HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2007, 4:58 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis bickle View Post
The only issue holding up significant expansion from Southwest at SMF is gate space. I have been told this repeatedly by both airport and Southwest people. They run about 85 flights a day now and with 8 gates that is at capacity. A rule of thumb for gate usage is 10 planes max/day/gate.

I have been told that Sacramento could see up to 125 flights/day in the near future with enough gates. That would place it well within Southwest's top ten stations (it's almost there now). With the new terminal, I think we'll see significant expansion from Southwest almost immediately and 125 flights/day by 2013. You have to remember that new flights require more planes and Southwest's delivery schedule wouldn't afford an expansion any more rapidly than that.

Southwest has significantly cutback on their transcon service over the last year, so I don't expect flights to BWI or FL as I once did. But I'd look for increases to Portland/Seattle/Midway/Kansas City/Vegas/Austin/Phoenix/all of the So. Cal. cities, perhaps even Love Field in Dallas if the regulatory hurdles are finally cleared. There is also some talk that Airtran will become more intimately involved with Southwest and would take up some of the long-haul slack. But rather than new cities, I hear that most of the immediate additions would be frequency increases to existing cities.
That's great news and makes sense. I know everytime i fly to or from SMF, the planes always seem to be full or usually over booked. Southwest owns SMF (like they do Oakland)...
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2007, 6:33 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by arod74 View Post
DIA is one of the largest international airports in the world and a major us air hub and I still wouldn't think most residents of Denver wouldn't consider it the signature city icon which is what cozmoose asked. The completed airport here would still only be a mid size airport and international for the most part only in name. A great addition to the amenities here but I would still hope that Sacramento would be able to point to something other than in airport as the main rallying point for civic pride. Kind of irrelevant I suppose as the addition will surely make us all proud.
I agree- while most Denverites are very proud of the importance of our airport, I wouldn't say we consider it "the" icon for the city. That being said however, you could show this photo below to your average Rocky Mountain Region resident and more times than not they would be able to tell you exactly what it is and where it is.


Photo credit: www.deseretnews.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2007, 8:42 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Urbangeopolitiphile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacTownAndy View Post
I agree- while most Denverites are very proud of the importance of our airport, I wouldn't say we consider it "the" icon for the city. That being said however, you could show this photo below to your average Rocky Mountain Region resident and more times than not they would be able to tell you exactly what it is and where it is.


Photo credit: www.deseretnews.com
By icon, I guess I was meaning more recognizable. It's probably one of the most recognizable things in the Denver Metro area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2007, 6:03 PM
cozmoose's Avatar
cozmoose cozmoose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 171
Frontier is ending its services to Mexico.

"Frontier Airlines is dropping its bid to grow in Memphis, an apparent blow to the airline's efforts to develop routes outside its Denver hub. Frontier will drop three of its four Memphis routes as it tries to "scale back in markets that are underperforming," according to the Rocky Mountain News. Instead, the carrier will redeploy aircraft from those markets and "add flights on 17 of its most profitable routes," the paper says. Frontier is cutting other routes, including flights to Mexico from the California cities of San Jose and Sacramento. "The carrier added most of those routes in the past two years as part of a strategy to diversify outside of Denver," the Rocky Mountain News says, adding "Frontier said it can't wait for those routes to mature financially" as fuel costs soar."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sky/2007/1...er-memphi.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2007, 6:08 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by cozmoose View Post
Frontier is ending its services to Mexico.

"Frontier Airlines is dropping its bid to grow in Memphis, an apparent blow to the airline's efforts to develop routes outside its Denver hub. Frontier will drop three of its four Memphis routes as it tries to "scale back in markets that are underperforming," according to the Rocky Mountain News. Instead, the carrier will redeploy aircraft from those markets and "add flights on 17 of its most profitable routes," the paper says. Frontier is cutting other routes, including flights to Mexico from the California cities of San Jose and Sacramento. "The carrier added most of those routes in the past two years as part of a strategy to diversify outside of Denver," the Rocky Mountain News says, adding "Frontier said it can't wait for those routes to mature financially" as fuel costs soar."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sky/2007/1...er-memphi.html


That's funny, because either Sacramento International Airport officials are mistaken or the USA has their reporting wrong again because Frontier has announced added service to Mexico at SMF beginning in December.

