When David Allinder began reading about the proposed $1.1 billion Pittsburgh International Airport modernization, including the plan to close one building and eliminate gates, it just didn’t seem to add up.
He wondered how such a massive undertaking would actually save the airlines money, as the Allegheny County Airport Authority insists, and whether there is a need to mothball and perhaps even tear down the landside building.
“I started asking other business professionals in the area what they thought of this, and one after another had the same concerns. We don’t see how this makes sense,” he said.
Mr. Allinder and some others who share his uneasiness will take their concerns directly to county council Tuesday. They will ask council to schedule a public hearing to discuss the project and put actions related to the project on hold until it is held.
But they might not get what they want.
“We have no jurisdiction to hold public hearings because we have nothing to do with airport authority. We’re not putting any money into it,” said John DeFazio, County Council president.
Mr. Allinder, a former business consultant who now publishes In Wheeling Magazine in Wheeling, W.Va., had taken to Facebook to share his concerns about the airport plan and to argue for more transparency.
“So many things don’t add up,” he said. “It’s the airport of the year, but we’re going to tear it down.”
The authority countered by saying it already has conducted three public meetings, including two public workshops Downtown and in Moon, “to address questions, take input and share concepts” on the plan. There’s also a website, PITtransformed.com, to address questions, take public comment and share information.
As part of the proposed modernization, the landside building would be abandoned and slated for demolition or reuse.
In addition, the tram that carries people between that building and the X-shaped airside building where travelers get on and off planes would be shut down. The number of airport gates would be reduced from 75 to 51.
Under the plan, a new landside building housing ticketing, baggage and security facilities would be built between airside’s C and D concourses at the cost of $783.8 million. There also would be a new 4,500-space parking garage erected at a cost of $258.8 million.
While Mr. Allinder’s Facebook post suggested those costs would fall on the backs of county taxpayers, the airport authority has insisted that is not the case.
It has said it can pay for the improvements at no cost to taxpayers and without increasing fees to the airlines. In fact, it estimates the cost per enplaned passenger would actually fall from an average of $12.69 to $9.73 (in today’s dollars) in 2023, when the work would be finished.
That would be possible, in part, because of $23 million a year the authority estimates it would save by closing landside and the tram and not having to maintain elevators, escalators and people movers.
It plans to finance the work through 20- to 30-year bonds, grants, passenger facility charges and revenue from natural gas drilling.
“As we have said all along, this is a project that will use no local tax dollars and has the support of our airlines because it will lower costs, streamline operations and maximize the value of this regional asset for the future,” spokesman Bob Kerlik said Monday.
Nonetheless, Mr. Allinder, a member of the Green Tree Republican Committee, worried that if the airport for some reason isn’t able to pay the bonds, taxpayers could end up footing the bill.
He has won an ally in John Fiorita, a former US Airways plant maintenance and facilities director who worked in Pittsburgh and was involved in the midfield construction.
“You’re saving money on baggage, the tram, but you’re still going to have maintenance costs associated with the terminal. Have any of those numbers been taken into account?” Mr. Fiorita said.
And given the unpredictable nature of the airline industry, he also questioned whether it was prudent to cut the number of gates.
“Five to eight years from now, the economy’s doing good, we’re looking for expansion, and we’ve run out of room. What do we do to move people? Are we going to be able to support everything the future may bring?” he asked.
Mr. Kerlik said maintenance costs relating to the new facilities have been factored into the cost savings. The authority also has said the number of gates could be expanded in the future.
Mark Belko: mbelko@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1262.
First Published: February 20, 2018, 11:50 a.m.