49 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

 

2) almost 500,000 flights in 2000...

 

 

Dude--where do you get your numbers? You counting flights that fly over the airports that are handled for one reason or another by the local tower?

 

Air Carrier + Air taxi + General Aviation + Military--for flights from place to place (not arriving and landing at same airport---so excluding, e.g., flight school operations):

 

2000

CLE - 324,111

BKL - 20,564   (11,371 in 2018)

CGF - 22,579  (8,532  in 2018)

Total - 367,254

 

Hopkins is lower now, yes. But the average aircraft is larger. CO loved the ERJ's at their CLE hub....those are mostly phased out by US carriers.

 

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Pugu

5 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I feel like adding an attraction like Navy Pier in Chicago on a closed BKL would be a nice way to reuse the land. Adds activity over there and becomes a destination.

 

I think adding an updated passenger terminal at BKL would be a nice way to improve the airport.

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

 

Dude--where do you get your numbers? You counting flights that fly over the airports that are handled for one reason or another by the local tower?

 

Air Carrier + Air taxi + General Aviation + Military--for flights from place to place (not arriving and landing at same airport---so excluding, e.g., flight school operations):

 

2000

CLE - 324,111

BKL - 20,564   (11,371 in 2018)

CGF - 22,579  (8,532  in 2018)

Total - 367,254

 

Hopkins is lower now, yes. But the average aircraft is larger. CO loved the ERJ's at their CLE hub....those are mostly phased out by US carriers.

 

Here dude: . “According to ATADS, Hopkins had 331,899 operations in 2000 and 122,392 in 2017. The Cuyahoga County Airport dropped from 65,177 to 20,106 in that same period. To put it another way, the three airports in Cuyahoga County had 497,397 takeoffs and landings in 2000 and 181,069 in 2017.” 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.clevescene.com/cleveland/lies-damn-lies-and-the-450-acres-of-prime-lakefront-real-estate-that-is-burke-lakefront-airport/Content%3foid=16931820&media=AMP%2bHTML

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

 

I think adding an updated passenger terminal at BKL would be a nice way to improve the airport.

We’d never recover those costs. $50 million for a new terminal losing another $35 mil (at least, may be double that) in ten years. Let’s cut our losses. 

 

This is is a unique opportunity available only to Cleveland. No other city has this much lakefront property waiting on the bench. It’s the fourth quarter.

Edited July 14, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

28 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

We’d never recover those costs. $50 million for a new terminal losing another $35 mil (at least, may be double that) in ten years. Let’s cut our losses. 

 

This is is a unique opportunity available only to Cleveland. No other city has this much lakefront property waiting on the bench. It’s the fourth quarter.

 

 

As someone already mentioned up-thread, there is a Burke Lakefront Airport thread where all of this discussion belongs and this exact discussion has happened over and over.  It's  not new.  Please post there.  Mods, can this entire discussion be moved please?

5 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

 

1) Cleveland is failing compared to other cities. We are losing population while other cities are growing. We can agree this is a problem.

2) almost 500,000 flights in 2000, 187,000 flights in 2017, 3 airports, city loses $2 million at Burke with revenues dropping. We can agree that this is a problem, at least for the city. What is the benefit from losing this public money and for who? 

3) incentivize moves to cut future costs. 

4) users would move with services

5) the FAA does close airports if they are not needed. There is a lengthy process and we will need Congressmen on down on the same page. It may be a waste of time to even try.

  

Again, the problem is that the flight path of Burke limits any development north of Route 2. Not that we would instantly develop the land Burke sits on but the land north of downtown would have less restrictions on it and become more attractive to developers. Who wants to live in a condo next to a runway when planes are most at risk of crashing? Even if Burke was left as a nature preserve—btw it is half the size of Central Park in NYC—we would still make the lakefront more useable by just closing it.  Hopkins seems capable of handling at least double the traffic that it is now so why not cut costs as we shrink and try to engineer a comeback. Part of that comeback means making Cleveland a place people want to live. We have been doing something wrong, the status quo will be our demise.

 

 

Can we build on the acres and acres of lakefront land that we already have available first? This is such a silly argument when the parts of the lakefront that are freely available to develop on are still underused. Use what you got first

14 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

I do. The high rises would most likely sit north of downtown but can’t happen because of the Burke flight path. Burke itself is best used as a park/row houses built around extended Blue Line. The flight path is the real oppressor, not so much land use. It’s all in that study.