From the Airport website:

"Frontier Airlines Begins Nonstop Service to Puerto Vallarta December 15!"

http://www.sacairports.org/int/index.html
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2007, 6:22 PM
cozmoose's Avatar
cozmoose cozmoose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
That's funny, because either Sacramento International Airport officials are mistaken or the USA has their reporting wrong again because Frontier has announced added service to Mexico at SMF beginning in December.

From the Airport website:

"Frontier Airlines Begins Nonstop Service to Puerto Vallarta December 15!"

http://www.sacairports.org/int/index.html
No one told Frontier either!
http://www.frontierairlines.com/fron...do?name=mxsale

USA Today story came from Rocky Mountain News.com

Frontier adding some flights, cutting others
By Chris Walsh, Rocky Mountain News
November 9, 2007
Frontier Airlines will add flights on 17 of its most profitable routes and scale back in markets that are underperforming.

It marks the first major change instituted by new Chief Executive Officer Sean Menke, who took the reins of the Denver-based company less than two months ago. The move bolsters Frontier's Denver hub while ending some relatively new nonstop service the carrier started between cities outside its home base.

Frontier plans to add a daily nonstop flight in January between Denver and such cities as Atlanta, Las Vegas and Billings, Mont.

It will cut service on several routes, including:

San Jose and Sacramento, Calif., to the Mexican resorts of Los Cabos and Puerto Vallarta.

• Orlando, Fla., to both Memphis, Tenn., and Las Vegas, as well as service between Memphis and Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

• Denver to Guadalajara, Mexico.

The carrier added most of those routes in the past two years as part of a strategy to diversify outside of Denver.

With fuel prices reaching record levels, though, Frontier said it can't wait for those routes to mature financially.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2007, 8:32 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by cozmoose View Post
No one told Frontier either!
http://www.frontierairlines.com/fron...do?name=mxsale

USA Today story came from Rocky Mountain News.com

Frontier adding some flights, cutting others
By Chris Walsh, Rocky Mountain News
November 9, 2007
Frontier Airlines will add flights on 17 of its most profitable routes and scale back in markets that are underperforming.

It marks the first major change instituted by new Chief Executive Officer Sean Menke, who took the reins of the Denver-based company less than two months ago. The move bolsters Frontier's Denver hub while ending some relatively new nonstop service the carrier started between cities outside its home base.

Frontier plans to add a daily nonstop flight in January between Denver and such cities as Atlanta, Las Vegas and Billings, Mont.

It will cut service on several routes, including:

San Jose and Sacramento, Calif., to the Mexican resorts of Los Cabos and Puerto Vallarta.

• Orlando, Fla., to both Memphis, Tenn., and Las Vegas, as well as service between Memphis and Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

• Denver to Guadalajara, Mexico.

The carrier added most of those routes in the past two years as part of a strategy to diversify outside of Denver.

With fuel prices reaching record levels, though, Frontier said it can't wait for those routes to mature financially.

That's too funny..

I thought that they were doing well on those two routes..?
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 1:36 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
Airport chief wants to ground art costs
Officials call for $8 million cap on works in new Terminal B

By Ed Fletcher - efletcher@sacbee.com
Last Updated 2:39 pm PST Friday, November 16, 2007



As plans for a $1.2 billion expansion of Sacramento International Airport inch forward, controversy is brewing on how much should be spent on its public art component.

For the first time, the county Board of Supervisors is being asked to deviate from a strict formula dictating how much should be set aside when work starts on the new Terminal B project.

County airport officials are asking for a lesser amount, saying the $8 million they recommend is still the largest public art commitment in county history.

"We think we have a prudent, robust art budget," airports director Hardy Acree told the joint city and county Art in Public Places Committee this week. "We are trying to be responsible to all parties involved."

He said the amount is acceptable to the airlines, which will pay for the bulk of the project.

Art committee members, however, expressed disappointment at the challenge to the formula.

A Sacramento County ordinance stipulates that 2 percent of public projects' total construction costs should be spent on art. County supervisors have the power to deviate from the formula, but haven't since the ordinance was adopted in 1983. The art share was 1 percent until 1997, when it was increased to 2 percent.

Airport officials have not disclosed what the Terminal B art share would be under the 2 percent rule. At its September meeting, the Art in Public Places Committee was told that 40 percent to 50 percent of the $1.2 billion would apply to the actual construction budget. They were told the ordinance doesn't apply to roadways, airplane aprons, as well as planning and design, and furnishings. Still, under that scenario, the art share could be as high as $12 million.

