Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[ski_steve]

Originally Posted by delts145

FrontRunner lot in Layton is too small

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700234958,00.html

We've developed all the land we own in the area," said Carrie Bohnsack-Ware, senior media relations specialist for UTA.

UTA research determined the lot was big enough for the forecasted ridership, she said. But the analysis fell short.

"More people are riding than we thought," Bohnsack-Ware said.

Layton City Manager Alex Jensen said city officials knew the Layton station would be busy, but they didn't realize how busy.

.

yup, the Layton Station is very small. There are two small parking lots that hold all the cars. But it is not near enough. I live in Layton, at least for the summer, and I have taken Frontrunner. Layton just does not have enough room, so I just drive a bit more to Clearfield and it have loads of parking. The Layton Station just really doesn't have all that much more room to expanded either, unless they have more to the west.

Good to hear the projections were low too. I knew they would be, its a huge success.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Detroit has a brand spanking new, well, airport. I'm sure they will have a very large hub there. Memphis is toast and most likely cincy.

Wrendog: You're right. I forgot about the new McNamara terminal at DTW. I have not been there since it opened. It is supposedly has the second longest concourse in the world, which I assume is a good thing.

I also read that NorthWest was planning on basing the new 787's it ordered at DTW to fly transpacific routes. Maybe Detroit is a better bet to survive the coming consolidation of Delta hubs than I thought. I also agree that the Memphis hub is toast, which leaves just Minneapolis and Cincinnati on the potential chopping block.

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from DTW. Detroit went out on a limb and built the new terminal and an additional runway to handle transcontinental flights, which may prove its saving grace, since international flights are the only ones making any money these days.

Imagine what shape SLC Int. would be in if a new runway, designed specifically for transcontinental flights, either westbound or eastbound, were in progress. Couple that new runway with a massive, new all-Delta terminal, the future would look pretty bright. It would make a lot of sense since transpacific flights could back-haul to the Westcoast. Transatlantic flights could forward-haul to the Westcoast. LAX, SFO, Sea-Tac do not have gates to spare for transcontinental flights. I don't know about Portland. Now if we can just get the SLC airport authority to bite the bullet.

[skyguy414]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Detroit has a brand spanking new, well, airport. I'm sure they will have a very large hub there. Memphis is toast and most likely cincy.

Just to clarify, and I am sure everyone is already on the same page here, but what some people are referring to as "airports" should really be "terminals". I am sure you already know this wren, but Detroit doesn't have a new airport just that new terminal. There is much more to an airport than just the terminal. The US hasn't really seen a new major commercial airport built from scratch since the new Denver airport in the mid 90s. The building of the new airport in St. George is going to be one of the largest new airfield projects in a long time. I am sure you are all aware of this already, I just thought I would point this out so no one is confused.

BTW - Other major airports with new terminals (Detroit was already mentioned):

New York JFK just finished one for American Airlines and is almost done with the new Jet Blue terminal (However this airport is such a mess, there is no saving it or turning it into an organized airport by any means)
San Francisco SFO is working on replacing their old International terminal after their new International Terminal oppened around 2000.
Indianapolis IND - is completing a new state of the art terminal to completely replace their old one. They don't even have a hub, and they still built one.
Dallas DFW - The airport opened a new International Terminal there last year.
Austin, TX AUS -Moved locations to a military base which was shutting down operations and built a new terminal there about 8 years ago.
Boston BOS - Delta Airlines opened their new Two concourse terminal about one to two years ago.
Sacramento SMF - Looks like they will begin constructing their new terminal soon (no hub there either).
I am sure I have left a few major projects for the US out.

Now if you really want to see some impressive airport projects, look outside the USA. Places like Paris CDG airport, Hong Kong, Beijing, Osaka, Madrid, Seoul/Incheon, Bangkok, Dubai, a new terminal at London Heathrow, Munich, and on and on. Seriously, if you ever get to go to any of those airports and their new terminals, it makes it look like the airport terminals in the United States are built with LEGO's.