 

Where are you putting these high rises?  In the lake on new landfill?   Take a look at the runway centerlines for Burke.  There isn't much land they are covering!   Since First Energy Stadium is already very close to the centerline of 6R (mainly used for small general aviation planes), you could probably build high rises on that same line.   But where?  On the 3 Port of Cleveland docks there?   Anything to the South of that probably wouldn't be subject to many height restrictions.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, jbdad2 said:

Lets stop kidding ourselves that Hopkins needs relief.  CLE isn't LAX, SFO, ORD, ATL, MIA.  I agree it's nice to have, but it's NOT NEEDED.   If BKL was shut down tomorrow the Cleveland Clinic would quickly redirect its flights to Hopkins or Richmond Heights (helicopter transfers for urgent cases), flights schools could be easily relocated, and private users would quickly adjust.  And a bona fide financial argument for keeping BKL doesn't exist. 

 

So we can make hypothetical arguments to support the FAA, the city, the county and all of the other BKL defenders, but Cleveland's lakefront is being held captive by a shrinking minority and, from what I can tell, a growing majority would like to take it back.   

 

This is where I think the city of Cleveland fails miserably.   

 

We are a rustbelt city with continually shrinking population and declining economic power.   We are trying to remake ourselves into a healthcare/tech hub while holding on to a shred of our manufacturing past.   Our youth continue to leave for the coasts and sunbelt and their booming cities.  

 

Despite this, one thing we have that MOST of these other cities do not?   A functional airport capable of handling mainline aircraft IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT!  

I'd love to see what the City of Cleveland does to pitch this to businesses, but my guess is nothing.   Out at County Airport there are dozens of aviation related businesses on the field.  At Burke, there is a couple--and the city maintains the old Aviation High School to store a police helicopter and other city equipment.   

 

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

....Despite this, one thing we have that MOST of these other cities do not?   A functional airport capable of handling mainline aircraft IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT!  ......

......At Burke, there is a couple--and the city maintains the old Aviation High School to store a police helicopter and other city equipment.   

 

 

 

 

 

I agree. We must leverage this fact that we have this airport---as it really sets us apart from other cities---and use it to help us grow.

 

Regarding the high school, Aviation H.S. is back in business!  It is not currently in the original building at the moment. It is across the Shoreway right now at 14th &  Lakeside. Its a CMSD school.  Also, it expanded its curriculum--and it now teaches maritime subjects in addition to aviation.  Here's the new website:  http://davisam.org/

7 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Can we build on the acres and acres of lakefront land that we already have available first? This is such a silly argument when the parts of the lakefront that are freely available to develop on are still underused. Use what you got first

Two words: flight path. Any development on lakefront land available will be truncated by the flight path of Burke. You simply cannot put a ten-story building on prime real estate in Cleveland because it is too dangerous to have it where planes takeoff and land.

 

Lakefront property is on average 40% more valuable than property inland (there is consumer demand but product is scarce).

 

Property by airports is dirt cheap (no consumer demand).

 

When you have lakefront property that is also by an airport you get the Cleveland lakefront: valuable land that is for all intents and purposes dirt cheap. The demand is there for the lakefront but it isn’t there because the airport. 

 

i even stated above, and it is in the report I posted that just closing Burke removes the strict FAA limitations set on our ENTIRE lakefront. If Burke is turned into a nature preserve, we at least get the benefit of a lakefront free of those strict, height-limiting FAA flight path regulations. Those regulations are the real reason our lakefront looks more like the areas around an airport than the lakefronts of Toronto and Chicago. We will have to decide what we want to be.

6 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

This is where I think the city of Cleveland fails miserably.   

 

We are a rustbelt city with continually shrinking population and declining economic power.   We are trying to remake ourselves into a healthcare/tech hub while holding on to a shred of our manufacturing past.   Our youth continue to leave for the coasts and sunbelt and their booming cities.  

 

Despite this, one thing we have that MOST of these other cities do not?   A functional airport capable of handling mainline aircraft IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT!  

I'd love to see what the City of Cleveland does to pitch this to businesses, but my guess is nothing.   Out at County Airport there are dozens of aviation related businesses on the field.  At Burke, there is a couple--and the city maintains the old Aviation High School to store a police helicopter and other city equipment.   

 

 

 

 

If an airport in the CBD is so valuable why is a shrinking city the only city with one? 

6 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Where are you putting these high rises?  In the lake on new landfill?   Take a look at the runway centerlines for Burke.  There isn't much land they are covering!   Since First Energy Stadium is already very close to the centerline of 6R (mainly used for small general aviation planes), you could probably build high rises on that same line.   But where?  On the 3 Port of Cleveland docks there?   Anything to the South of that probably wouldn't be subject to many height restrictions.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your graphic proves my point: that’s why Burke has to go. If you have those red lines you cannot use the most valuable land in Cleveland! 

2 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Two words: flight path. Any development on lakefront land available will be truncated by the flight path of Burke. You simply cannot put a ten-story building on prime real estate in Cleveland because it is too dangerous to have it where planes takeoff and land.

