JobsOhio using cash to edge out other states for new nonstop flights at Ohio airports

Hayleigh Colombo - Columbus Business First - May 9, 2021

 

"Though the funding was approved before the pandemic, JobsOhio is ramping up the program now as travel begins picking back up. It has five new deals in the works at four Ohio airports that it plans to announce soon. ... Slaybaugh said that prior to the pandemic, JobsOhio was focused on attracting new international air service at the airports serving Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland. And it was hoping to attract domestic flights to smaller airports in Dayton, Akron and Toledo. Now, things have changed, he said. International travel is not expected to rebound until 2022 so the agency's focus is for now will be on domestic flights."

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/05/plan-for-new-cleveland-hopkins-airport-with-2-billion-price-tag-to-be-revealed-next-week.html

 

Plan for new Cleveland Hopkins airport, with $2 billion price tag, to be revealed next week

 

"CLEVELAND, Ohio — A years-long process to envision a new Cleveland Hopkins International Airport is coming to a close with a recommendation for a rebuilt terminal that is half new and half old...."

 

 

Exciting news, especially if you've been following the recent master plan developments for the airport! Excited to see the plans next week via the public event scheduled. Cconstruction is still years away as stated in the article, but Hopkins is past due for a redo given other comparable cities' recent airport transformations like IND, MSY (New Orleans), PIT, etc., which cost $1.1 bil, $1.3 bil, and 1.4 bil, respectively. Ours will supposedly cost $2 bil, so we had better get something good imo.

Edited May 11, 20214 yr by Geowizical

The first phase will be the removal of the existing B concourse and construction of a new B concourse which will contain a new customs area. Temporary reactivation of D concourse may occur during this phase. There will be some renovations to the terminal (ticketing/baggage claim) as well as renovations to the A and C concourses.  I doubt I will live long enough to see the subsequent phases.   

 

Edited May 11, 20214 yr by skiwest

Will roadway access, hotel upgrades / new construction be part of that $2Billion or would that be separate?

8 minutes ago, punch said:

Will roadway access, hotel upgrades / new construction be part of that $2Billion or would that be separate?

I would certainly hope so.

With rumors that there could be an Amtrak station at Hopkins I'm interested to see if that is incorporated into the plan at all. 

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

With rumors that there could be an Amtrak station at Hopkins I'm interested to see if that is incorporated into the plan at all. 

I hope so as well. I asked about it at a planning meeting. Basically the answer was “nothing being proposed would prevent that from happening.” Not exactly reassuring. It’s important to note that if the Amtrak 3C is funded, Amtrak has committed to a Hopkins airport station. I suspect the most likely plan will be a small Amtrak station either at Snow road or by the Brookpark RTA station with a bus shuttle service to the terminal. Although I suppose the latter location would enable simply using RTA for the connection. 
 

My dream scenario would be a train station accessible from Snow road with an automated people mover over the highway (237) direct to the terminal, preferably terminating near the airport RTA station. That would be very expensive and therefore is unlikely. But that people mover could theoretically be funded by Federal transit dollars, unlike the airport itself (under current law). 

Does anyone know if the current pandemic has altered any of the physical plans for requiring more space? Even at newly renovated airports I often find myself in very crowded spots where the layout seems rather poorly planned out. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I hope so as well. I asked about it at a planning meeting. Basically the answer was “nothing being proposed would prevent that from happening.” Not exactly reassuring. It’s important to note that if the Amtrak 3C is funded, Amtrak has committed to a Hopkins airport station. I suspect the most likely plan will be a small Amtrak station either at Snow road or by the Brookpark RTA station with a bus shuttle service to the terminal. Although I suppose the latter location would enable simply using RTA for the connection. 
 

My dream scenario would be a train station accessible from Snow road with an automated people mover over the highway (237) direct to the terminal, preferably terminating near the airport RTA station. That would be very expensive and therefore is unlikely. But that people mover could theoretically be funded by Federal transit dollars, unlike the airport itself (under current law). 

 

Not only would 3C trains go past the airport but so would Amtrak's proposed Cleveland-Detroit trains, before the routes split at Berea. This would be on top of the existing night trains through Cleveland. So a total of 16 Amtrak trains in a 24 hour period would go past the airport.

 

The question is which line? The assumption is that the existing line from the downtown lakefront, running next to SR237 would be used. But if All Aboard Ohio's suggestion of Tower City Center gains traction, the station could be at Snow/Engle roads, possibly served by an extension of the Red Line. It could serve the long-term parking lots in that area too.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

The question is which line? The assumption is that the existing line from the downtown lakefront, running next to SR237 would be used. But if All Aboard Ohio's suggestion of Tower City Center gains traction, the station could be at Snow/Engle roads, possibly served by an extension of the Red Line. It could serve the long-term parking lots in that area too.