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Imagine what shape SLC Int. would be in if a new runway, designed specifically for transcontinental flights, either westbound or eastbound, were in progress. Couple that new runway with a massive, new all-Delta terminal, the future would look pretty bright. It would make a lot of sense since transpacific flights could back-haul to the Westcoast. Transatlantic flights could forward-haul to the Westcoast. LAX, SFO, Sea-Tac do not have gates to spare for transcontinental flights. I don't know about Portland. Now if we can just get the SLC airport authority to bite the bullet.

How interesting you would say that. Just yesterday, Delta's new non-stop to Paris had to make a fuel stop in Cincinnati on the way to Paris because the aircraft would not be able to takeoff from SLC with the necessary fuel to get to Paris because of aircraft weight restrictions. Since air density increases from atmospheric heating and humidity (on top of the decreased air density from already being 4200' above sea level), aircraft performance decreases and thus they require more runway takeoff distance. This is where long runways come in handy, especially in hot and high altitude environments like SLC.

The problem is, the airport's runways are too short to accomodate certain aircraft at maximum takeoff weight during the summer (hot) months. It was only 89 degrees yesterday, so it looks like if we have problems when it is only 89, we are going to be having problems with that flight all summer. During the winter, it shouldn't be an issue because it will be colder (it even hasn't been an issue since the Paris flights started June 2nd because it has been unseasonably cool here...until yesterday.)

So, what the airport needs to put on its highest priority list is to extend the center runway at the airport. It's been talked about for a long time, and should have been done by now.

I guess the only good news is the flights to Paris must be departing full of passengers and cargo for them to exceed their takeoff weights. There is strong demand for flights from SLC to other continents afterall.

I also agree the SLC airport is not taking advantage of an opportunity to expand now when Delta has shown dedication to the Salt Lake City operation. Delta would likely do more business here if the airport had the infrastructure to support it. Delta's only western hub is in SLC. Right now other carriers in the west (United, US Airways) are cutting back flights left and right. Delta should move in on these communities which have lost some or all air service and offer flights from SLC. We have a near perfect geographic location for passengers connecting from east coast to west coast. The airport could be a lot bigger than it is but someone has got to step up here and come up with some ideas and plans.

In conlcusion (sigh). Just know that the larger our airport becomes, the more prestigious the city is and the more recognizable it is. Many large companies who have moved to Salt Lake over the years cite one of the major reasons they moved here was because Salt Lake City had a major airport with nonstop flights to many cities (More nonstop choices from SLC than nearly all or all other western airports). The more the airport grows and Delta grows with it, the city will grow. Just as more businesses and corporations will come, so will tourists. Ski Utah often advertises how convenient the Salt Lake airport is because it is a hub and has non-stop flights to many cities. The same goes for the convention industry. Big conventions are more likely to be held in cities who can attract a large number of attendees who can get to the city quicker and easier (nonstop).

Wow...that was a doozy of a post.

[wrendog]

Yes, I know that it is only a new terminal, but in reality, it's basically a new airport. A lot of the concourses in the old terminals have been torn down. The new terminal has 85% of the gates at the whole airport or so, so that's why I said a new "airport".

[delts145]

Great post Skyguy, I really enjoyed reading it.

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Wrendog: You're right. I forgot about the new McNamara terminal at DTW. I have not been there since it opened. It is supposedly has the second longest concourse in the world, which I assume is a good thing.

I also read that NorthWest was planning on basing the new 787's it ordered at DTW to fly transpacific routes. Maybe Detroit is a better bet to survive the coming consolidation of Delta hubs than I thought. I also agree that the Memphis hub is toast, which leaves just Minneapolis and Cincinnati on the potential chopping block.

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from DTW. Detroit went out on a limb and built the new terminal and an additional runway to handle transcontinental flights, which may prove its saving grace, since international flights are the only ones making any money these days.