 

Lakefront property is on average 40% more valuable than property inland (there is consumer demand but product is scarce).

 

Property by airports is dirt cheap (no consumer demand).

 

When you have lakefront property that is also by an airport you get the Cleveland lakefront: valuable land that is for all intents and purposes dirt cheap. The demand is there for the lakefront but it isn’t there because the airport. 

 

i even stated above, and it is in the report I posted that just closing Burke removes the strict FAA limitations set on our ENTIRE lakefront. If Burke is turned into a nature preserve, we at least get the benefit of a lakefront free of those strict, height-limiting FAA flight path regulations. Those regulations are the real reason our lakefront looks more like the areas around an airport than the lakefronts of Toronto and Chicago. We will have to decide what we want to be.

 

 

Well if the airport was closed the flight path issue wouldn't matter anymore. Unless there are issues with approaches to Hopkins as well.

 

There are multiple issues with that "Land" the airport is built on - The State owns the land the landfill sits on, the city owns the landfill the airport sits on as well as controls the airport. 

 

I think it would make sense to try and do smaller developments closer to the East 9th street side to build demand, so that maybe in the future it would make more financial sense and a plan could be put together to connect that whole parcel with the city and develop it properly.

 

 

Then there are the businesses that frequently use it. You can see the Cleveland Clinic Helicopter flying back and forth many times a day picking up organs flown into Burke for transplant at the main campus for instance. I'm sure there are other examples that the general public doesn't see. I guess the question is are those uses worth keeping the whole thing ope.

2 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Your graphic proves my point: that’s why Burke has to go. If you have those red lines you cannot use the most valuable land in Cleveland! 

 

One red line is completely over water (runway 6L)

 

One red line crosses the tips of a few piers (runway 6R).   

 

You could still build on the same frontage line with First Energy stadium, and have lush green space in front of them for public access.    But the Port has been there for a century and is still operating there.   

 

As my mother used to say, "if a frog had wings, his ass wouldn't bump the ground...."  ?

As for attracting an Amazon or a similar business to downtown Cleveland, consider that being close to Reagan airport was definitely part of Amazon's calculus in choosing Northern Virginia for its second HQ.  Just something to keep in mind before we mentally start closing airports.

 

But, considering what Cleveland Trust said, perhaps if we are concerned about overcapacity, instead of closing the lakefront airport, perhaps looking at Cuyahoga County Airport would be worthwhile.

 

To Mov2ohio's point, yes Hopkins flight paths do limit potential building heights, since the NE-SW flight path into Hopkins directly flies over downtown.  Of course, it doesn't become an issue unless the proposed building were say 1000 feet or over, but still the limitation exists.

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by PaxtonMarley

What imaginary version of Cleveland is this where rents are such that there is demand for multiple high rise construction projects nearly a mile away from public square, down the bluff, past 200 feet of railroad right of way, a major state highway, and behind a professional football stadium?  Pace (I believe) had 5 stories planned for Harbor Verandas right there on E. 9th street and had to scale down to 2 or 3, not because of runway restrictions, but because people were spooked that he couldn't fill it.  

 

If the flight path of Burke is precluding these developments from happening, what's stopped NuCLEus, which is in the heart of Downtown for lo these many years.  Why is it been downsized 20 stories?

 

That port land is decidedly NOT the most valuable land in Cleveland. It is remote and disconnected. Even more so is the Burke land.  Make it into a park; wonderful. You've created a gigantic park that cannot be reached by anyone without a car.  It too is on the wrong side of 8 lanes of highway, which even if you committed the ODOT crime of turning it into a "boulevard" (just like we did with the West Shoreway, right?), there nothing close to a functioning neighborhood south of there that would be able to engage with the park, and further east, is the I90-SR2 interchange known as dead man's curve which isn't going anywhere.

 

The money needed to execute a proper vision for Burke as park and that chunk of land north of the stadium would take...I'm going to consider throwing out the b word - a billion dollars? I really don't know. But a hell of a lot more than the $2M annually people are wringing their hands about the city losing per year at Burke.

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by PittsburgoDelendaEst

4 minutes ago, PaxtonMarley said:

As for attracting an Amazon or a similar business to downtown Cleveland, consider that being close to Reagan airport was definitely part of Amazon's calculus in choosing Northern Virginia for its second HQ.  Just something to keep in mind before we mentally start closing airports.

 

But, considering what Cleveland Trust said, perhaps if we are concerned about overcapacity, instead of closing the lakefront airport, perhaps looking at Cuyahoga County Airport would be worthwhile.

 

Actually, from my reading of the Amazon RFP they were more concerned with direct international flights rather  than the airport proximity.  This would actually make Washington Dulles their airport of choice (it does have many Europe and Asian routes).  
 