Many communities in the United States commit 1 percent to 2 percent to public art projects, said Liesel Fenner, manager of public art for Americans for the Arts. She said it's atypical for communities to break from a formula.

Barbara Goldstein, the public art program director for the city of San Jose's Office of Cultural Affairs said Sacramento County should on principle stick to the formula.

"You want to create special places in the airport so people know where they are," Goldstein said. "It's something that makes that airport experience more pleasurable. Airports are a place people are under a lot of stress. ... There is a lot a waiting. It is one of the places where you want to have a good art program."

Acree said the airport worked out the $8 million figure with the airlines, senior county staff and Sacramento Metropolitan Arts Commission staff, who oversee the publicly appointed panel.

Acree has been under pressure from the airlines to cut costs.

Not all of the $8 million would be spent directly on art. About $2 million would be used to create an endowment to pay ongoing expenses and care of airport art exhibits. About $1 million would be spent on administrative costs over the next five years. That would leave $5 million for new art.

Previous projects at the airport – including the recently constructed parking structure at Terminal A – adhered to the 2 percent formula.

Brian Goggin's "Samson" – two high-rising stacks of suitcases and luggage in the baggage claim area of Terminal A – has been popular with visitors and residents alike.

And 12 giant stainless-steel birds flying around the roadway and parking garage are hard to miss. "Flying Gardens" is the title of the quirky colorful bird sculpture created by artist Dennis Oppenheim of New York.

Les Birleson, a committee member, worried that underfunded art projects would have less impact in the 675,000 square feet of new terminal space.

"I don't want to sound ungrateful; $8 million is a lot of money," Birleson said. But, he added, "it's a huge space. Art is going to get lost in there unless it's on a huge scale."

Member Susan Selix said the committee should have been brought in earlier, and its members, not staff, should have helped shape the art budget.

In addition, she said any art budget should reflect real construction costs, after change orders come in.

It's unclear whether the Board of Supervisors will accept the smaller art budget.

Supervisor Jimmie Yee said he supports the $8 million number.

"No one in their right mind thought there would be a project of this size," Yee said. "Not going by the 2 percent formula seems to be reasonable. There is still $8 million in there."

But Supervisor Roger Dickinson, who helped increase the public art formula from 1 percent to 2 percent, said the county should stick to its guns.

"I would prefer that we maintain faith with the 2 percent," Dickinson said. "The airport is one of the principal showplaces for our community."

The new Terminal B will be a huge leap from the existing facility. The centerpiece of the airport expansion is a three-story, glass-walled central terminal, with a high-rise hotel above. The new terminal would be connected by tram to a new jet concourse.

The proposal to cap the art expenditure at $8 million got mixed reviews at the airport Thursday.

Bill McCausland, who lives in San Diego but does business in Sacramento, said his favorite thing about the airport was the ease of use: "easy in, easy out."

"I don't think too many people are worried about the art."

Kathy Neely of El Dorado Hills said $8 million sounded about right to her. "I agree with the airport," she said, as she made her way along Oakland artist Seyed Alavi's custom carpet depicting the Sacramento River that covers a pedestrian bridge linking the parking garage to Terminal A.

But Tiffany Dreyer, who spent long enough to eat a bagel and drink a cup of coffee waiting for a colleague near the ticketing area, said more should be spent.

"I think it's definitely needed," Dreyer said. "I think, if anything, it should be more than 2 percent."
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 6:59 AM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
I'm all for the supporting the arts and the life it brings to otherwise sterile
environments like an airport or a government building. But $8 million is a
huge pot of cash for such an endeavor... let alone $12 million. It should
probably be kept in mind that the goal is to create an efficient and cutting
edge airport - not necessarily the city's best art gallery.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 10:00 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
I'm all for the supporting the arts and the life it brings to otherwise sterile
environments like an airport or a government building. But $8 million is a
huge pot of cash for such an endeavor... let alone $12 million. It should
probably be kept in mind that the goal is to create an efficient and cutting
edge airport - not necessarily the city's best art gallery.
I'm still thinking this one over..

I'm proud of Sacramento's art in public places program. One of the best in the country. I understand the airports argument, but i also think that the airport is one of the first impressions people will have of Sacramento.

