flypit - it is understood that the plan is not taxpayer funded. However, with the current terminal, while taxpayers did not have to bail it out directly, one could easily argue that taxpayers paid a heavy price with the loss of the hub, jobs, economic effect on the area. In reality, the taxpayer finds themselves financially impacted under most negative scenarios. This is one reason why people need to start looking at these types of projects, being touted by public officials, but backed by John Q taxpayer.
That could be said about any large business going out of business. Does that mean we should stop building and improving infrastructure? Absolutely people should look at these projects. Read the material, go to the presentations, ask questions, etc. No one is saying they shouldn't.
Once again, the current terminal, in light of the existing facilities in the 1980's made absolute sense. However, even with full USAir hub support and a 30 year lease, the hub still fell apart due to costs. This new proposal, to spend $1B to actually reduce capacity both on the airfield and with terminal facilities just does not add up. Is there full airline support? Is this support in the form of a reaffirmed and signed lease for the bond repayment period? I am not saying the airlines should make this decision, but they should have a strong say be committed as part of the process.
It has been said the airlines are being supportive and have been involved in the process and yes there will still be leases going forward. The only way the taxpayer is on the hook for this is if the airlines all leave PIT. Passenger traffic is increasing and costs will continue to decrease so that scenario will not play out. There are many reasons the US hub at PIT fell apart; costs at PIT were only one item.
The part about reducing capacity is such a small part of this plan. The new terminal at MSY and MCI will be smaller than the old ones so its not unheard of.
If you insist the documentation and cost/benefit information the ACAA has put out is fraudulent and deceitful, then actually the onus IS on you to prove otherwise. Short of that all you can offer is pointless babble.
I never insisted anything of the sort. You are taking liberties with my statements by discarding the salient and injecting words that are not mine.
Oh really? These are your words, are they not?
In fact that if this is true, then it is so fiducially irresponsible that the Allegheny County Airport Authority engaged in fraud.
The airport is adept at slight of hand tricks when discussing the financial situation.
The ACAA is disingenuous about the whole plan.
Until the AACA does their jobs making the disclosures on how the recent projects are justified with the new plans they are suspect.
Say the signage wasn't needed to maintain the tram system effectively through the anticipated remaining useful life. Say it only is $50,000 of the $11,000,000 project and no one is going to be concerned with such a small mistake. If it was only $50,000 I certainly wouldn't care. If it was flawed oversight by ACAA that caused the issue that same flawed oversight would equate to $4,500,000 on a $1,000,000,000 project. I don't think many people would Lol that and this is information the public deserves to know. This is the disclosure I spoke of earlier.
Why are you linking the signage to the maintenance of the tram system? Why aren't we saying the signage was part of the airport's ongoing updates to keep the facility fresh and modern, which again was done before this future plan and will have a good 8 years or so of useful life? For someone who is complaining about disclosure you sure are making a lot of assumptions in your posts. Then to springboard from that to this $4,500,000 figure you pulled out of nowhere, then to jump from that fictional figure and state the oversight from the ACAA is flawed. I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time here.
Please point me to the document and sections where the terrazzo floor and tram modernization projects are integrated into the new renovation.
Why should there even be a document about the tram overhaul being integrated into the new renovated terminal when the tram will not be integrated in to the new renovated terminal? As already explained, the tram overhaul was a separate project at a different time which needed to be done to continue the safe and reliable service of the tram. If you feel that work did not need to be done in 2014 then the onus is on you to show otherwise. Still waiting.
It can't be poured at multiple times because that will create a seam, cracking, and eventual loss of material at the joint. As I said above, new Terrazzo pours require a metal separator because pours never directly abut each other.
Have you even seen the new floor? It has those little metal separators all over! AGAIN, it was done in sections over the course of a year. Look at your own diagram. If they had to poor the whole thing at once they would have had to close the entire airside core, which in turn would have shut down the whole airport. Some pics where you can see the separators if you zoom in:http://www.post-gazette.com/image/2015/ ... ocal01.jpghttps://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnew ... 1200%2C960https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P65HDILAqdU
Large Terrazzo projects are not usually a single floor but multiple floors created separately.
Why are you even talking about the floor still? You assumed incorrectly from a rendering that it will be removed, then you assumed incorrectly again that it cannot be meshed together with a new floor where the escalators are.
The ACAA statement, "The the new landside building wouldn't include the use of taxpayer dollars" is a blatant lie. The ACAA has stated they intend to apply for grants from the AIP program and all those funds are derived from taxes
The AIP program is funded by the FAA's Airport and Airway Trust Fund which in turn is funded by excise taxes on airline tickets, fuel surcharges, etc. In other words the users of the system are paying for it, not taxpayers in the traditional sense from a general fund.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.