As for Cleveland, none of our airports would fit this specification... ?

 

 

The height restrictions around Burke are largely overstated, if for nothing else than the economics of new construction in Cleveland. It's unlikely we'd see something taller than 11 stories here regardless.

12 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

Actually, from my reading of the Amazon RFP they were more concerned with direct international flights rather  than the airport proximity.  This would actually make Washington Dulles their airport of choice (it does have many Europe and Asian routes).  
 

As for Cleveland, none of our airports would fit this specification... ?

 

 

We would never have gotten Amazon. They want access to Congress and other government and a playground for the jet set executives. We arguably had an Amazon or two leave Cleveland, (BP, TRW)because Cleveland is kinda lame in the eyes of world cities.

25 minutes ago, PaxtonMarley said:

But, considering what Cleveland Trust said, perhaps if we are concerned about overcapacity, instead of closing the lakefront airport, perhaps looking at Cuyahoga County Airport would be worthwhile.

 

Directional Aviation, Kenn Ricci's a $1billion+ aviation group employing hundreds, is headquartered at Cuyahoga County Airport.  Do not even think of messing with it.

20 minutes ago, PittsburgoDelendaEst said:

What imaginary version of Cleveland is this where rents are such that there is demand for multiple high rise construction projects nearly a mile away from public square, down the bluff, past 200 feet of railroad right of way, a major state highway, and behind a professional football stadium?  Pace (I believe) had 5 stores planned for Harbor Verandas right there on E. 9th street and had to scale down to 2 or 3, not because of runway restrictions, but because people were spooked that he couldn't fill it.  

 

If the flight path of Burke is precluding these developments from happening, what's stopped NuCLEus, which is in the heart of Downtown for lo these many years.  Why is it been downsized 20 stories?

 

That port land is decidedly NOT the most valuable land in Cleveland. It is remote and disconnected. Even more so is the Burke land.  Make it into a park; wonderful. You've created a gigantic park that cannot be reached by anyone without a car.  It too is on the wrong side of 8 lanes of highway, which even if you committed the ODOT crime of turning it into a "boulevard" (just like we did with the West Shoreway, right?), there nothing close to a functioning neighborhood south of there that would be able to engage with the park, and further east, is the I90-SR2 interchange known as dead man's curve which isn't going anywhere.

 

The money needed to execute a proper vision for Burke as park and that chunk of land north of the stadium would take...I'm going to consider throwing out the b word - a billion dollars? I really don't know. But a hell of a lot more than the $2M annually people are wringing their hands about the city losing per year at Burke.

What if we are losing more than $2 mil? What if we could save $7 mil by closing Burke? What if closing Burke hacks the Gordian knot that is choking demand for Cleveland real estate.

 

Again, we have our most valuable real estate (lakefront) devalued by a money-losing airport because they are next to each other. 

14 minutes ago, Dougal said:

Directional Aviation, Kenn Ricci's a $1billion+ aviation group employing hundreds, is headquartered at Cuyahoga County Airport.  Do not even think of messing with it.

And Cleveland Clinic is a multi-billion dollar organization employing nearly 50,000 has a strong presence at Burke Airport.  Perhaps we may not want to mess with that either.

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by PaxtonMarley

12 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

We would never have gotten Amazon. They want access to Congress and other government and a playground for the jet set executives. We arguably had an Amazon or two leave Cleveland, (BP, TRW)because Cleveland is kinda lame in the eyes of world cities.

 

I don't think so either.  IMHO, the fix was in for DC/Northern VA.  My point is we should consider the next large business that may appreciate a downtown airport.

 

As for the Burke's financial losses, I cannot confirm or deny them.  But I can ask whether airports in general do and should profit.  And how is that profit measured?  Do we account for positive and negative externalities of the airport and who it serves, or do we just go with annualized cash-in and cash-out?

5 minutes ago, PaxtonMarley said:

And Cleveland Clinic is a multi-billion dollar organization employing nearly 50,000 has a strong presence at Burke Airport.  Let's not mess with that either.

Okay. Things probably won’t change because the right people are making a their lives easier and the shrinking population here foots the bill. Don’t be surprised when the city keeps shrinking the amenities disappear. You could have a situation where the Cleveland Clinic outgrows us because we did everything we could to appease them.