Now granted the oustanding design of the new terminal wil have wow factor (so to speak). But I think we can go one further by commiting to the origional 2% forumula. If they start cutting costs before the first shovel of dirt is turned, what will they want to cut next?


Anyway if I were on the Board of Supervisors, I'm not sure how I might vote.
They would have to make a very convincing argument not to stick with the 2% funding formula and I'm not certain they've done that yet.
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 11:20 PM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
I'm all for the supporting the arts and the life it brings to otherwise sterile
environments like an airport or a government building. But $8 million is a
huge pot of cash for such an endeavor... let alone $12 million. It should
probably be kept in mind that the goal is to create an efficient and cutting
edge airport - not necessarily the city's best art gallery.
x2
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2007, 1:35 AM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
They would have to make a very convincing argument not to stick with the 2% funding formula and I'm not certain they've done that yet.
Yeah, that's a good point. i guess i'm just thinking from the perspective
that the 2% did not have in mind $1 billion projects. the scale just seems
disproportionate .

But you're right urban. At least in the article, there really isn't any point made
about why they need to cut that cost. It just states that they're under pressure
to cut costs.

But given a specific ultimatum.. wouldn't it be the right choice to cut from the
public art, rather than the airport itself?
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by TowerDistrict; Nov 18, 2007 at 1:49 AM. Reason: stupid typing mistake
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2007, 1:55 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
But given a specific ultimatum.. wouldn't it be the right choice to cut from the
public art, rather than the airport itself?
Absolutely..

Say for instance the airport decided to build the new FAA control tower instead of scaling back the height of hotel and successfully argued the money could be better used making that a reality. That's an unforseen expense that i think would justify modifying the 2% rule.

But again, thus far (I just don't believe) that the airport has adequately explained why they are unable to meet the 2% requirement.

The $1.2 Billion project will be repaid mostly with airport user fees and fees paid by airlines to use the facility.

SMF markets the region to visitors and companies looking to relocate, which makes the art showcased at the airport that much more valuable imo.

Sacramento hasn't been a leader in the performing arts, though i think Sacramento holds it's own (save for facilities). But the art in public places here is impressive by any city's standards, as I'm sure you will agree......
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2007, 5:33 PM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
Plan B: Designs for new terminal take flight
Construction for new airport terminal to begin next spring
Sacramento Business Journal - by Carol Terracina Hartman Correspondent



Having celebrated its 40th anniversary in October, Sacramento International Airport is perhaps entering its midlife crisis.

For the airport, that means it's time for a makeover. And it's going to be extreme.

The design for the Terminal Modernization Program adds 680,000 square feet of buildings to the airport -- essentially adding buildings at the center of the existing airport along with ancillary projects such as parking and a hotel. The plan has been under discussion since 2002 and a master plan was adopted in 2004. Officials say the project is needed because of an ever-increasing passenger volume.

"The concept is that the existing facilities limit the movement of passengers in and out," said Brent Kelley, principal architect at Corgan Associates Inc., one of the lead design firms.

The bigger terminal is much needed: SMF averages 4 percent annual growth.

"When it first opened, the estimates were 1 million per year at peak. And people looked at you like you were crazy," Kelley said. In 2006 the passenger volume hit 10.2 million. "Now, we're to the point of about 1 million a month."

SMF is one of the oldest "origination and destination" airports in the country, said John Mares, a Corgan architect. This means that while some airports, such as Denver International, are a hub that passengers can fly in and out of without ever using services such as baggage claim or transportation, SMF passengers likely arrive at the airport to go someplace else, or they fly here and drive away. "Because of that, there's a lot more usage per passenger," Mares said. "Denver may have (four) times the traffic, but they don't have (four) times the usage."

Making an impression
The design is driven in part by the need to keep Terminal B up and running while a new Central Terminal B is being built. County supervisors accepted the plan in September 2006. It hinges on two buildings built in front of and behind the current Terminal B. It also features an airy interior canopy, allowing for diffused daylight to illuminate -- but not bake -- the building, an elevated split-level roadway, and an intra-terminal passenger tram.

There are many elements, but designers say the project isn't overly complex.

"It's a very simplistic way to do this. It allows us to build it in one construction phase," Kelley said. "And it's the only concept that allows the airport to function as it needs to while in construction."