Imagine what shape SLC Int. would be in if a new runway, designed specifically for transcontinental flights, either westbound or eastbound, were in progress. Couple that new runway with a massive, new all-Delta terminal, the future would look pretty bright. It would make a lot of sense since transpacific flights could back-haul to the Westcoast. Transatlantic flights could forward-haul to the Westcoast. LAX, SFO, Sea-Tac do not have gates to spare for transcontinental flights. I don't know about Portland. Now if we can just get the SLC airport authority to bite the bullet.

SLC is definitely a major hub and airport...however, is there really that much of a demand in SLC for trans Pacific, let alone trans Atlantic flights?

This is not a slam but while SLC is a major airport, it just does not seem a dynamic enough location for a world transportation link.

Tell me where I am wrong. This is not a slam, it is more of a wondering why.

[wrendog]

^^^^ for local traffic? No. For hub/connecting traffic? Absolutely.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

SLC is definitely a major hub and airport...however, is there really that much of a demand in SLC for trans Pacific, let alone trans Atlantic flights?

This is not a slam but while SLC is a major airport, it just does not seem a dynamic enough location for a world transportation link.

Tell me where I am wrong. This is not a slam, it is more of a wondering why.

The SLC metro region is projected to grow substantially during the next couple of decades. It is better to be prepared, rather than to try and play catch up later.

[delts145]

Here's an interesting little blurb which goes along with much of what has been talked about above. This type of set-up is repeating itself again and again now along the Wasatch.

Greek company to open Utah distribution center

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_9607808

Parsons said that with most of the company's customers in the Southwest and nearby states, Utah offers a location to move products rapidly.

.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by wrendog

^^^^ for local traffic? No. For hub/connecting traffic? Absolutely.

I had posted this in the Salt Lake MSA thread, but couldn't resist putting it here also. This along with a number of major factors pretty well answers NYCRick's excellent question above.

Metro Salt Lake reaches the billion $ plus mark in it's ski industry

Ski season rakes in $1B - Resort group's chief boasts of 'beyond-spectacular winter'

By Mike Gorrell
The Salt Lake Tribune

Another record-breaking year in attracting visitors to the slopes has made Utah's ski industry a billion-dollar-a-year business for the first time.
Ski Utah said Monday that 4,258,900 skiers and boarders carved turns at the state's 13 resorts this past winter, the fifth consecutive year of record increases, this time up 4.3 percent from last winter's record of nearly 4.1 million.
With that much additional action, Ski Utah calculated the industry contributed $1.04 billion to Utah's economy. That figure includes all money spent by residents and visitors on their skiing and snowboarding ventures, from gear and food to lodging and entertainment. It does not count airfare.
"As much as skiing is a really fun recreational option for people, it's also an important source of revenue for the state," said Jessica Kunzer, spokeswoman for Ski Utah, marketing arm of the state's active resorts and related businesses.
The industry also provides work for 18,000 people, she added.
One aspect of this season's figure particularly pleased Ski Utah President Nathan Rafferty. The 4.3 percent boost in skier visits surpassed the cumulative 2.8 percent increase by other Western ski states - Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico and Montana - all of which also had good snow years.
"Nobody out there could say, 'We didn't have the snow you did.' Everyone
was playing on an even field last winter."



That competitiveness also impressed Leigh von der Esch, managing director of the Utah Office of Tourism, which works closely with Ski Utah and the resorts in promoting skiing.
"For us to move our market share forward was outstanding," she said. "Since our competitors had strong snow, too, we're breaking through the clutter on our advertising of the product Utah has to offer."
Prospects of a record year seemed bleak as Thanksgiving came and went without snow, as did the first week of December. But snowstorms came frequently after that, often packing moderate to big punches.
Once the snow finally started coming in abundance, Rafferty said, skier numbers inched up steadily, then jumped in March and April.
"There was absolutely no doubt it was a beyond-spectacular winter in terms of powder days and quality of skiing," he said, praising the ability of resorts to cope with big dumps and provide "a quality experience. People don't realize how much effort it takes, like employees getting to work early to shovel snow and remove all of the hassles."
[email][email protected][/email

[NYC Rick]

"New York JFK just finished one for American Airlines and is almost done with the new Jet Blue terminal (However this airport is such a mess, there is no saving it or turning it into an organized airport by any means)

Wow...that was a doozy of a post. [/QUOTE]

JFK was once THE model airport. 9 independent terminals with some handling only one airlines. However, Newark airport (now Newark Liberty) has become the destination to depart overseas. It has been 2 years since I did an international flight from JFK.