This is so ridiculous. Burke is not going to close. For a number of reasons. And it’s beyond silly to keep tearing this forum up over whether Burke should be closed or not when (I repeat) THERES STILL A BUNCH OF LAKEFRONT LAND THATS UNDEVELOPED OR UNDERDEVELOPED RIGHT NOW. Yes the stories will be low, but as someone else said, that would most likely be the case whether Burke was there or not because of economic reasons. This is just a silly Sim City argument. There are practical uses for Burke. We should be debating what can be done to enhance it, not close it. (I personally would argue for merging the county airport with Burke and closing the county airport, which is something that was briefly discussed before. I would take the county airport land, annex it to the city of Cleveland while also working out some sort of tax revenue sharing agreement with Richmond Heights to make it politically doable. Then you end up with a vibrant Burke and huge acres of land to create essentially a brand new neighborhood that would be in Cleveland proper, but that’s just me). 

2 minutes ago, PaxtonMarley said:

 

I don't think so either.  IMHO, the fix was in for DC/Northern VA.  My point is we should consider the next large business that may appreciate a downtown airport.

 

As for the Burke's financial losses, I cannot confirm or deny them.  But I can ask whether airports in general do and should profit.  And how is that profit measured?  Do we account for positive and negative externalities of the airport and who it serves, or do we just go with annualized cash-in and cash-out?

Agree. It was always gonna be NYC and DC. And I’m not a fan of Amazon monopoly anyway.

 

That is what I’m trying to figure out. I don’t see a benefit other than the jobs at Burke. But those jobs would not be lost in a shift to Concourse D, the city would save millions, and there might be a huge public benefit as the lakefront is reenvisioned as part of the city. 

3 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

This is so ridiculous. Burke is not going to close. For a number of reasons. And it’s beyond silly to keep tearing this forum up over whether Burke should be closed or not when (I repeat) THERES STILL A BUNCH OF LAKEFRONT LAND THATS UNDEVELOPED OR UNDERDEVELOPED RIGHT NOW. Yes the stories will be low, but as someone else said, that would most likely be the case whether Burke was there or not because of economic reasons. This is just a silly Sim City argument. There are practical uses for Burke. We should be debating what can be done to enhance it, not close it. (I personally would argue for merging the county airport with Burke and closing the county airport, which is something that was briefly discussed before. I would take the county airport land, annex it to the city of Cleveland while also working out some sort of tax revenue sharing agreement with Richmond Heights to make it politically doable. Then you end up with a vibrant Burke and huge acres of land to create essentially a brand new neighborhood that would be in Cleveland proper, but that’s just me). 

Experts: Big Dig? The Interstate will always cut directly through the heart of Boston. You’re never gonna change that. To much red tape. The Federal government will never budge. Words on paper can’t be changed.

 

Stupid Dreamers: Hold my beer!

1 minute ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Experts: Big Dig? The Interstate will always cut directly through the heart of Boston. You’re never gonna change that. To much red tape. The Federal government will never budge. Words on paper can’t be changed.

 

Stupid Dreamers: Hold my beer!

That’s Cute. Use what you have first and then see if there’s an economic viability to close Burke

1 minute ago, inlovewithCLE said:

That’s Cute. Use what you have first and then see if there’s an economic viability to close Burke

But what if what you have (Burke) prevents economic viability, negates demand.

6 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

But what if what you have (Burke) prevents economic viability, negates demand.

That’s silly. Burke being there doesn’t prevent economic viability and it not being there wouldn’t help economic viability. There’s other factors involved. As someone else mentioned earlier, even without Burke, developments on the land wouldn’t be that tall anyway most likely because of economic reasons. So you’re gonna tear up Burke for maybe, what, an extra 3 stories on buildings? Good job. And on top of that, without building on what you have now you have no proof of demand in THIS city (not in Boston or anywhere else, but here). Build on what you have first if you want anyone in power to even consider entertaining this silly argument

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by inlovewithCLE

23 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

That is what I’m trying to figure out. I don’t see a benefit other than the jobs at Burke. But those jobs would not be lost in a shift to Concourse D, the city would save millions, and there might be a huge public benefit as the lakefront is reenvisioned as part of the city. 

 

How exactly would Concourse D be put to practical use for the FBOs based at Burke?   Assuming that the city would break the lease with United and sign an agreement not to use it for other airlines, there is no hangar space, which is what the Burke businesses need.   

35 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

This is so ridiculous. Burke is not going to close. For a number of reasons. And it’s beyond silly to keep tearing this forum up over whether Burke should be closed or not when (I repeat) THERES STILL A BUNCH OF LAKEFRONT LAND THATS UNDEVELOPED OR UNDERDEVELOPED RIGHT NOW. Yes the stories will be low, but as someone else said, that would most likely be the case whether Burke was there or not because of economic reasons. This is just a silly Sim City argument. There are practical uses for Burke. We should be debating what can be done to enhance it, not close it. (I personally would argue for merging the county airport with Burke and closing the county airport, which is something that was briefly discussed before. I would take the county airport land, annex it to the city of Cleveland while also working out some sort of tax revenue sharing agreement with Richmond Heights to make it politically doable. Then you end up with a vibrant Burke and huge acres of land to create essentially a brand new neighborhood that would be in Cleveland proper, but that’s just me). 

