NEW ORLEANS | Project/Development Thread

[Chris from N.O.]

Originally Posted by Foley Santamaria

Agreed about possibly lowering fees, that seems like the most sure-fire way to have more airlines call the airport.

Re: use of monies for other - Orlando Airport is supposedly going to spend several hundred million to assist the FEC project. Mainly for a large parking garage, but also train depot/garage

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/inde...-update/page-5

The article doesn't specify, but I guess at least some of that mile is off current airport property? Would really like to get a firm answer on this...

on the landing fees- it seems almost like a free lunch- if we get more flights, there is more ancillary revenue in the form of being able to charge higher rents, higher tax collections for things being bought at the airport, as a result of a higher passenger volume- I just don't see companies saying "I would relocate to New Orleans but that terminal is so outdated," it's always "I would open an office in New Orleans but the flight frequency to Boston isn't high enough" etc... I just don't understand what a new terminal does for us other than give some bragging rights.

[typo86]

New Orleans Aviation Board unveils $826 million overhaul of Louis Armstrong Airport



The New Orleans Aviation Board today is expected to recommend an $826 million redevelopment plan meant to thrust Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport into the modern era - a reimagining of the sleepy, mid-century airstrip that would be in lockstep with what Mayor Mitch Landrieu has said he would like to see built in time for the city's 300th anniversary in 2018...

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.s..._river_default



PDF Presentation:
http://media.nola.com/politics/other...n%20041613.pdf

I thought I'd properly introduce this article...

[Uptowner]

Two questions... What happens to the new CONRAC and since light rail integration was only included in one of the other alternates is it out of the picture?

[N.O.L.A.]

I'm a little confused. The last sketchup model in the pdf presentation appears to show that the majority of parking, as well as the new car rental facility, will remain at its current location. Does this mean that people using these facilities will have to use the current entrance rather than the proposed Loyola Dr./I-10 connection? I find two means of access to the airport to be odd... I guess travelers would have to be shuttled or something? I think that this in combination with the fact that this announcement has come fairly soon after the completion of the renovations shows that there has been very poor future planning at the airport. I'm optimistic, but not enough to believe that this would be done by 2018. I don't mean to sound so negative...of course I would love for the city to have a world class airport!

On a slightly off topic note, I was wondering if I could get some help from you guys! When one of my architecture professors found out that I was from New Orleans he asked me to write about modernism in nola for his final paper. My initial list includes the WTC/ITC bldg., the Rivergate, Superdome?, Albert Ledner houses, Plaza Tower and the old Phillis Wheatley Elementary School. If any of you know of anything else I could discuss in my paper, I would appreciate a private message with any suggestions! I'm native New Orleanian at an out-of-state architecture school, so I like to check in here from time to time to catch up on what's going on in our city. I appreciate all of the frequent updates and life that you guys put into this board!

[typo86]

Originally Posted by N.O.L.A.

On a slightly off topic note, I was wondering if I could get some help from you guys! When one of my architecture professors found out that I was from New Orleans he asked me to write about modernism in nola for his final paper. My initial list includes the WTC/ITC bldg., the Rivergate, Superdome?, Albert Ledner houses, Plaza Tower and the old Phillis Wheatley Elementary School. If any of you know of anything else I could discuss in my paper, I would appreciate a private message with any suggestions! I'm native New Orleanian at an out-of-state architecture school, so I like to check in here from time to time to catch up on what's going on in our city. I appreciate all of the frequent updates and life that you guys put into this board!

Check these out:
http://www.regional-modernism.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xxno/sets/

[York1]

I have to agree that there should be some rail connection to the airport from the city and also to Baton Rouge.

I know that Dallas is currently building a rail line from DFW to downtown Dallas.

I've taken cabs from the airport several times. One of them was not a nice welcome to the city.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Uptowner

Two questions... What happens to the new CONRAC and since light rail integration was only included in one of the other alternates is it out of the picture?

I don't know... this is why I'm frustrated there's no public input, and it seems like the decision's already been made on a plan that's incredibly vague. For a city of our size, $680M is a massive investment, and we should take the time to plan it properly.

Theoretically, an APM system could be constructed between the north terminal, long-term parking & CONRAC on the south, and a commuter rail station south of Airline using the unused Loyola Drive tunnel. Newark has this setup and it works really well.

The new terminal should be a world-class design on par with T2 at San Francisco, the Denver tents, or Bangkok's airport. For $680M we can easily afford top quality design that's far, far nicer than anything the airport's ever done. LEED certification should be a given.

[ardecila]

In other news:

Morning Call coffee and beignet shop could soon return to French Quarter
By Bruce Eggler, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
on April 16, 2013 at 10:22 PM, updated April 17, 2013 at 9:08 AM

The Vieux Carre Commission gave conceptual approval Tuesday to a proposal to demolish an old service station at the intersection of Conti, Decatur and North Peters streets and replace it with a new Morning Call.

