ShareThis Page

Airport's $1.1B redo: Unknowns & serious questions

| Saturday, Oct. 7, 2017, 8:06 p.m.
A computer-rendered aerial view of the redesigned Pittsburgh International Airport.
A computer-rendered aerial view of the redesigned Pittsburgh International Airport.

Myriad economic unknowns raise serious questions about the efficacy of spending $1.1 billion to reconfigure Pittsburgh International Airport, say Frank Gamrat, a senior research associate at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy, and Jake Haulk, its president.

The Allegheny County Airport Authority last month announced an ambitious plan to ostensibly right-size the complex for current market realities. Built nearly 30 years ago to US Airways' hub specifications at a cost in excess of $1 billion, the facility has been rendered obsolete by those realities, officials argue. They plan to build a new landside terminal connected to the existing airside terminal, which would be repurposed or demolished. The existing terminals' tram, people-mover, escalators and elevators, all said to be near the end of their useful lives, would be eliminated. A new parking garage would be built along with ancillary infrastructure.

Authority officials say the $1.1 billion project — using no local taxes, they insist — will save about $23 million annually. While one aviation consultant questioned the rationale of such an equation, Gamrat and Haulk say there are a number of other potential hurdles.

For various reasons, political and economic, some proposed funding sources, such as gambling proceeds and shale-gas royalties, might not be sufficient or stable. There also will be needed maintenance on the existing airside terminal, plus other costs. “Will revenues from operations and fees keep pace?” Gamrat and Haulk ask. “Where are the costs and revenue forecasts?”

Tapping the passenger facility charge (PFC) does not appear to fit Federal Aviation Administration criteria for doing so. Reducing Pittsburgh International's capacity from 30 million to 18 million passengers a year “is not enhancing capacity” and does not do much “to enhance national transportation security, reduce noise or furnish opportunity for enhanced competition,” all part and parcel of using PFC funds.

Passenger numbers, relatively flat over the past eight years, are now about 10 million short of the reconfigured airport's projections. It would take an expanding population and economy to reach the 18-million-passenger goal. But Greater Pittsburgh's population continues to slip and employment gains and per-capita income (adjusted for inflation) have been anemic. That's hardly a recipe for driving up air-travel demand, Gamrat and Haulk say, adding that public subsidies for some low-cost carriers haven't done much to bolster passenger counts.

“Surely ... the failure of the massive spending ... for the current terminal configuration to produce a self-funding facility would lead planners to be cautious about claims for huge new projects,” they say.

Reasonable 20-year projections for operations revenue and spending, along with non-operating revenue and debt-service loads, “should be an absolute must” for proceeding with the reconfiguration plan, Gamrat and Haulk say. And given the state's precarious finances, airport officials should not count on any state bailout should funding for a reconfigured Pittsburgh International fall short, they add.

Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.