Searched and didn't find this posted yet.

Trenton-Mercer Airport (TTN) is moving forward with planning for a much needed, new terminal building. A public meeting was held on January 23rd, 2019, at which the consulting firm presented preliminary environmental impact and new terminal characteristics and siting proposals. The recommendation is that the new terminal (one of four possible designs) will be located in the west quadrant, adjacent to the current terminal, and will require moving the ARFF station (to the east quadrant adjacent to the ANG hanger).

This is a much needed update to the airport. I live a few miles from TTN (and love the noise reduction that the Frontier A20N have brought). Having flown from TTN on both EastWind (in the 90's) and Frontier (last year), the present terminal is a hack. Looks like the new terminal will have jet bridges... certainly hope they do, along with a real baggage claim!

The presentation is available at: https://www.ttnterminal.com/

While I think the most unrealistic, I think proposal 3 is the best option. It will give the most room for future expansion.

Why? Basically no airlines fly to TTN and no one ever will.

I agree that 3 would be the best option for terminal. The forest and wetlands wouldn’t be affected as much. Flew out of TTN once in 2017 and that terminal is horrible couldn’t even sit the place was so small and packed

pbodyphoto wrote:

Why? Basically no airlines fly to TTN and no one ever will.

Frontier Airlines has a pretty decently sized crew base and focus city there. It’s highly preferable over ACY/PHL for those in South/Central Jersey and Eastern PA because of how easy it is to use and it’s location (being right off of 295). Even some people from North Jersey take the drive down there to catch cheaper flights as opposed to out of EWR. Plus those Jersey to Florida flights, especially in the winter more often than not go out full. If Frontier is having no issues filling up the planes and if the demand is there, then why not?

Ooooh, teacher, please, I know the timeline!!

1) A group of "concerned citizens" will gather and create a new organization: Citizens for Responsible Airport Planning (CRAP). They will band together to stop the apocalypse...err, excuse me, "ensure that any building that goes on at TTN satisfies local demands for efficiency and quiet".

Translation: oppose everything that would allow even ONE extra passenger to use the airport.

2) CRAP will then find an ambulance-chaser on contingency to sue anyone and everyone who has any stake in the airport, because "none of the designs will be good enough".

Translation: kill any and all attempts by filibustering the issue endlessly.

3) The media will come on board, hoping to "present both sides of the issue".

Translation: the airport side will calmly and rationally explain a) why it is needed, b), how the plan will be paid for, and c) what it will mean for the community. CRAP will bring a large number of hysterical residents from literally the entire east coast, claiming that, "airplane noise hurts our children!" and "I moved near a major city to get away from everyone - this will just bring in more people!!", and the ever-popular, "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?"

4) A major compromise might be reached - and I stress "might" - when CRAP and the airport agree that the tiniest fraction of expansion can go ahead (drastically scaled down from original plans, and completely insufficient for today, much less anything in the future), but then CRAP receives, in perpetuity, total and complete veto power over ANY expansion or improvements to the airport forever.

Am I being facetious? No. Think BUR. Think SNA. Think LGB. Think LAX. Think DEN, where people in the immediate vicinity are required to sign a waiver understanding that DEN is not going away or closing down just because you bought a house nearby. Think the northeast U.S. where you can't even redesign the airspace without Mr. & Mrs. Suburbia thirty miles away threatening to sue because planes might be down to 15,000 feet near their house.

I hope it is different for Trenton, but NIMBY-ism will probably wipe that airport out of existence.

Frontiers loads looked pretty good over the summer (Nearly all above 90%, around half above 95%), hopefully they can continue throughout next year. Anyone have any ideas of some future routes that would be added?

I used Frontier a few times when I lived in South Jersey and thought it was a great option but that terminal definitely needs more room. A couple of times I had a flight at around the same time as other flights and the area inside security had barely enough room to stand let alone sit down. I hope that service to TTN works out. I live in Myrtle Beach, S.C. now and Frontier has seasonal service here from TTN, I hope to take advantage of it this summer.

All local NIMBY opposition to anything is based on traffic and children. It's the common refrain. It ends up being pretty effective. And a great diversion. Instead of saying they don't want something because they don't like change of any kind, they say traffic and children. See we are altruistic and generous! It's the traffic and children that we are worried about.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Ooooh, teacher, please, I know the timeline!!