Construction is slated to begin in late spring 2008 and run through 2011, with a total project cost of $1.27 billion, said Amanda Thomas, business services manager for the Sacramento County Airport System, which oversees operations for Sacramento International, Executive Airport, Mather Airport and Franklin Field.

Imagine driving to the airport on a multi-level roadway that separates the arrival and departure zones. A canopy covers the passenger drop-off and pick-up area. A 200-room hotel and new parking structure (where the current Terminal B sits) are waiting. Inside, the glass walls give natural light and an uninterrupted view.

"You have the outdoors, you have the rivers, you're between two mountain ranges. There are several of those things, and the building is in response to those ideas," Kelley said. "The gesture of the building is that it opens outwards. There are some subtle concepts behind that."

Travelers arriving at the new Terminal B will cover a lot of ground. They'll check their bags on the lowest level, collect their tickets on the second level, transfer to the third level and catch a tram to a second new building to wait at one of 23 gates.

"It's an interactive, very open concept," Kelley said. "There's a long, linear gesture of hallway and lounges that communicates that."

For first-time travelers to Sacramento, the new Terminal B aims to make a good impression. And that's essential, said Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, whose district includes the airport.

"My sense is there are two places to make judgments about an entire region: downtown and the airport," Dickinson said. "This reflects the aesthetics of the valley. It combines the big open spaces and captures a lot of natural light.

"I can't wait to get this thing built."

Going for green
Designers aimed to incorporate not only ease of transition into the design, but also natural elements of the capital region -- even in the choice of building materials.

After the county purchased a redwood bridge linking Sacramento with San Joaquin County, officials wanted to use it in the terminal, Mares said.

"We couldn't use it for the structure because it's not structurally sound, so we decided to use it in the ceiling beam infills," he said. "So we have this 100-year-old recycled redwood that's going to be the dominant feature in the ticketing area."

The floor will be made of concrete and recycled materials. The holding areas walls will feature ceramic tile, and the ticket counter will be granite with decorative metal.

A shading device on the windows will adjust as the sun moves.

"We've developed a system of solar shades -- they're at an exact angle so the moving sun won't get through, but if you're a passenger, you can see right through," Mares said. "The ... glass blocks the intensity of the sun but allows vision."

"We've developed a system of solar shades -- they're at an exact angle so the moving sun won't get through, but if you're a passenger, you can see right through," Mares said. "The ... glass blocks the intensity of the sun but allows vision."

The design of the ventilation system aims for efficiency by heating or cooling only areas with people in them.

All these elements -- the lighting, ventilation, floor and ceiling -- add up to an effort for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, the benchmark for green buildings, from the U.S. Green Building Council.

LEED buildings are not only deemed healthier work environments, but they also tend to enjoy lower operating costs, increased asset values, and tax and zoning incentives, according to the Green Building Council Web site.

Funding flight
While funding is a key part of design, plans are in motion.

"I think it's a challenge, but I don't think any of us are thinking we can't do it," Dickinson said. "No tax dollars, no (county) general fund money. The airport operates as an enterprise."

The bulk of the funding comes from airport revenue bonds, federal grants, passenger charges and internally generated funds

Officials intend to submit letters of intent to apply for long-term Federal Aviation Administration grants, which could provide 10 percent to 15 percent of the project cost.

There's also miscellaneous revenue -- parking, Transportation Safety Administration funding for security upgrades, and the hotel, which will be funded through third-party means, Thomas said.

"It's going to be quite a challenge."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2007, 6:25 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugit View Post
Plan B: Designs for new terminal take flight
Construction for new airport terminal to begin next spring
Sacramento Business Journal - by Carol Terracina Hartman Correspondent




Going for green
Designers aimed to incorporate not only ease of transition into the design, but also natural elements of the capital region -- even in the choice of building materials.

After the county purchased a redwood bridge linking Sacramento with San Joaquin County, officials wanted to use it in the terminal, Mares said.

"We couldn't use it for the structure because it's not structurally sound, so we decided to use it in the ceiling beam infills," he said. "So we have this 100-year-old recycled redwood that's going to be the dominant feature in the ticketing area."


That's going to look so cool...


Thanks for posting this Sugit..


I can't wait for the project to be u/c. Until then my fear is that some whacko will emerge at the last minute and file a lawsuit to block construction.

