- ORH should keep its Part 139 Certification and not downgrade to a GA airport
- Forecast a medium growth scenario (2010-- 161,000, 2015---215,372, 2020--- 288,524)
- upgrade terminal and air carrier support facilities
- RFP developable parcels of land
- upgrade GA and corporate facilities
- upgrade airfield infrastructure
- no recommendations as to how we should pay for any of this or how to lower the deficit
- no recommendation on an access road nor whether or not we should sell the airport..
- there will, however, be a footnote to continue negotiations with MassPort to continue the current operating agreement
Pretty much everything was on target. Not only were no recommendations not offered as to how to pay for it, but when asked by City Councilor Lukes as to how much it would cost, no answer was given. Instead Airport Director Waldron noted that only $40 million had been spent since the airport opening in 1946.
My favorite line of all still is that if we reduce travel time to the airport from Route 290, we would increase projected passenger count of 284,000 by the year 2020 some 40% to 395,000. Maybe we should worry more about getting 10,000 passengers next year to keep our primary airport status and $1,000,000, not 284,000 or 395,000 passengers by 2020.
Oh yeah, per John Krajovic, MassPort manager of airport planing and mitigation, "discussions have begun" to extend the state agency's contract to manage Worcester Regional Airport. This gives new meaning to the phrase "when you have a good thing going,why change it." Although when asked if MassPort is considering taking title to the airport, he declined comment.
Welcome all comments here from anyone who attended the meeting last night.
10 comments:
I didn't think there would be any breaking news and that we have the potential for a medium growth commercial airport in the future would be the results on the report. I not sure if Massport will take full control of the airport in 200 days from what I heard last night and I don't really blame them. The city has never really invested in the airport like the other 4 major airports in the area and like someone reminded me that you need to invest money to make money in this case the payoff being a viable commercial airport.
Tim:
I agree with your comment that we need to invest alot of money into the airport. Herein lies the problem, we (City of Worcester) does not have the $$$ to do it.
How can we expect MassPort to do it when they have no chance of realizing any returns if they did. Continuing the current operating agreement will do nothing except continue the current staus quo.
We need to sell ORH to someone who has the deep pockets to invest the monies that are needed. Whether that is MassPort or an airline (as Harry has suggested many times) that is what we should be working on.
It is the only way we will ever realize the potential of ORH.
I agree with selling the airport to Massport or any agency that can put money into the airport. Eric Waldron said when asked about investing money that they can not invest money in the physical airport becuase they don't own title. If it was up to me I would sell the airport for a dollar frame it and hang it in city hall.
I hope I am reading this correctly.
Assuming that we now have "ONE" comm. air passenger ( which we do not) we are projecting a 161,000% increase in comm air passengers in less than 3+ years. My God, are these folks smoking Left Handed Cigarettes? It took us 1/2 year with Allegiant just to reach the 10 K passenger mark and those figures include the busy time of the year for the vacationtraveler.
Maybe all you have to do is predict the 10 K annual passenger load to get $1M fed'l money annually ??
Assuming 100 passengers per flighht that works out to 1,600 flights per year or 4 per day. Not per week (Allegiant), but per day. And passengers who leave their cars at ORH are going to park where?
There S/b be an immediate RFP for a new parking garage up there b/c it takes us 8 years just to get a bid out on a parking facility (witness Union Station).
Given these projections, I now strongly suggest the City keep. ORH. Based on these assumptions , it would be crazy to sell the place off. 400 enplanements and 400 de-planements per day should breathe alot of life and money into ORH. And of course there is the add'l growth to 215 K in 2015.
Better start planning for an access road now b/c it surely will take a decade before the bulldozers even show up.
Why an access road? 290 K passengers (in 2020) will generate how many more cross city automobile trips? Heaven forbid that I have to catch a 600Pm or an 900am flight and cross the city from 290 during rush hour. I'd have to navigate Cambridge St, Mill St, Park Ave, Highland St, Pleaseant St, Chandler st, or ???? Street.
How the heck can they predict these passenger loads w/o the infrastrucute to accomodate them? this is malpractice on the part of the consultants. We should get our money back. Or maybe the consultnats were told not to mention an access road in their reports??
My feeling are that the Master Plan should be telling us how to get from 0 passengers to 10,000 passengers. Not telling us that a 10 minute reduction in commute time increase projected passenger count of 284,000 by the year 2020 some 40% to 395,000..
If I am SkyValue or any other carrier, I would demand the following if I established 4 comm. air flights per week at ORH for the next year:
1. No jet fuel tax.
2. No landing fees of any kind.
3. A subsidy of $1,000 per flight or $208,000 for the first year.
The cityy's back is to the wall. The city HAS TO HAVE 10,000 passengers in 2008 or we lose $1,000,000 subsidy.
What is $208K when we can give the new Loew s theatre a $195K pass on their permit fees and the $208 K gets us a $1,000,000
It is cheaper to give away the 208 K than it is to lose the $1M grant.
A $195K handout to a non profit from the same City Council that continually whines about the need for a Non profit PILOT program.
3.
Jahn:
Saint Spyrdion (how the hell do you spell that) is doing something like a $12,000,000 dollar renovation. None of these $12,000,000 is coming from CDBG funds or any other state funded agency, all private monies.
Why should they pay their permitting fees?? Don't get me wrong I think that they should, but how can you justify waiving a $195,000 for the Performing Arts Center, while charging this church?
Point being it is a slippery slope and that is why Lenny Ciufredo, head on the Zoning board, who in the paper protested this.
In the late 80's Clark Univ. got a huge waiver on their Sewer hook up fees for a new building and I think it was a dorm and the sewer fee is a per bedroom charge.
Next Holy Cross will want a waiver when they eventually build that urban village or whatever the heck they are going to call it up there on the other side of College Hill.
They Will probably point to Clark and say what is good for Clark is good for HC. Meanwhile both schools have huge multi -million dollar endowments and continue to gobble up tax paying residentail properties, raze the structures on the property, move the property off the tax rolls, and constr expensive buildings on the sites and pay no taxes. But hey, it's OK at least they use union labor, so it gets Murrays seal of approval
Sorry, I somehow posted the CAPTCHK as my Name on last post
Post a Comment