Anyone who has been to Newark Liberty knows that the NYC skyline is very visible from the airport. Easy city access. One will also know that the parking areas (long term) are gigantic and it is very possible that you cannot find a parking space. Long term parking is off the charts expensive in the closer lots.

Yes, JFK had no new air terminals until now. The former Pan Am terminal is now an historic landmark because of its defining 60's design. Outside of that, the airport is funky for sure.

However, you are wrong in saying that there is no way of turning it into an organized airport. It just has to be reconfigured and the new terminals that you mention are only the start. A good deal of land has be appropriated in an already huge space. The north side, which a long time ago was the beginning of an international area is now being laid out to separate international from national flights.

When you have a city area of 9 million then it is critical that people within the city have access to a city airport. There is a lot of business going on the East side of the Hudson river.

NYC needs a new JFK. The other option was to use Newburgh's Stewart field
to become the new metro NY main airport. However, it is almost 40 miles north and until a rapid transit light rail is inserted on the western side of the Hudson river, it is just too far.

If you read the New York times then you will know that plans on the redesign of JFK are almost completed. NYC needs a huge major airport within the city of New York limits. Yes, it is Queens county but it has the mass transit, subways etc to really make things practical.

You may be thinking about LaGuardia, which is becoming very much secondary. It used to be major but because they are running out of land and the fact that it is already known for being dangerous then JFK is the only NYC airport with everything ready to go.

[delts145]

Thanks for the info. updates Rick on Kennedy. I had been wondering lately about Kennedy, as I use to live in Manhattan. I really hadn't kept track since the late 90's.

[NYC Rick]

x

[skyguy414]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

However, you are wrong in saying that there is no way of turning it into an organized airport. It just has to be reconfigured and the new terminals that you mention are only the start. A good deal of land has be appropriated in an already huge space. The north side, which a long time ago was the beginning of an international area is now being laid out to separate international from national flights.

When you have a city area of 9 million then it is critical that people within the city have access to a city airport. There is a lot of business going on the East side of the Hudson river.

NYC needs a new JFK. The other option was to use Newburgh's Stewart field
to become the new metro NY main airport. However, it is almost 40 miles north and until a rapid transit light rail is inserted on the western side of the Hudson river, it is just too far.

If you read the New York times then you will know that plans on the redesign of JFK are almost completed. NYC needs a huge major airport within the city of New York limits. Yes, it is Queens county but it has the mass transit, subways etc to really make things practical.

You may be thinking about LaGuardia, which is becoming very much secondary. It used to be major but because they are running out of land and the fact that it is already known for being dangerous then JFK is the only NYC airport with everything ready to go.

No, I am definitely referring to JFK. But now that you mention it, LGA is definitely worse.

I guess it is how you define organization of an airport. I am more talking about efficiency (the amount of traffic an airport can handle and how well it handles it) of the airport rather than the layout of the terminals. JFK is notorious for being congested. It is just not able to handle the demand. And a lot of that is simply because of its layout, including runway and taxiway configuration and terminal layout. If there are plans to reconfigure the whole layout of the JFK airport, I haven't seen them.

In addition to being the bottleneck of the US airspace system, JFK currently has the longest taxi out times (the time it takes for aircraft to taxi from the gate to the runway). Source: http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_special_report/2008_008/html/table_02.html When airports have taxi out times that long, you know the airport is not laid out very well. And in this case, it isn't just because JFK is busy. JFK may get a lot of traffic, but if you compare it to Atlanta (the busiest airport in the world), they have twice as many flights taking off and landing but are still much more efficient than JFK, simply because the way the Atlanta airport is laid out.