Do you have any of those handy diagram-maps drawn up for either of these alternatives? I'm curious where the station would be if keeping on the existing line and what that Red Line extension would look like. 

17 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Do you have any of those handy diagram-maps drawn up for either of these alternatives? I'm curious where the station would be if keeping on the existing line and what that Red Line extension would look like. 

 

I have a diagram done by the airport masterplan consultant. It is a draft concept and not vetted by the city. This is for a Hopkins Amtrak Station if the downtown Amtrak station is on the lakefront.

7 hours ago, skiwest said:

The first phase will be the removal of the existing B concourse and construction of a new B concourse which will contain a new customs area. Temporary reactivation of D concourse may occur during this phase. There will be some renovations to the terminal (ticketing/baggage claim) as well as renovations to the A and C concourses.  I doubt I will live long enough to see the subsequent phases.   

 

I would really hope that for $2 billion we’d get more than just a renovation of 80% of the airport. That’s a new build price.

3 hours ago, Luke_S said:

Do you have any of those handy diagram-maps drawn up for either of these alternatives? I'm curious where the station would be if keeping on the existing line and what that Red Line extension would look like. 

 

And here's a concept for the Snow/Engle/I-71 site. Red Line extension and Amtrak station for the Tower City line are included. Opens up significant development sites for TOD-type development above a raised Snow-Engle intersection.

 

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

And here's a concept for the Snow/Engle/I-71 site. Red Line extension and Amtrak station for the Tower City line are included. Opens up significant development sites for TOD-type development above a raised Snow-Engle intersection.

 

Thank you! Looks like another good reason to move Amtrak to Tower City

I know this isn't the rail forum, but still, the concept of having a station out here is a good idea/seems similar to the situation in Buffalo - they have their downtown station (Exchange Street) and their suburban station (Depew, ~6mi from downtown).

 

It seems like the idea of leveraging the redline would be a great 1-2 punch, and could lend to expansion of it (wishful thinking??). 

 

Either way, really looking forward to what's planned, hopefully it's as forward thinking as the forum hopes it is hah.

 

8 hours ago, GISguy said:

I know this isn't the rail forum, but still, the concept of having a station out here is a good idea/seems similar to the situation in Buffalo - they have their downtown station (Exchange Street) and their suburban station (Depew, ~6mi from downtown).

 

It seems like the idea of leveraging the redline would be a great 1-2 punch, and could lend to expansion of it (wishful thinking??). 

 

Either way, really looking forward to what's planned, hopefully it's as forward thinking as the forum hopes it is hah.

 

 

The two Buffalo stations serve different routes.   If we had a direct connection at CLE, wouldn't we want ALL routes to pass there?  

8 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

The two Buffalo stations serve different routes.   If we had a direct connection at CLE, wouldn't we want ALL routes to pass there?  

All routes to the west and to the southwest will have a stop at CLE airport. I would also advocate from any service from the east/southeast that nominally terminates in Cleveland should continue on to the airport. And I also think that any future commuter rail service should emphasize the airport. All that said, if AAO is successful in convincing everyone that Terminal Tower should be the future Amtrak home, the Red Line will provide a great connection to the airport that would be missing if Amtrak stays at the lakefront station. Then I’d be less concerned about trains from the east going to the airport station. 

13 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

The two Buffalo stations serve different routes.   If we had a direct connection at CLE, wouldn't we want ALL routes to pass there?  

 

Buffalo-Depew serves all routes. Buffal-Exchange serves the Empire Corridor/Maple Leaf.

 

At Cleveland, all routes traveling west and southwest of Cleveland would serve the Hopkins Airport station regardless of whether the downtown station stays on the lakefront or is moved to Tower City.

 

What's interesting is that FAA funds for improving ground-level access to the airport could be used to extend the Red Line. GCRTA would be concerned about their ability of tapping FTA funding for a Red Line extension, and perhaps rightly so.

 

 

On 5/5/2021 at 9:13 AM, skiwest said:

Registration is now open for the next virtual public information meeting on May 19th.   Here is the link:

 

https://clevelandairportmasterplan.com/workshops.php

Just a reminder that this session on the CLE Hopkins airport master plan is tomorrow evening. 

