher with the rebuild. But those costs would come right back down if someone commits to a hub. But its a highly hypothetical scenario anyway. AS hasn't even started their single daily flight yet, and they don't need an eastern hub.

Blimpie wrote:

I can swear most Pittsburgher's say this EVERYTIME we tear something that's still somewhat new down, whether's it's an airport, a stadium or a highway (cough, I-79/279, I-70, PA Turnpike, US-22). I'm still amazed that the inclines, subway/trolley still run by the way we tear things down.

Perhaps if Pittsburgh built things correct the first time it would not be a problem. You're examples of Three Rivers Stadium and the highways are perfect examples. The streetcar system was torn down for the most part however and what a shame that was. It was such an expansive network that rivlled those in many European cities and would be such a novelty today for a US city.

GSPSPOT wrote:

How about PIT just.... Fix those problems? No need to start from scratch. Over-spend just because others have? Really??

Isn't fixing those problems what they are doing? They are building a new headhouse and garage. The airside terminal and existing garage stay so its hardly starting from scratch.

It's pretty clear that PIT needs to be reconfigured from a connecting hub to a right-sized O&D oriented airport. Having two completely separated terminal structures linked with the APM is very inefficient from an O&D point of view, consolidating everything around a larger terminal makes sense. In that sense, the plan goes in the right direction, but I wonder if they are not going a bit too far with the downsizing, and shutting out future options...

Demolishing a runway - and the wrong one on top of that, is clearly a mistake. Once a runway is gone, it is gone forever, as bringing it back is a political nightmare due to NIMBYs etc.
PIT does not need more than 2 independent parallel runways in the mid-term, but why not just mothball one and paint it over in green with white Xes or something. Why demolish it (which is quite expensive by the way)?
Plus, as has been pointed out, it's the wrong runway to eliminate, as 28C has conflicts with operations on 32 and would in the best case mean inefficient operations, and in the worst mean runway incursions.

For those not familiar, here is an airport diagram with the taxiway designators I mentioned:

Very nice analysis on runway ops, thanks.

The PIT master plan study included development potential of the land currently occupied by whatever runway they chose to close in their cost/benefit analysis.

Another shot in the foot - giving up valuable airside space for non-aviation development that could be built in a million other places. And basing your cost-benefit analysis on that a flawed reasoning.

And another thing: the master plan explicitly rejects any provisions for a mass transit link - whether light rail, BRT or other. While I don't think it needs to be built yet, it costs nothing to leave a space provision for it and keep the option open, rather than ruling it out already in the basic design and making any future change much more expensive.

I'm totally OK with spending 1 billion to "do it right" instead of minor patchwork fixes, but for a reconstruction that seems to limit future options...?

r2rho wrote:

.

The PIT master plan study included development potential of the land currently occupied by whatever runway they chose to close in their cost/benefit analysis.

Another shot in the foot - giving up valuable airside space for non-aviation development that could be built in a million other places. And basing your cost-benefit analysis on that a flawed reasoning.

This has been my biggest pet peeve about the ACAA for many years now. There is plenty of land to accommodate all the non aviation related development in areas that do not occupy prime land for future runways, cargo, hangars, FBO, etc. The placement of the Dick's Sporting Goods headquarters is the most egregious example. That complex is huge and could have been built west of I-376.

Look at the extremes GSO has gone through to acquire and open up land to have airfield access. Not only did they buy hundreds of acres for future aviation related use...... ("Area 1" in green)......



.....but they even spent about $200 million on a taxiway bridge over a highway which did not even exist for a taxiway to access this empty land.










All of that acquired and built on the speculation that aviation related industries requiring airfield access will set up shop in GSO. And GSO has been very successful in that area over the decades with TIMCO/HAECO, Honda Jet, FedEx setting up major facilities.

Here in Pittsburgh we already have all that airside land without the need to build expensive taxiway bridges, yet they just give it away to non-aviation organizations that can set up shop a mile down the road. Drives me crazy.

Draft Environmental Assessment is now available. Plenty of diagrams and maps.
http://pittransformed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PIT_TMP_Draft_Environmental_Assessment_20180226.pdf

Final Environmental Assessment became available last month:
http://pittransformed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/PIT_TMP_Final_Environmental_Assessment_20180524.pdf

I only skimmed over it for now, but I did notice the word "demolition" regarding the landside terminal. Initially the building was to be demolished or re-purposed.
Also, there will be no direct pedestrian access from the terminal to the current long term parking lots or the Hyatt. That seems pretty stupid to me, especially considering one of the nation's longest suburban trails (the 47 mile Montour Trail) ends at the airport's long term parking lot. Hopefully that will change.

I just hope that RiteAid stays and keeps those scissors they sell available lol.

Did they update the air service figures in the draft (I'm guessing now final) Master Plan? Curious to see if they tell the whole story now.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

Did they update the air service figures in the draft (I'm guessing now final) Master Plan? Curious to see if they tell the whole story now.

Only the Draft Master Plan has been released. The master plan is a different process and document than what I posted above. I'm sure the final master plan document will have updated projections.