This is one of the most important projects in Sacramento and the entire Central Valley.
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2007, 1:59 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 7,808
It seems like this is the only project (save CalSTRS and 500CM) that has had it easy and will start on time. So glad this will start this spring.

There are also a few big color rendering on the sac county airports site. (I had only seen them in b&w before)
__________________
Yeah, I'm like an even less classy version of Tucker Max. - Snodrifter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2007, 4:19 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered Sex Offender
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 831
I hate Sacramento.

From the Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/535261.html

Sac International Airport expansion project challenged by airlines
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published 10:45 am PST Saturday, December 1, 2007

Sacramento International Airport's biggest expansion in its history is months away from beginning, but some its biggest clients are questioning its size and cost.

"We have heartburn at trying to build a facility for $1.3 billion," said Gregory Gillis, an executive with Southwest Airlines. "That's a very high price tag."

American and Alaska airlines officials also expressed similar concerns.

But county airports director Hardy Acree says Sacramento's facility needs a major expansion to keep pace with Northern California growth and that airlines benefitting from the increased ridership must pay their fair share.

"From the beginning, we've taken the approach we (will) build what is needed, and the costs are what they are," Acree said.

The county's financing plan will require airlines to pay slightly less than half of the total expansion cost, Acree said. The remainder of the funding will come from passenger fees, parking revenues and other airport rents and fees.

Under federal rules, airports are allowed to set "reasonable" fees on airlines. The airlines can protest those fees with the federal Department of Transportation, federal officials said.


***********
A few comments:

Quote:
arnoldout at 10:54 AM PST Saturday, December 1, 2007 wrote:

I think

the Sac airport is right hwere it needs to be at this point. Do we need all these little regional airlines and their small turbo-props adding to the confusion already there? This seems to be a question of greed and not growth. All major airlines have cut back on their number of flights to keep their airliners as full as they can and they seem to be doing fine with the scenario that's already there. I love our little airport the way it is and any more traffic and longer lines will send me and my associates to SFO or Oakland. Just my opinion.

Quote:
marvsimmons at 11:21 AM PST Saturday, December 1, 2007 wrote:

Waste of money.

As was the new Terminal A. Most of flights I take are through Terminal B. I really enjoy the efficient way the old terminal is laid out. I can get in quickly, get to my gate quickly, and get out quickly. Too much junk in Terminal A. If I want a food court and stores, I'll go to the mall, not an airport.

Quote:
olimac at 4:29 PM PST Saturday, December 1, 2007 wrote:

Govt at it's best, arguing with it's customers

Southwest Airline, American Airline, Alaska Airline and others all object to the new plan. Golly what do they know about what a airport needs to look like and what accomidations are needed, they are only the ones that are paying the majorty for it!

We need to have a efficent cost effective airport. I agree that we don't need a mega mall next to a landing strip. Over a BILLION DOLLARS??????

Put up some giant metal low tech wherehouse buildings that will work. As long as I catch my flight and my luggage makes it, you have a happy customer here!

I REALLY hate Sacramento.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2007, 5:28 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 7,808
I gave those tools a no vote on their comments.
__________________
Yeah, I'm like an even less classy version of Tucker Max. - Snodrifter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2007, 8:35 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
I hate Sacramento.

From the Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/535261.html

Sac International Airport expansion project challenged by airlines
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published 10:45 am PST Saturday, December 1, 2007

Sacramento International Airport's biggest expansion in its history is months away from beginning, but some its biggest clients are questioning its size and cost.

"We have heartburn at trying to build a facility for $1.3 billion," said Gregory Gillis, an executive with Southwest Airlines. "That's a very high price tag."

American and Alaska airlines officials also expressed similar concerns.

But county airports director Hardy Acree says Sacramento's facility needs a major expansion to keep pace with Northern California growth and that airlines benefitting from the increased ridership must pay their fair share.

"From the beginning, we've taken the approach we (will) build what is needed, and the costs are what they are," Acree said.

The county's financing plan will require airlines to pay slightly less than half of the total expansion cost, Acree said. The remainder of the funding will come from passenger fees, parking revenues and other airport rents and fees.

Under federal rules, airports are allowed to set "reasonable" fees on airlines. The airlines can protest those fees with the federal Department of Transportation, federal officials said.


***********
A few comments:










I REALLY hate Sacramento.