* Cleveland.com Subscriber Exclusive Article *

$2 billion plan to rebuild Cleveland Hopkins International Airport includes four new concourses, I-71 interchange, more

Susan Glaser - Cleveland.com - May 19, 2021

 

"Airport director Robert Kennedy outlined the key features of a $2 billion plan to rebuild Hopkins to members of Cleveland City Council’s Transportation Committee on Wednesday. ... When completely finished, the airport would feature one renovated concourse (concourse A), and four new concourses (B, C, D and E). About 29% of the airport would be renovated, with 71% brand new. ... Realistically, Kennedy said construction on the first phase of the plan, which would cost an estimated $780 million, wouldn’t begin until 2026. ... Now, the plan goes to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval, and then back to the community for financing and implementation."

 

Phase 1:

 

Final Phase:

 

 

Here is the presentation to the Transportation Committee from today:

 

A lot to digest there. Thanks for posting.

....is that comic sans? lol or a CS brother? 

 

Thanks for posting @NorthShore647

8 minutes ago, GISguy said:

....is that comic sans? lol or a CS brother? 

Seems appropriate for a presentation to city council.

After the presentation we know what the preferred alternative is for the landside layout which can help us get a better idea on where the proposed Amtrak station could go. After consulting with ODOT, NOACA and local officials, the "Regional Concept 3" roadway configuration was chosen. This would affect the Snow/Engle/I-71 site @KJP mentioned above. The reworking of the Snow/Angle and Snow/ I-71 interchanges could be done in a way that incorporates the Amtrak station and Red Line extension while opening up adjacent land for transit oriented development. 

 

If Amtrak sticks with the Lakefront station instead of Tower City, a station could easily be connected with access via a walkway over RT-237 (as previously proposed). This would connect directly into a new rental car facility and rebuilt parking garage proposed just east of the Terminal in the landside plans. 

 

According to Director Kennedy, construction won't begin for ~5 years. If expanded Amtrak service (to a lakefront station) begins before airport construction does, a station could be built adjacent to the Brookpark Road stop on the Red Line. Connecting to the existing RTA facility, with its pedestrian walkway underneath the tracks, 1 stop airport connection and connecting bus service (along with more than enough parking) could help drive down the cost of the station. If a station could be built here (it may be too close to some of the trackwork in the NS yard), it might be the cheapest and easiest to open. 

 

The virtual public information meeting presentation this evening covered much of the same information as the presentation to the city council committee. There were only a few tidbits in the Q&A section:

• Planners mentioned that they didn't see a need to change the terminus/location of the Rapid. The new terminal configuration will create a shorter walk to the station. Officials want to increase ridership and improve visibility of and access to the station. 
• The Sheraton hotel is set to be demolished, creating more space landside. With the transition away from a hub flight network at Hopkins, officials do not believe there is enough demand for an on site hotel replacement. 
• In response to a question regarding the possible connection to an Amtrak station, Director Kennedy noted that the airport intends to seek out any opportunity for intermodal connections. The airport would "keep an eye" on the proposed expansions. 

 

During the council presentation Director Kennedy and Transportation Committee chair Councilmember Slife both mentioned Amtrak and the cities support for the proposed service expansions during the presentation. The city officials seem aware of this opportunity and what it could mean for the airport, city and region. It's also a good sign that throughout the process the planners have emphasized how much of an asset the existing Red Line connection is. 

The long-range Master Plan, which is a federal requirement for airports, is being played all wrong.  $2 billion for an airport the size of Cleveland's is a frightening number both to the airlines who will pay for it and the public which thinks it will.  (Just my opinion, of course.)

 

The "real" number in this phased expansion, the phasing of which is triggered by passenger levels, is about $750 million for immediate needs, which is quite doable. If there is no passenger growth, there will be no phase 2.

 

 

Sorry if I missed this, but did they outline what Phase 1 entails?  Are the renderings above for all phases, or just the initial phase?  

 

It's a tough balancing act because if too much cost gets heaped on the airlines, then they'll either cut flights further, raise ticket prices drastically, or both.  

Edited May 20, 20214 yr by ML11
typo

23 hours ago, ML11 said:

Sorry if I missed this, but did they outline what Phase 1 entails?  Are the renderings above for all phases, or just the initial phase?  

 

It's a tough balancing act because if too much cost gets heaped on the airlines, then they'll either cut flights further, raise ticket prices drastically, or both.  

The renderings above are for the first and last phases (PAL 2 and PAL 5).   The first phase (PAL 2) includes an expansion of the terminal to the south with one centralized security checkpoint, replacing the existing B concourse with a new B concourse (containing a new customs area), demolition of the D concourse, construction of a new E concourse, renovations to the existing A and C concourses, moving the rental car facilities back on site and construction of a temporary parking lot near the demolished D concourse. 