 

We can’t close Burke because of money/the FAA, but we can close the county airport, annex it to cleveland, and build a new subdivision? 

5 minutes ago, CbusTransit said:

 

We can’t close Burke because of money/the FAA, but we can close the county airport, annex it to cleveland, and build a new subdivision? 

1. The private sector would be building the new subdivision, not the city. Home builders would fall over themselves to do it.

 

2. It wouldn’t be just a shutting down of the county airport. It would be a merger of the county airport with Burke AT Burke. Technical difference but a big one. And like I mentioned earlier, the city and county had very very preliminary discussions about exploring the possibility of doing just that a few years ago so it’s not something im pulling out of my arse.

No, I don't think it's realistic the close any of the two smaller airports right now.  But I am eager to see if the Dock 30 project pans out and does well in the marketplace.

 

Wouldn't that be the best measure of how a redeveloped Burke would do?

 

Second point, on the financial losses at Burke, those are apparently passed on in the form of landing fees airlines pay at Hopkins.  Sure, ultimately, the consumer foots the bill for those fees, but at least it's not the taxpayer.

Anyone really have any numbers on Burke proving or disproving the benefits economically to Cleveland.

54 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

That’s silly. Burke being there doesn’t prevent economic viability and it not being there wouldn’t help economic viability. There’s other factors involved. As someone else mentioned earlier, even without Burke, developments on the land wouldn’t be that tall anyway most likely because of economic reasons. So you’re gonna tear up Burke for maybe, what, an extra 3 stories on buildings? Good job. And on top of that, without building on what you have now you have no proof of demand in THIS city (not in Boston or anywhere else, but here). Build on what you have first if you want anyone in power to even consider entertaining this silly argument

You may be right. Like I said, Cleveland might be an outlier where normal principles of real estate don’t apply. Maybe we should be lucky to have that pile of limestone where the river meets the lake. It might one day be the magnet that attracts young people from all over the world to live on new inland development around Hopkins runway. It might just happen.

1 hour ago, PaxtonMarley said:

  But I can ask whether airports in general do and should profit.  And how is that profit measured?  Do we account for positive and negative externalities of the airport and who it serves, or do we just go with annualized cash-in and cash-out?

 

According to the enabling legislation for the federal aviation trust fund (which pays for runways and air traffic control but *NOT* terminal buildings), participating airports are supposed to be "self-supporting" from fees and rentals charged to airlines, vendors, passengers, etc. Hopkins in 2018 had an operating profit of $7.8 million and net non-operating revenues of $19.9 million. Of course, Hopkins also has $675 million in debt to pay off - and they better pay most of it off before they break ground for any new $1 billion+ terminal.

 

CLE data from the FAA CATS data base (Form 127)  For more details see: https://cats.airports.faa.gov/reports/reports.cfm

 

6 minutes ago, Mildtraumatic said:

Anyone really have any numbers on Burke proving or disproving the benefits economically to Cleveland.

I have this study from 2002 advocating close: https://www.gcbl.org/files/resources/burkereport.pdf

 

Additionally, Burke lost close to 50% of its traffic between 2017-2018. It is going in the wrong direction. Maybe someone on this forum knows what change can be made to make Burke a better economic engine than a developed lakefront. 

Isn't the land useless for development because it's just garbage fill? ^ Well they had the republican convention in 2016. I don't see getting rid of it just to make the lakefront buildings taller by the stadium. It can still be a plus for companies looking to move here.

My neighbor is a politician. He told me some things off the record about Burke at a cook out. I can’t burn a source. 

 

I am just looking for numbers in the public record that confirm what I was told and I can’t find them. I think there is a $4 million payroll connected to Burke that no one at city hall wants to mess with even as operations there wind down. Burke is in a tailspin but some people still make a little money, it is still functional and so business as usual.

 

So so the question is, will the next mayor spend the money to modernize Burke in an effort to increase revenues or do we stop the downward trajectory and pounce on this opportunity. 

12 minutes ago, Mildtraumatic said:

Isn't the land useless for development because it's just garbage fill? ^ Well they had the republican convention in 2016. I don't see getting rid of it just to make the lakefront buildings taller by the stadium. It can still be a plus for companies looking to move here.

No. It is in that study. If the land Burke sits on is developed into anything other than a park it would need further testing but it can be developed. I think it said 22 acres of the total 450 had toxins that wouldn’t be viable for housing.

 

Not just taller development, more valuable. Airports decrease the value of land around them. Most people don’t want planes flying past their house constantly (even though Burke only has 11,000).