The commission's staff described the proposed building -- a two-story structure with a roof terrace and seating for 300 customers -- as "a transparent glass cube surrounded by a filigree of decorative metal work."

The Morning Call owners also have proposed closing the short block of Conti that separates their site from Bienville Park....

[LAandMagazine]

I wish I understood the logic of spending all this money on a new airport. It's smaller than the current airport, so the idea that the investment will massively increase traffic seems faulty. The fees-lowering argument doesn't make sense; if our fees are too high, why not just lower them and save the $700 million? I really don't see what's wrong with the airport we have. It's wasteful to replace things just because you can. This is especially the case since we just spent hundreds of millions on renovations and new structures. What am I missing?

[Chris from N.O.]

Originally Posted by LAandMagazine

I wish I understood the logic of spending all this money on a new airport. It's smaller than the current airport, so the idea that the investment will massively increase traffic seems faulty. The fees-lowering argument doesn't make sense; if our fees are too high, why not just lower them and save the $700 million? I really don't see what's wrong with the airport we have. It's wasteful to replace things just because you can. This is especially the case since we just spent hundreds of millions on renovations and new structures. What am I missing?

I think their case is that over the long run, fees would be lower, and a redesign to current standards would allow the airport have the same amount of function in a smaller space- but why not just tear out all that "extra space" from the current terminal, and rebuild what we have to standard?

I have to admit that having now seen the plans I'm kind of excited about this project- but not so excited that I would want to endanger our level of service.

[SlidellWx]

Looks like the north-side project is a done deal. Not really excited about it, as the current airport after the renovations is actually pretty nice. Since this will be built, I started looking over the detailed plans on the airport website. Overall, it looks like the design will be more efficient and customer friendly on the airside of the terminal. This is a great thing.

http://new.nola.gov/getattachment/1a...e_Summary.pdf/

However, there is a serious flaw in landside designs. I see no plans for a rail link to the parking garages that will remain in use on the south-side of the airport. This must be remedied. No one is going to be happy riding a shuttle bus all the way around the airport complex to get to the rental cars or parking garages. It really defeats the purpose of building this new terminal.

The airport MUST have a fast and reliable connection to the garages or this is simply throwing good money away. A rail link running beneath the runway complex is the only viable alternative if the garages remain south of the runways. The other option is to build new structures in the vacant lot just northwest of where the new terminal is proposed along Lockheed Dr. A skytrain link to the garages would be an option then.

[Chris from N.O.]

Originally Posted by SlidellWx

Looks like the north-side project is a done deal. Not really excited about it, as the current airport after the renovations is actually pretty nice. Since this will be built, I started looking over the detailed plans on the airport website. Overall, it looks like the design will be more efficient and customer friendly on the airside of the terminal. This is a great thing.

http://new.nola.gov/getattachment/1a...e_Summary.pdf/

However, there is a serious flaw in landside designs. I see no plans for a rail link to the parking garages that will remain in use on the south-side of the airport. This must be remedied. No one is going to be happy riding a shuttle bus all the way around the airport complex to get to the rental cars or parking garages. It really defeats the purpose of building this new terminal.

The airport MUST have a fast and reliable connection to the garages or this is simply throwing good money away. A rail link running beneath the runway complex is the only viable alternative if the garages remain south of the runways. The other option is to build new structures in the vacant lot just northwest of where the new terminal is proposed along Lockheed Dr. A skytrain link to the garages would be an option then.

I'd think if they were to do a train under the runway, it would have to have its own screening- can't imagine the TSA would be very happy about unsecured public transportation under the runway. I agree though that it would be needed in the absence of new parking- also can't believe that the private lots along Airline are very happy about this.


When you say it's a "done deal," how done is it, exactly? Is this a firm commitment to build, or is it contingent on receiving projected grant money?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Chris from N.O.

I'd think if they were to do a train under the runway, it would have to have its own screening- can't imagine the TSA would be very happy about unsecured public transportation under the runway. I agree though that it would be needed in the absence of new parking- also can't believe that the private lots along Airline are very happy about this.

I don't think this is a problem. Fort Lauderdale's extending a runway over an expressway and creating a massive tunnel in the process. There's a similar one in Atlanta on the Perimeter, and that's pretty new.

A train system would be far more secure than a highway tunnel; the stations and interiors can be monitored by cameras, while anyone can drive a private car. If AirTrain Newark is a model, you would need some kind of identification to get on the train - in Newark's case, I think you need a parking stub or an Amtrak/NJT ticket.

Even if Homeland Security puts up a struggle, this is the kind of thing where they back off pretty quickly under political pressure.