 

Below is the link to view the session. The discussion of the various phases starts around 36:00.  

 

https://www.rsandh.com/collateral/aviation/cle-vpim3/   

 

Edited May 21, 20214 yr by skiwest

I don’t know how anyone keeps a calm demeanor answering some of those council questions. 

On 5/20/2021 at 11:30 AM, Dougal said:

The long-range Master Plan, which is a federal requirement for airports, is being played all wrong.  $2 billion for an airport the size of Cleveland's is a frightening number both to the airlines who will pay for it and the public which thinks it will.  (Just my opinion, of course.)

 

The "real" number in this phased expansion, the phasing of which is triggered by passenger levels, is about $750 million for immediate needs, which is quite doable. If there is no passenger growth, there will be no phase 2.

 

 

 

Two items:

 

1) This article mentions how the Airport Improvement Program doesn't pay for itself:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2017/03/29/airports/99744116/

 

2)  I fail to see how Hopkins needs a brand new airport with 4 new concourses when it has an unused concourse now.  I'd prefer @Dougal's approach:  $750 million depending on passenger needs.  I would add, the other $1.25 billion would be better spent on something like the 3C Corridor.   

 

3 hours ago, gildone said:

 

Two items:

 

1) This article mentions how the Airport Improvement Program doesn't pay for itself:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2017/03/29/airports/99744116/

 

2)  I fail to see how Hopkins needs a brand new airport with 4 new concourses when it has an unused concourse now.  I'd prefer @Dougal's approach:  $750 million depending on passenger needs.  I would add, the other $1.25 billion would be better spent on something like the 3C Corridor.   

 

The approach that @Dougal mentions IS the approach. The proposal is a phased replacement of the airport terminal facilities, and the construction phases will be aligned with passenger numbers. Phase 1 is projected to cost $780M. Hopkins is subpar, period. So much of that airport drastically needs upgrades. The existing unused Concourse D was built for small regional jets, which are no longer popular and extremely unlikely to fly to Hopkins ever again, regardless.  (They fly the routes that should be covered by passenger rail!) Upgrading the existing Concourse D to be used for the types of planes that will be used going forward would be extremely expensive, similar to building a replacement concourse. The advantages of building the new replacement concourse E are that it is brand new and therefore has lower maintenance costs and it is also much more convenient to the main terminal. This comparison was evaluated by the engineering firm. 

 

The existing B concourse is a dump - I’m very glad replacing it is a part of phase 1, and I’m glad it’s replacement, not renovation. 
 

Customs and immigration at Hopkins is a DISASTER. This plan will fix that. 
 

Baggage claim, ticketing, security, and waiting areas are all very cramped. This proposal addresses those issues. 

 

Initial phase (Passenger Level / PAL2):

 

 

Future phases would only be built if passenger levels justified them. Obviously these passenger projections are hard to get just right, but I believe what has been proposed is a reasonable balance of preparing for future need while addressing current issues. For example, if the plan is fully built out, Concourse C would be replaced by two new concourses. However, that would only be happen if future passenger levels require it. Otherwise the planned phase 1 renovations are the only changes it will see. And even the potential replacement would be in phases. Essentially Phase 2 adds a new concourse built between the old concourse C and the B concourse. Phase 3 would build a new replacement concourse (between existing C and D) and then demolish the existing C. 

 

Phase 2 (Passenger Level / PAL 3):

 

 

Later phase (PAL 5)

 

 

Flying is a critical part of our transportation infrastructure. Flying will always be the best way to get to the West coast, Europe, Texas, or Florida from Cleveland, even if we had first world style high speed rail. I am fully in support of honest accounting of all modes of transportation and properly funding public transit and passenger rail. Cutting back highway expansion would be a much more appropriate place to save money to fund those other modes of transportation. 
 

It’s exciting that Amtrak is going to build a Hopkins station if their expansion proposal is funded. This will enable Hopkins to better serve a wider area of population, which will be mutually beneficial for both modes of transportation. 
 

I also really appreciate how airport Director Kennedy heavily emphasizes the benefit of the Red Line connection. Every time I hear him talk he says that’s a huge asset and that they need to find better ways to utilize that. That existing infrastructure is one of the reasons the team rejected some of the other new terminal alternatives.  
 

Overall I’m happy with this proposal in every respect except the start date. I think they should break ground tomorrow, but it looks like it’s going to be 4 or 5 years before anything happens. (Mostly because they are still paying down the Concourse D debt. Argh.) At least we’re finally seeing progress. 