 

A mansion on the lake is more valuable than that same mansion under Hopkins runway. Unless Cleveland is Bizarro World.

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

The City of Cleveland currently owns and operates their airports, would it cost more or save us money to have a company manage the airport on the publics behalf, such as the Hilton Convention Center Hotel, and The push for Cleveland to give up managing the West Side Market.

 

I am also an optimist, and although my opinions really mean nothing, I firmly believe this airport will be of more use as aviation technology progresses. Vertical take off planes have existed for years, just not on passenger flight scale. Other companies are pursuing drone travel for people, which also doesn't require runways, and if you really want to sound crazy, eventually interplanetary flight won't be exclusive to Florida. Until the hyperloop dream comes to fruition, proximity to launch pads and runways will be important to some people. If sea levels keep rising, there will be more need for higher elevation airports.

 

But technology could also progress to be able to launch and land more transportation vehicles on water. Who knows?

 

Closing this airport opens up land for development, but we would lose all of the federal dollars that fund the airports operation. This may save Cleveland money, but a larger benefit would be lost if the airport closes. Federal funds would most likely just be routed to another airport, but it would be unlikely that these funds would even stay in Ohio.

 

If there is enough momentum to close any airport, it would not take 10 years as many imply. Until it makes sense to do so, it is not going to happen. Not in Cleveland, not anywhere.

 

Until the land is physically needed for another purpose, no government office will seriously consider using Burke's property for anything other that what it is currently used for.

 

Getting upset about this is a waste of everyone's energy. Either become a billionaire, Run for a government position, or get over it. Closing and developing the Burke property now or before towering building take up the rest of the developable land inside the current borders of Cleveland's downtown would result in the entire property being developed by mistake after major mistake.

 

Again, I am an optimist, If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but we do need to utilize it to more of it's potential outside of airshows and private jet parking for playoff games. If security could be maintained, a ring park around the airport property would appease some of us.

34 minutes ago, WhatUp said:

The City of Cleveland currently owns and operates their airports, would it cost more or save us money to have a company manage the airport on the publics behalf, such as the Hilton Convention Center Hotel, and The push for Cleveland to give up managing the West Side Market.

 

I am also an optimist, and although my opinions really mean nothing, I firmly believe this airport will be of more use as aviation technology progresses. Vertical take off planes have existed for years, just not on passenger flight scale. Other companies are pursuing drone travel for people, which also doesn't require runways, and if you really want to sound crazy, eventually interplanetary flight won't be exclusive to Florida. Until the hyperloop dream comes to fruition, proximity to launch pads and runways will be important to some people. If sea levels keep rising, there will be more need for higher elevation airports.

 

But technology could also progress to be able to launch and land more transportation vehicles on water. Who knows?

 

Closing this airport opens up land for development, but we would lose all of the federal dollars that fund the airports operation. This may save Cleveland money, but a larger benefit would be lost if the airport closes. Federal funds would most likely just be routed to another airport, but it would be unlikely that these funds would even stay in Ohio.

 

If there is enough momentum to close any airport, it would not take 10 years as many imply. Until it makes sense to do so, it is not going to happen. Not in Cleveland, not anywhere.

 

Until the land is physically needed for another purpose, no government office will seriously consider using Burke's property for anything other that what it is currently used for.

 

Getting upset about this is a waste of everyone's energy. Either become a billionaire, Run for a government position, or get over it. Closing and developing the Burke property now or before towering building take up the rest of the developable land inside the current borders of Cleveland's downtown would result in the entire property being developed by mistake after major mistake.

 

Again, I am an optimist, If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but we do need to utilize it to more of it's potential outside of airshows and private jet parking for playoff games. If security could be maintained, a ring park around the airport property would appease some of us.

Yes, the Federal money came up, I think that 2002 study mentions two $23 million grants spent at Burke since 1982 (taxpayer money is cheap). 

 

The situation is that some myopic city managers are used to the old guaranteed revenue streams. They don’t see the need to change anything even as Cleveland’s population dips below 390,000.

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

The latest airport $$$ info I can find at Cleveland's website is this:  http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/sites/default/files/forms_publications/2016airport.pdf?id=11615

 

On page 49, the audited report says Burke's 2016 operating loss was $1,082,000. Other data is combined with CLE data, so I can't provide any more info easily. That $1.082 million is not the complete picture, but it's hard to imagine non-operating ups and downs making it much worse.

 

I wish I had more recent data, but I think its fair to say that BKL is losing nothing even close to the higher numbers cited upthread.