Generally I don't pay attention to the average Sacramentan commenting on growth in this region, because most are ignorant simpletons..
Take for instance the moron who says that he doesn't want SMF to grow, because if he forced to stand in line at SMF, he'll just fly out of SFO or Oakland. I have no doubt that there are more than a few people in this town who are so stupid that they would load up their cars, drive 90 minutes (or longer) to the bay and wait in longer lines there in order to make their point (to themselves). As if they're not going to have lines at SFO or Oakland in addtion to the traffic, and brdige tolls etc....As if the expansion isn't about making the airport more user friendly.
But again, it's easy enough to ignore most of these kinds of morons, unless I'm forced to sit by them on the plane.


The airline's late objections are a concern however. My only complaint is why the hell did they wait until months before groundbreaking before raising these objections? Where the f@#* have they been the past four years while this went through the update of the airport master plan, the terminal modernization plan or the enviornmental impact report? For crying out loud even the public comment period has already closed and now they're bitching?

I'm not going to be surprised to see this thing sent back to the drawing boards and delayed another three or four years. The expansion at Oakland airport was scaled back considerably, so it can certainly happen here and now.
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro

Last edited by urban_encounter; Dec 2, 2007 at 4:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2007, 4:29 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Age gets better with wine
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sacramento~Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,481
and now the rest of the story

Airlines resist cost of airport upgrade
They say they are being asked to pay too much and claim their customers will suffer.
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, December 2, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B6




In just months, bulldozers are scheduled to move dirt for the biggest expansion in Sacramento International Airport history.

But the project's hefty $1.3 billion price tag remains a subject of debate.

Several national airlines complain they're being asked to pay an outsized share, and want Sacramento County airport officials to consider cost-cutting measures.

"We have heartburn at trying to build a facility for $1.3 billion," said Gregory Gillis, an executive with Southwest Airlines. "That's a very high price tag."

American and Alaska airlines officials expressed similar concerns last week.

Airport director Hardy Acree counters that Sacramento's facility needs a major expansion to keep pace with Northern California growth, and that airlines benefitting from the increased ridership must pay their fair share.

"From the beginning, we've taken the approach we (will) build what is needed, and the costs are what they are," Acree said.

The county's financing plan will require airlines to pay slightly less than half of the total expansion cost, Acree said.

The remainder of the funding will come from passenger fees, parking revenue and other airport rents and fees.

Under federal rules, airports are allowed to set "reasonable" fees on airlines. The airlines can protest those fees with the federal Department of Transportation, federal officials said.

Airport executive Acree said his agency is aiming to start construction this spring with or without a fee agreement with the airlines.

"This train has left the station," he said.

However, Acree said his team will continue to discuss financing options with Southwest and other airlines.

County officials and Southwest are scheduled to meet the first week of January to talk about arranging lower-cost construction bonds.

The expansion, county officials said, will turn an outdated airport into an efficient and stylish entrance to Sacramento.

Its anchor will be a four-story, glass-walled central terminal to replace the 40-year-old Terminal B complex. It will be built partially on the existing Terminal B parking lot.

The county hopes to open the new terminal in 2011.

Expansion plans also include a tram to shuttle passengers between the new terminal and a new remote concourse, as well as a second multilevel garage and a new airport hotel.

Southwest official Gillis said the airlines still would like the county to consider reducing the project size.

Increased fees are likely to become higher fares for fliers, Gillis said. "We have to find a way to lower our costs for the new terminal so we can continue to proceed with low fares."

County officials say they estimate their financing plan would increase airline fees from the current average of $6 per passenger to as high as $11.

It's up to airlines to decide whether to pass that on to consumers, Acree said.

The county recently agreed to reduce the number of gates at the new concourse from 23 to 19, but has not agreed to any other major changes.

Acree said the new terminal and concourse ought to be big enough to handle an expected 40 percent increase in passengers through 2020, and accommodate even more expansion later.

The proposed new terminal size will be about 800,000 square feet, Acree said, more than twice the size of the existing Terminal B complex.

Initial work, expected to start in late spring, will involve building new parking lots on the west side of the airport to temporarily replace nearly 3,000 parking spots that will be lost when excavation starts in the summer for the new terminal.

Officials also are planning additional parking south of Interstate 5.

The existing Terminal B will remain in use during construction, then will be razed when the new terminal opens.
__________________
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." ~~~Gustavo Petro
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:05 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.