1) A group of "concerned citizens" will gather and create a new organization: Citizens for Responsible Airport Planning (CRAP). They will band together to stop the apocalypse...err, excuse me, "ensure that any building that goes on at TTN satisfies local demands for efficiency and quiet".

Translation: oppose everything that would allow even ONE extra passenger to use the airport.

(Name is close Bucks Residents for Responsible Airport Management (BRRAM) should be CRAP though) BRRAM sued because Allegiant added like 1 flight a day.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

2) CRAP will then find an ambulance-chaser on contingency to sue anyone and everyone who has any stake in the airport, because "none of the designs will be good enough".

Translation: kill any and all attempts by filibustering the issue endlessly.

I don't know if he's an ambulance chaser but he doesn't seem to be too informed in Aviation and enviromental issues (filed petition in the wrong court). They have a new one now that they scammed the their local town into paying for, she has some experience it seems

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

3) The media will come on board, hoping to "present both sides of the issue".

Translation: the airport side will calmly and rationally explain a) why it is needed, b), how the plan will be paid for, and c) what it will mean for the community. CRAP will bring a large number of hysterical residents from literally the entire east coast, claiming that, "airplane noise hurts our children!" and "I moved near a major city to get away from everyone - this will just bring in more people!!", and the ever-popular, "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?"

Have pulled all the sob stories and did use children by way of saying the noise/air pollution was bad for schools, churches, etc.. They have also gone for the absurd fact route they claim Trention's expansion will turn it into LaGaurdia. In a flyer they said "Think LaGaurdia in your back yard". Not even remotely close.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

4) A major compromise might be reached - and I stress "might" - when CRAP and the airport agree that the tiniest fraction of expansion can go ahead (drastically scaled down from original plans, and completely insufficient for today, much less anything in the future), but then CRAP receives, in perpetuity, total and complete veto power over ANY expansion or improvements to the airport forever. Am I being facetious? No. Think BUR. Think SNA. Think LGB. Think LAX. Think DEN, where people in the immediate vicinity are required to sign a waiver understanding that DEN is not going away or closing down just because you bought a house nearby. Think the northeast U.S. where you can't even redesign the airspace without Mr. & Mrs. Suburbia thirty miles away threatening to sue because planes might be down to 15,000 feet near their house.

Not yet but I have the fear your right, they have already chased out Southwest back in the early 2000s Only thing that may help is the majority of the complaints are coming from PA so they have less to worry about as far as re-election.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Ooooh, teacher, please, I know the timeline!!

1) A group of "concerned citizens" will gather and create a new organization: Citizens for Responsible Airport Planning (CRAP). They will band together to stop the apocalypse...err, excuse me, "ensure that any building that goes on at TTN satisfies local demands for efficiency and quiet".

Translation: oppose everything that would allow even ONE extra passenger to use the airport.

2) CRAP will then find an ambulance-chaser on contingency to sue anyone and everyone who has any stake in the airport, because "none of the designs will be good enough".

Translation: kill any and all attempts by filibustering the issue endlessly.

3) The media will come on board, hoping to "present both sides of the issue".

Translation: the airport side will calmly and rationally explain a) why it is needed, b), how the plan will be paid for, and c) what it will mean for the community. CRAP will bring a large number of hysterical residents from literally the entire east coast, claiming that, "airplane noise hurts our children!" and "I moved near a major city to get away from everyone - this will just bring in more people!!", and the ever-popular, "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?"

4) A major compromise might be reached - and I stress "might" - when CRAP and the airport agree that the tiniest fraction of expansion can go ahead (drastically scaled down from original plans, and completely insufficient for today, much less anything in the future), but then CRAP receives, in perpetuity, total and complete veto power over ANY expansion or improvements to the airport forever.

Am I being facetious? No. Think BUR. Think SNA. Think LGB. Think LAX. Think DEN, where people in the immediate vicinity are required to sign a waiver understanding that DEN is not going away or closing down just because you bought a house nearby. Think the northeast U.S. where you can't even redesign the airspace without Mr. & Mrs. Suburbia thirty miles away threatening to sue because planes might be down to 15,000 feet near their house.

I hope it is different for Trenton, but NIMBY-ism will probably wipe that airport out of existence.

Carbon copy of what is going on at HVN. Airport is awaiting a vote by the state legislature on repealing a limit on the the runway length, 5600 feet. Also awaiting a decision by the federal court of appeals dealing with same issue. AA is enjoying high loads and is replacing the CRJ-200's with CRJ-700's and E-175's.