 

Yes, it would be nice if it could start sooner.  I wonder if Director Kennedy & team are still as pessimistic about how long it will take for CLE to return to the pre-Covid level of 10M passengers.  Last fall, I believe they were figuring it would not happen until 2024.   I'm not sure it will take that long.  

 

It's a shame they can't salvage the D concourse.  Supposedly, building the new E concourse will be less costly,  However, E concourse will only contain 5 gates. And it will force the closure of several gates on the existing C concourse.  It seems like a re-configured D could accommodate more than 5 gates.

 

It sounds like the plan is to first remove the existing B concourse, then build the new B concourse slightly to the north.  If they kept the existing B open until the new B was completed, they could still use the south side of existing B.  But maybe that would be too difficult logistically.

 

Edited May 30, 20214 yr by skiwest

32 minutes ago, skiwest said:

It's a shame they can't salvage the D concourse.  Supposedly, building the new E concourse will be less costly,  However, E concourse will only contain 5 gates.  It seems like a re-configured D could accommodate more than 5 gates.

 

 

I really miss that big paper airplane. 

@Boomerang_Brian   I'll agree with some upgrades, but we can agree to disagree on the scale.    I've found the waiting areas and the airport itself to be no more cramped than any other airport I've been in, except Midway which really IS cramped.  In fact, I find the existing airport to be less cramped than most other US airports I've been through. 

 

And with Detroit being a major international airport that's not that far away, I doubt Cleveland's airport is ever going to need to grow much.

 

I agree that we need to stop building new highways, but also now that a level of sanity is returning to the fracking industry, and Wall Street will no longer tolerate more than half of the industry losing gobs of money--as it was pre-pandemic--we should probably see what's going to happen with oil production before we commit to investing money in infrastructure that supports such an oil-intensive industry. 

 

A final thought... I wouldn't over-generalize about what is the best way to get across the country.  What's the best way is dependent upon individual needs and preferences. I'm in NO way suggesting that a modern rail system would replace all or even most domestic long-haul flights, but we don't really get to see what effect it would have because we don't have one. 

4 hours ago, gildone said:

And with Detroit being a major international airport that's not that far away, I doubt Cleveland's airport is ever going to need to grow much.

 

What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying Cleveland can be like Ann Arbor or Toledo or Flint in that we don't need a decent airport because Detroit is just 2.5 hrs away? Hopkins doesn't need to grow because everyone in Cleveland who flies overseas can just be forced to travel to Detroit first and fly from there?

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

 

What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying Cleveland can be like Ann Arbor or Toledo or Flint in that we don't need a decent airport because Detroit is just 2.5 hrs away? Hopkins doesn't need to grow because everyone in Cleveland who flies overseas can just be forced to travel to Detroit first and fly from there?

I admit this wasn't worded well.  I'm saying Detroit is already a hub airport that has connecting flights from Cleveland to a host of destinations.  One of the arguments I've seen in a a few articles is that this $2 billion expansion could make Cleveland attractive for a hub.  I'm saying it's unlikely that Cleveland is ever going to need expansion for that particular purpose.  The amnesia of planners here is surprising  considering all of the cities that have been de-hubbed over the past couple decades--including Cleveland.

19 minutes ago, gildone said:

I admit this wasn't worded well.  I'm saying Detroit is already a hub airport that has connecting flights from Cleveland to a host of destinations.  One of the arguments I've seen in a a few articles is that this $2 billion expansion could make Cleveland attractive for a hub.  I'm saying it's unlikely that Cleveland is ever going to need expansion for that particular purpose.  The amnesia of planners here is surprising  considering all of the cities that have been de-hubbed over the past couple decades--including Cleveland.

When I read your original comment, this is exactly what I thought you were alluding to.   And I agree.  

13 minutes ago, gildone said:

I admit this wasn't worded well.  I'm saying Detroit is already a hub airport that has connecting flights from Cleveland to a host of destinations.  One of the arguments I've seen in a a few articles is that this $2 billion expansion could make Cleveland attractive for a hub.  I'm saying it's unlikely that Cleveland is ever going to need expansion for that particular purpose.  The amnesia of planners here is surprising  considering all of the cities that have been de-hubbed over the past couple decades--including Cleveland.

No one on the planning team has any illusions of CLE ever becoming a hub again. And I fully understand that SOME people are ok with alternative travel for 500+ miles, but most travelers and nearly all business travelers will prefer flying. Businesses critically rely on the airport - it is worth spending money on. 
 

And Hopkins is cramped. Midway is an interesting comparison seeing as Chicago has been expanding that airport. Back to CLE - everything about it is well below average. It needs a massive upgrade and I’m glad it’s finally being planned. 