Tearing down old terminals and rebuilding them in the same place is not going to improve efficiency at JFK. In order for JFK to become efficient, they would need multiple parallel runways built and the entire taxiway layout would have to be reconfigured. I have not seen any plans for JFK to do that and as far as I know, filling land south into Jamaica Bay is out of the question. That doesn't mean there isn't plans to reconfigure the airport, I just haven't seen them if there are.

In my opinion, an efficient and organized airport is one which can easily be adaptable to changes in the aviation industry. It is one which allows for many flights to simultaneously takeoff and land and allows aircraft to taxi quickly to the terminal and allow passengers to disembark. It is also one which allows passengers to easily connect between one flight to another quickly and allows airlines to have flexibility in scheduling flights. In my opinion, you can't say any of that about JFK.

Airports are also starting to consolidate multiple terminals to one or two large terminals. Most new airports are adopting this concept (however, most are outside the US). The plans for SLC include consolidating everything to just one terminal and two concourses instead of the current two terminals (and the international terminal if you want to count that) and 5 concourses. JFK has 8 terminals right now and like I said, they have just been tearing down old ones and replacing them in the exact same spot. They haven't really consolidated anything.

Right now it seems New York's solution for keeping up with the demand of air travel is to add yet another airport.

Again, this is all just my observation and opinion as someone who has a background in the airline and aviation industry. Anyone is welcome to disagree with it.

[RFPCME]

Skyguy, NY Rick, and the rest...I love this thread! What interesting discussion.

I'm not a pilot, nor transportation engineer...just a guy who has spent an enormous amount of time on airplanes over the last 25 years, much internationally. My only perspective is that of a passenger's.

NY Rick, I think you raised the question of whether SLC Int. could support many international flights. Good question. I know when I lived in Europe and was going anywhere in the Western US, I always flew to LA, then back to SLC or wherever else I was going. It was much shorter time-wise than connecting on the East Coast. But I'm guessing gates capable of handling international flights are pretty well maxed out at LAX. So if you are going to anywhere in the Western US, a SLC Int. hub makes sense, unless you're primary destination is LA, San Franciso, or Puget Sound (LAX or SFO or Sea-Tac).

Same is true from Asia. If you're primary destination in not LAX, SFO, or Sea-Tac, then SLC makes sense. If I were in Hong Kong and wanted to get to, say Vegas, I'd go through SLC rather than LAX. It would be faster, considering connections and gate-to-gate times.

Regarding, NYC-area airports, I'll put aside my usual sarcasm and keep the tone of the discussion at the high level that has been set. If I have to get a car, I fly into Newark. If I don't need or want a car, I go to LGA. I never, ever go to Kennedy, which is ironic since my favorite lady flies out of there for Delta.

Finally, one of the big reasons I decided to relocate to Georgia is because of the efficiency of Hartsfield-Jackson airport. It gets me to just about any where I need to go with minimal brain damage.

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by skyguy414

No, I am definitely referring to JFK. But now that you mention it, LGA is definitely worse.

I guess it is how you define organization of an airport. I am more talking about efficiency (the amount of traffic an airport can handle and how well it handles it) of the airport rather than the layout of the terminals. JFK is notorious for being congested. It is just not able to handle the demand. And a lot of that is simply because of its layout, including runway and taxiway configuration and terminal layout. If there are plans to reconfigure the whole layout of the JFK airport, I haven't seen them.

Tearing down old terminals and rebuilding them in the same place is not going to improve efficiency at JFK. In order for JFK to become efficient, they would need multiple parallel runways built and the entire taxiway layout would have to be reconfigured. I have not seen any plans for JFK to do that and as far as I know, filling land south into Jamaica Bay is out of the question. That doesn't mean there isn't plans to reconfigure the airport, I just haven't seen them if there are.

Again, this is all just my observation and opinion as someone who has a background in the airline and aviation industry. Anyone is welcome to disagree with it.

I understand what you are saying. However Taking advantage of the North area and making it into a Terminal area should really help. I know that many of the legacy terminals will disappear.