[tennis1400]

If one takes a long term view of the airport the new terminal is the best option. Yes it would have been better to have done this 8 years ago but whats done is done. I do think the airport feels that allowing the south side to be free of passengers they can attract more cargo to the airport. This will help create revenue and offset costs. Ultimately, while the recent renovations are indeed an improvement they arent enough. I also thinks its important that an airport have a more direct connection to the interstate which the northside does. My main gripe is why did we build the new car rental thing as it will be useless then. But overall the money is what needs to be thought about and it will be cheaper to build it on the northside . No more low ceilings in Baggage claim! And a proper international section is a must! The airport discussion reminds me of a discussion going on in New York Citys midtown section about allowing higher density and heights to replace buildings that are 50-60 years old. Most reports say that tearing down these buildings and constructing new larger highrises will still result in an overall less usage of energy than if they left these older smaller buildings standing. My main connection here is that the current terminal is quite old and from those time periods. So while it may be hard to believe the current terminal is ridiculously expensive to maintain compared to its size.

[Chris from N.O.]

Originally Posted by tennis1400

So while it may be hard to believe the current terminal is ridiculously expensive to maintain compared to its size.

I get that, but the buildings you are talking about also create more revenue. This plan basically replicates airport capacity.

If you look at the pdf from nola.com, it projects that under the "no-build" alternative, which I assume is not the same as "refurbishment", the cost per enplaned passenger would be $7.50 at the end of the study timeframe, and $6 if the north alternative comes to fruition. I know some of the money is supposed to come from grants, and I'm not opposed to accepting federal money, but do we really want to spend $450 million on a new building just to cut costs 20%? What kind of ROI is that?

For reference, we had about 4.2 million enplanements last year. Current CPE is $9- so it cost us 36.2 million this year by this metric. Let's say by 2020 we have 20% more air traffic- that would be 5.04 mill pax. So we can either have the cost of (5.04*7.50)= $37.8 million, or (5.04 *6)= $30.24 Million- a savings of 7 million a year.

That's obviously some pretty fuzzy math, but it gives some idea of the magnitude of these projected savings.

Like I said, I actually do like the proposal, I just want to make sure we're not shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Chris from N.O.]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't think this is a problem. Fort Lauderdale's extending a runway over an expressway and creating a massive tunnel in the process. There's a similar one in Atlanta on the Perimeter, and that's pretty new.

A train system would be far more secure than a highway tunnel; the stations and interiors can be monitored by cameras, while anyone can drive a private car. If AirTrain Newark is a model, you would need some kind of identification to get on the train - in Newark's case, I think you need a parking stub or an Amtrak/NJT ticket.

Even if Homeland Security puts up a struggle, this is the kind of thing where they back off pretty quickly under political pressure.

I know about the Atlanta configuration, I guess I just have this idea that the tunnel wouldn't have been built nearly to the strength of an interstate overpass. Just seems more dangerous somehow.

I guess some of my leeriness about this whole thing just comes from reading about MCI - that they built a whole new airport for TWA and then security protocols changed.

[ardecila]

This is the sort of ROI you deal with when all the money is coming for free. Obviously we'd never be having this conversation if bonafide New Orleans tax dollars were on the table.

I don't know a whole lot about the Loyola tunnel but it looks like a huge box culvert; basically the same thing the Army Corps is building under Napoleon right now, except they're using it as a sewer.

[tennis1400]

Originally Posted by Chris from N.O.

I get that, but the buildings you are talking about also create more revenue. This plan basically replicates airport capacity.

If you look at the pdf from nola.com, it projects that under the "no-build" alternative, which I assume is not the same as "refurbishment", the cost per enplaned passenger would be $7.50 at the end of the study timeframe, and $6 if the north alternative comes to fruition. I know some of the money is supposed to come from grants, and I'm not opposed to accepting federal money, but do we really want to spend $450 million on a new building just to cut costs 20%? What kind of ROI is that?

For reference, we had about 4.2 million enplanements last year. Current CPE is $9- so it cost us 36.2 million this year by this metric. Let's say by 2020 we have 20% more air traffic- that would be 5.04 mill pax. So we can either have the cost of (5.04*7.50)= $37.8 million, or (5.04 *6)= $30.24 Million- a savings of 7 million a year.

That's obviously some pretty fuzzy math, but it gives some idea of the magnitude of these projected savings.

Like I said, I actually do like the proposal, I just want to make sure we're not shooting ourselves in the foot.

Your making the mistake of assuming the cost to maintain the current building will stay the same as it is today. That is incorrect because as the building ages the cost to maintain will increase even further.

[Chris from N.O.]

Originally Posted by tennis1400

Your making the mistake of assuming the cost to maintain the current building will stay the same as it is today. That is incorrect because as the building ages the cost to maintain will increase even further.

I was going off the cost assumptions in the spreadsheet. The "no-build" alternative says that the CPE is now $9 and will fall to $7.50.

[tennis1400]

Originally Posted by Chris from N.O.

I was going off the cost assumptions in the spreadsheet. The "no-build" alternative says that the CPE is now $9 and will fall to $7.50.

Ok well my bad for assuming you didnt.