12 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

And Hopkins is cramped...

 

Back to CLE - everything about it is well below average. It needs a massive upgrade and I’m glad it’s finally being planned. 

That is subjective...my yardstick for cramped is whether crowds of people slow me down, and/or whether I frequently can't find a place to sit near my gate.  Midway fails that yardstick. Hopkins doesn't for me, as I've never had either issue there.

 

And I already said we can agree to disagree on our opinions of the scale of what's needed.  Let's not go in circles re-stating our views.  I understand yours just fine. I'm not saying your view isn't valid (it is).  I'm only saying I don't share it. 

Edited May 30, 20214 yr by gildone

1 hour ago, gildone said:

That is subjective...my yardstick for cramped is whether crowds of people slow me down, and/or whether I frequently can't find a place to sit near my gate.  Midway fails that yardstick. Hopkins doesn't for me, as I've never had either issue there.

 

And I already said we can agree to disagree on our opinions of the scale of what's needed.  Let's not go in circles re-stating our views.  I understand yours just fine. I'm not saying your view isn't valid (it is).  I'm only saying I don't share it. 

 

You may be just using MDW as an example of crowding, but you've mentioned it twice. MDW is not a fair airport for a comparison to CLE. You're comparing apples and oranges. MDW is a secondary airport in the center of the city--its not Chicago's primary airport. Compare MDW to Burke or Cincinnati Lunken or even Teterboro. Hopkins is Cleveland's primary airport, so compare CLE to Chicago's ORD or any city's primary airport.

 

With that said, CLE is need of MAJOR improvements. Its very outdated---with the exception, ironically of Terminal D, slated for destruction.

 

I don't know what's in the list of the $750M first phase--but I hope ALL of it is about the terminal itself--fixing the FIS and modernizing and widening the concourses. It would be great to have a common restaurant and shops area BEFORE security with restaurants and the like, like a million other airports have. At CLE, right now, I think the only place to eat before security is at Subway, and its not a sit down restaurant--I don't know if the new plan even considered this.

 

Making the airport easier to get to from the south? That is a waste of money. There already is good highway access from Downtown.  Moving the rental cars to on-airport is a giant waste of money as its fine where it is.

 

Summary:  The first priorities are the terminal itself---forget the stuff outside of the airport.

54 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

You may be just using MDW as an example of crowding, but you've mentioned it twice. MDW is not a fair airport for a comparison to CLE. You're comparing apples and oranges. MDW is a secondary airport in the center of the city--its not Chicago's primary airport. Compare MDW to Burke or Cincinnati Lunken or even Teterboro. Hopkins is Cleveland's primary airport, so compare CLE to Chicago's ORD or any city's primary airport.

 

With that said, CLE is need of MAJOR improvements. Its very outdated---with the exception, ironically of Terminal D, slated for destruction.

 

I don't know what's in the list of the $750M first phase--but I hope ALL of it is about the terminal itself--fixing the FIS and modernizing and widening the concourses. It would be great to have a common restaurant and shops area BEFORE security with restaurants and the like, like a million other airports have. At CLE, right now, I think the only place to eat before security is at Subway, and its not a sit down restaurant--I don't know if the new plan even considered this.

 

Making the airport easier to get to from the south? That is a waste of money. There already is good highway access from Downtown.  Moving the rental cars to on-airport is a giant waste of money as its fine where it is.

 

Summary:  The first priorities are the terminal itself---forget the stuff outside of the airport.

Midway would be more like Akron Canton in its function than Burke. Chicago got rid of it's Burke. 

2 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

You may be just using MDW as an example of crowding, but you've mentioned it twice....

 

With that said, CLE is need of MAJOR improvements.

I think I've been pretty clear that my comparison with Midway has to do with crowding.  In that sense, the comparison is fine.   And I've only mentioned it twice (and for the same reason both times) because Boomerang_Brian brought it up in his response to my first mention of it.

 

Again, I'm not saying anyone else's viewpoint is invalid. I'm only saying I don't share the belief that Hopkins needs as much improvement as others believe it does.  From my second comment: "I'll agree with some upgrades, but we can agree to disagree on the scale."  From your comments, you have your own take on the scale which also isn't as big as the proposal, so there is some general overlap in our viewpoints, even if we differ on the specifics. 

 

Let's just leave it there so this thread can move on. 

Edited May 30, 20214 yr by gildone

2 hours ago, Pugu said:

...

With that said, CLE is need of MAJOR improvements. Its very outdated---with the exception, ironically of Terminal D, slated for destruction.