4 minutes ago, Dougal said:

The latest airport $$$ info I can find at Cleveland's website is this:  http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/sites/default/files/forms_publications/2016airport.pdf?id=11615

 

On page 49, the audited report says Burke's 2016 operating loss was $1,082,000. Other data is combined with CLE data, so I can't provide any more info easily. That $1.082 million is not the complete picture, but it's hard to imagine non-operating ups and downs making it much worse.

 

I wish I had more recent data, but I think its fair to say that BKL is losing nothing even close to the higher numbers cited upthread.

That study cites $2.1 mil loss in 2002. Annual losses between $2-$3 million and revenues dropping. The hard part is that the savings of $7 mil would be ceasing Burke operations and using Hopkins exclusively. I’ve read the 2016 port of entry report and can’t come close either.

 

16 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

That study cites $2.1 mil loss in 2002. Annual losses between $2-$3 million and revenues dropping. The hard part is that the savings of $7 mil would be ceasing Burke operations and using Hopkins exclusively. I’ve read the 2016 port of entry report and can’t come close either.

 

Remember, though, airport gains and losses are not the city's to deal with. Excess funds and savings go to the airlines and debt service, NOT to the city; so the City of Cleveland would not see a penny from closing BKL. In fact, they would lose fees for police and utilities, tax on wages, tax on vendor sales, etc. At least in the short run, Cleveland would likely be worse off closing BKL.

1 hour ago, Dougal said:

 

According to the enabling legislation for the federal aviation trust fund (which pays for runways and air traffic control but *NOT* terminal buildings), participating airports are supposed to be "self-supporting" from fees and rentals charged to airlines, vendors, passengers, etc. Hopkins in 2018 had an operating profit of $7.8 million and net non-operating revenues of $19.9 million. Of course, Hopkins also has $675 million in debt to pay off - and they better pay most of it off before they break ground for any new $1 billion+ terminal.

 

CLE data from the FAA CATS data base (Form 127)  For more details see: https://cats.airports.faa.gov/reports/reports.cfm

 

 

My point isn't that Burke is profitable, it was that should they be?  For example, mass transit is not a profitable business, but as a society, we think the positive economic externalities outweigh the financial loss.  So we subsidize transit and a whole host of other public works that aren't profitable.

 

But more interestingly, I ask Cleveland Trust, if Burke were profitable--use any definition of the term you like--would you accept it as a fixture on the lakefront?  If so, then I understand the conversation on financial loss.  But if you'd support closing it even if it were profitable, all this conversation about profitability is sorta irrelevant.

4 minutes ago, Dougal said:

 

 

Remember, though, airport gains and losses are not the city's to deal with. Excess funds and savings go to the airlines and debt service, NOT to the city; so the City of Cleveland would not see a penny from closing BKL. In fact, they would lose fees for police and utilities, tax on wages, tax on vendor sales, etc. At least in the short run, Cleveland would likely be worse off closing BKL.

Thank you. Change is hard, which is why Burke is still needed for 11,000 flights per year. At what point do we question it’s need to exist though? 5,000 flights?  

3 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Okay. Things probably won’t change because the right people are making a their lives easier and the shrinking population here foots the bill. Don’t be surprised when the city keeps shrinking the amenities disappear. You could have a situation where the Cleveland Clinic outgrows us because we did everything we could to appease them.

 

Taxpayers or the city general fund are NOT subsidizing Burke. Its part of the airport system of the city. Hopkins and Burke are part of an enterprise fund of the city----they are not funded by the general budget. Its in the interest of operations at Hopkins that Burke stays open. If you're on a commercial flight at Hopkins, do you really want to be 10th in line for take off because you have little Cessnas in front of you as part of a flight school?

3 minutes ago, PaxtonMarley said:

 

My point isn't that Burke is profitable, it was that should they be?  For example, mass transit is not a profitable business, but as a society, we think the positive economic externalities outweigh the financial loss.  So we subsidize transit and a whole host of other public works that aren't profitable.

 

But more interestingly, I ask Cleveland Trust, if Burke were profitable--use any definition of the term you like--would you accept it as a fixture on the lakefront?  If so, then I understand the conversation on financial loss.  But if you'd support closing it even if it were profitable, all this conversation about profitability is sorta irrelevant.

Good question.

 

It exists. I see it as a problem. It makes money but there is an opportunity to create a land Gold Rush in Cleveland. How would any configuration of Burke do that? 

 

Conversely, how would the lakefront neighborhood do that? I don’t know, I just think it would. I might be wrong. I don’t think I am given the generic data about lakefront property.

 

i guess the big problem I see it’ll that the potentially valuable lakefront property is devalued by the actual airport property. The potential value of lake access is cancelled out for the many for the cloistered convenience of a few.

 

If the airports in Cleveland make a miraculous turnaround I would say, “damn, I really wanted to increase the value of the lakefront land.” I just don’t see that happening.