One thing that you mentioned is something that I was not even thinking about and that is the bottleneck aspect. I know what you are saying. Super populous area, zillions of flights (I have no idea how controllers do their job and not just go crazy) and in an area that has an entire east coast basically in a flight path going to NYC or not.

I think it is why I use Newark. That is a nice airport with very few delays via circling. Takeoffs have their lines but the delay is totally tolerable.

NYC, however NEEDS JFK. Newark could not handle it all and without an efficient JFK, it will only get worse.

[skyguy414]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

I understand what you are saying. However Taking advantage of the North area and making it into a Terminal area should really help. I know that many of the legacy terminals will disappear.

One thing that you mentioned is something that I was not even thinking about and that is the bottleneck aspect. I know what you are saying. Super populous area, zillions of flights (I have no idea how controllers do their job and not just go crazy) and in an area that has an entire east coast basically in a flight path going to NYC or not.

I think it is why I use Newark. That is a nice airport with very few delays via circling. Takeoffs have their lines but the delay is totally tolerable.

NYC, however NEEDS JFK. Newark could not handle it all and without an efficient JFK, it will only get worse.

I agree NYC needs JFK. I just think it is unfortunate it wasn't carefully laid out and built. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. No one back when JFK was being built (1940's) really expected air travel to be as big as it is now. This is why one of my biggest pet peeves in airport planning is to always leave room for major changes and expansion as this industry is always changing.

NYC would be much better served by one really large, centrally located airport which can handle all the demand it sees efficiently and then some rather than three airports which are constantly struggling. I realize this is not really an option now due to geography and how the metro area has developed.

At least NYC isn't as screwed as San Diego with their airport and the problems they are facing as that city grows. Don't even get me started.

[RC14]

UTA broke ground today on the West Valley TRAX line..http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3562918

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by skyguy414

I agree NYC needs JFK. I just think it is unfortunate it wasn't carefully laid out and built. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. No one back when JFK was being built (1940's) really expected air travel to be as big as it is now. This is why one of my biggest pet peeves in airport planning is to always leave room for major changes and expansion as this industry is always changing.

NYC would be much better served by one really large, centrally located airport which can handle all the demand it sees efficiently and then some rather than three airports which are constantly struggling. I realize this is not really an option now due to geography and how the metro area has developed.

At least NYC isn't as screwed as San Diego with their airport and the problems they are facing as that city grows. Don't even get me started.

What I wrote about yesterday...Stewart Airport near Newburgh New York is basically what you were hoping for in saying NYC needs ONE airport to support the area.

Yet it is nearly 40 miles North on the West side of the Hudson River. No mass transit as I mentioned before. If they used light rail or commuter trains it would be non stop forever. I do not think a lot of people would tolerate it. I mean it would have to be a Japanese bullet train. However, with the amount of people who would use one airport, it would be a nightmare...not even mentioning what the here to there cost would be on the ground.

It does have the space (Former AFB and now a local airport like Westchester), It has lots of space to develop. However, I see the 3 International airport being used forever.

Newark: I do not know if you have used it, really is a breeze to use.

On your JFK point regarding not understanding what the future of air travel would become. No one anywhere could have imagined it. How could they? The thing is that in the 1940's NYC was still 7 million people in the city proper. It has not grown much as a proper city limit but it has blown up within 10 miles in every direction (almost 22 million) in an area that is metro SLC plus Davis county.

When they designed JFK they totally underestimated but it was still in an urban area where people lived. I think they made the right choices in looking at old plans and images of the city. Yet, if was not as much NYC underestimating as the rest of the country (and world) growing up, NYC is one of THE very few super major cities in the world. It is not going to change...in the same way London, Tokyo etc are not going to change.

Tokyo's idea of Narita is very interesting. Build a mega airport off shore. But in today's world economy, I would not even want to think of the cost. There are many better things they could do with the money in this world and I am most definitely NOT talking about the stupid war with its pointless loss of life.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by RC14

UTA broke ground today on the West Valley TRAX line..http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3562918

I'm happy to hear that there will be a trax stop by the E-center. West Valley needs a lot of help when it comes to redevelopment.