 

I don't know what's in the list of the $750M first phase--but I hope ALL of it is about the terminal itself--fixing the FIS and modernizing and widening the concourses. It would be great to have a common restaurant and shops area BEFORE security with restaurants and the like, like a million other airports have. At CLE, right now, I think the only place to eat before security is at Subway, and its not a sit down restaurant--I don't know if the new plan even considered this.

 

Making the airport easier to get to from the south? That is a waste of money. There already is good highway access from Downtown.  Moving the rental cars to on-airport is a giant waste of money as its fine where it is.

 

Summary:  The first priorities are the terminal itself---forget the stuff outside of the airport.

 

Pugu - the illustrations in my post upthread outline the plan for the phases, and it is also detailed in the public meetings which were recorded and linked upthread.  The good news for you (based on this post) is that replacing Customs and Immigration (FIS) and widening the A and B concourses are Phase 1 projects. (Well, B is just going to be replaced, which is better. A is getting widened a bit and renovated.)  See the illustrations, posted again here - FIS is labeled "5" and is where the new B concourse meets the terminal.  ("PAL 2" is the first phase.)

 

I do not understand the desire for shops before security. Why?  I could see maybe a small restaurant or dining area outside of security for eating with people who aren't traveling. Overall though, food choices and retail on the secured side are more important, and I think Hopkins is actually OK in this respect for an airport its size.

 

Moving rental cars on site is a BIG priority for the both the airport and the rental car facilities.  As Cleveland area residents, the current location doesn't affect us.  But for anyone coming in from out of town the off-site facilities are a massive headache.  I don't think it's one of the most important things, but I do think it should be on the top ten list.  There's plenty of room to have rental cars on site so it's silly for it to be remote.

 

Road access to the airport is a problem - it gets very backed up at the entrance and the various routes to parking are confusing to someone who doesn't go there often.  Again, I wouldn't call it a top priority, but I do think it merits being addressed.

 

Separate note - I agree with @surfohio - that big paper airplane in D is really cool and I hope they find a place for it in Hopkins going forward.

 

 

@Boomerang_Brian--thanks. What does PAL stand for?  "PAL 2" without sounds like 'phase 2' or something. If PAL 2 is the initial phase, what is PAL 1?  Its so frustrating---that the airport/city cannot just readily release the plan, and instead treats everyone like idiots. "PAL" is not a common abbreviation so perhaps they don't really want any opinion on the plan as you can't tell what's what. On the airport OFFICIAL master plan site, the last update is from SEVEN MONTHS ago---9/16/2020 (https://clevelandairportmasterplan.com/status.php). Is there a place to get the full plan, instead of piecemeal images that have no key on them?  (I do appreciate you posting them though, as we'd otherwise have nothing.)

 

Good to hear the FIS issue will be fixed through a new concourse.  The point about shops are restaurants pre-security was to be like other airports where people can mingle before going through security. At the very minimum a few restaurants would be nice that people can sit down at. In some cases people end up at the airport HOURS before their flights, due to weather or otherwise, and not everyone is flying so people could spend more time together with others before disappearing into security. Such facilities exist at just about every major airport in the world (including the US), not sure why Cleveland has to be limited to a subway stand. Even Burke had a fully functioning restaurant back in the day (pre-hornblower).

 

Road access could be fixed with better traffic control.

 

Rental car: that's how it is in major cities. That 'empty space' that is on airport should be used for higher uses than parking cars---there could be a few office bldgs or hotels built there. And those will pay down the airports debt through leases---far more than the cars would.

2 hours ago, Pugu said:

@Boomerang_Brian--thanks. What does PAL stand for?  "PAL 2" without sounds like 'phase 2' or something. If PAL 2 is the initial phase, what is PAL 1?  Its so frustrating---that the airport/city cannot just readily release the plan, and instead treats everyone like idiots. "PAL" is not a common abbreviation so perhaps they don't really want any opinion on the plan as you can't tell what's what. On the airport OFFICIAL master plan site, the last update is from SEVEN MONTHS ago---9/16/2020 (https://clevelandairportmasterplan.com/status.php). Is there a place to get the full plan, instead of piecemeal images that have no key on them?  (I do appreciate you posting them though, as we'd otherwise have nothing.)

 

Good to hear the FIS issue will be fixed through a new concourse.  The point about shops are restaurants pre-security was to be like other airports where people can mingle before going through security. At the very minimum a few restaurants would be nice that people can sit down at. In some cases people end up at the airport HOURS before their flights, due to weather or otherwise, and not everyone is flying so people could spend more time together with others before disappearing into security. Such facilities exist at just about every major airport in the world (including the US), not sure why Cleveland has to be limited to a subway stand. Even Burke had a fully functioning restaurant back in the day (pre-hornblower).

 

Road access could be fixed with better traffic control.

 

Rental car: that's how it is in major cities. That 'empty space' that is on airport should be used for higher uses than parking cars---there could be a few office bldgs or hotels built there. And those will pay down the airports debt through leases---far more than the cars would.

If you go up thread there is a link to the latest planning commission meeting which goes in depth on everything and you will get your explanation on what PAL means along with what’s included in each phase. You just have to fast forward thru the dumb council questions.  While the website may not be up to date, they have been public with their plans, no need to be upset with them being secretive. Also, it’s not public debt, the airlines are who will end up paying for the new airport, money not spent here can’t be spent elsewhere such on 3c or the like. 

4 hours ago, Pugu said:

@Boomerang_Brian

Rental car: that's how it is in major cities. That 'empty space' that is on airport should be used for higher uses than parking cars---there could be a few office bldgs or hotels built there. And those will pay down the airports debt through leases---far more than the cars would.

Perhaps so in major cities, but in small to mid markets travelers are coming to expect rental cars right outside baggage claim.   There is plenty of space to take the first few levels of the short term garage for rentals, and build another parking ramp where the former long term garage was.   IND, PIT, etc all have onsite rentals.   BNA just built a new parking structure right outside bag claim.  

4 hours ago, Taller_is_better said:

If you go up thread there is a link to the latest planning commission meeting which goes in depth on everything and you will get your explanation on what PAL means along with what’s included in each phase. You just have to fast forward thru the dumb council questions.  While the website may not be up to date, they have been public with their plans, no need to be upset with them being secretive. Also, it’s not public debt, the airlines are who will end up paying for the new airport, money not spent here can’t be spent elsewhere such on 3c or the like. 

 

Thanks--I know its not paid for by taxpayers as the airports are  an enterprise fund. But its VERY bizarre that the airport doesn't present the plan---you're saying the public has to sit through a city planning meeting which is a completely different department? And also know that that is where they need to go? Are the airport people too lazy to take the final step and have the plan easily accessible? And beyond that, it's not like they would be doing it themselves, it's just telling their contractor to do it. Is it that since Jackson announced he isn't running for re-election everyone is just too busy to do their jobs and instead are spending all their looking for their next gig? Its baffling.

 

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Perhaps so in major cities, but in small to mid markets travelers are coming to expect rental cars right outside baggage claim.   There is plenty of space to take the first few levels of the short term garage for rentals, and build another parking ramp where the former long term garage was.   IND, PIT, etc all have onsite rentals.   BNA just built a new parking structure right outside bag claim.  

 

If you treat Cleveland like a "small to mid market" city, then that is all it will ever be.

17 hours ago, Pugu said:

@Boomerang_Brian--thanks. What does PAL stand for?

PAL = Planning Activity Level.   RS&H, the plan contractor, is using levels 1,2,3,and 5.  PAL 1 is 10.1 million passengers, the number processed in 2019, When the airport hits that mark, the planning for level 1 plan implementation begins.  The contractor says that will come NLT 2024, but possibly sooner.  PAL 2 is 10.9 million, PAL 3 is 12.0 million, PAL 5 (by 2034) is 13.5 million.  When the PAL number is hit it doesn't mean the facility is maxed out, but it's supposed to trigger the delivery the associated facility increment in time to accommodate further growth.  No PAL hit, no new associated facility increment.

1 hour ago, Dougal said:

PAL = Planning Activity Level.   RS&H, the plan contractor, is using levels 1,2,3,and 5.  PAL 1 is 10.1 million passengers, the number processed in 2019, When the airport hits that mark, the planning for level 1 plan implementation begins.  The contractor says that will come NLT 2024, but possibly sooner.  PAL 2 is 10.9 million, PAL 3 is 12.0 million, PAL 5 (by 2034) is 13.5 million.  When the PAL number is hit it doesn't mean the facility is maxed out, but it's supposed to trigger the delivery the associated facility increment in time to accommodate further growth.  No PAL hit, no new associated facility increment.

 

@Dougal--Hi Dougal---thanks for that detailed and very informative explanation!  The approach makes since. Now I can go back and see that is included at at each PAL, before it made no sense to do so.

21 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

If you treat Cleveland like a "small to mid market" city, then that is all it will ever be.

But let's not kid ourselves.  We are no longer a hub city.   We should be providing amenities that similar sized airports are providing.   This isn't a hard fix.   Let the rental cars take over the first two levels of the short term garage.   Problem solved.