Jump to content
zaceman

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Recommended Posts

^ Finally someone who understands the airline industry at more than a cursory level speaking the truth. It's refreshing to hear from posters that produce statements based in the reality of air travel circa 2020. Thank you!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

If you believe that Cleveland has more job growth than any of the cities listed, cite your reference ff.

I believe everything I type because facts are on my side.

 

2019 yoy job growth %

 

Cleveland - 1.2%

Columbus - 1.2%

Kansas City - 1%

Pittsburgh - .1%

Detroit - 0%

Indianapolis - .7%

NYC - 1%

Chicago - .7%

 

Source:

https://www.bls.gov/regions/home.htm

 

Your move.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the original question was how can CLE be used as a driver of economic development?

 

I'd love to respond Milli, but have other things to do right now. You hold that thought.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

I think the original question was how can CLE be used as a driver of economic development?

 

There's no guarantee that it will be an economic driver. What did building terminal D get Cleveland, mothballs?

Edited by Clefan98
  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are no guarantees. Of anything.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally....

 

1.2% of 900k is a lot more jobs than 1.2% of 300k. Try focusing on actual statistics, not some alternate reality.

Edited by Frmr CLEder
  • Poison 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Finally....

 

1.2 % of 900k is a lot more jobs than 1.2% of 300k.

That's regional growth. The Columbus region has slightly more jobs than Cleveland because Cleveland does not include Akron. So, in fact, it's pretty much comparable. Center city population doesn't really factor in, only regional population.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Finally....

 

1.2 % of 900k is a lot more jobs than 1.2% of 300k.

 

It would make more sense if you were decent at interpreting data.

Edited by Clefan98
  • Like 1
  • Poison 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frmr CLEder said:

You should learn percentages

 

Such as? These are metro numbers, so where did you get 300k vs 900k from?

Edited by Clefan98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Right, terminal D is proof of that.

 

So are a lot of things. That's life.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

That's regional growth. The Columbus region has slightly more jobs than Cleveland because Cleveland does not include Akron. So, in fact, it's pretty much comparable. Center city population doesn't really factor in, only regional population.  

 

 

Thanks for picking up what I'm laying down. Those who always seek negativity will surely find it, even when there is none.

Edited by Clefan98
  • Like 1
  • Poison 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really didn't want to get into a debate so I won't be reading this posting or any more on this.

  • Like 2

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

There's no guarantee that it will be an economic driver. What did building terminal D get Cleveland, mothballs?

 

Technically, it is still under lease.  So it's still generating income for our little aerodrome 🙂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure the money would be there, as this would likely be vastly more expensive than a billion dollars but here is how I would reconfigure Hopkins while using the same site and basic infrastructure. Would be a multi phase development that ends in having 2 basic terminals with drop off and baggage locations for each, one is the existing and the other new. Each with 2 concourses. New garage with rental car within, new hotel, new multi modal train and bus station across 237 connected to new terminal by people movers. D and A would only have gates on airfield side. B could be configured for gates only on the terminal facing side or both of there is room. Sorry for the poor penmanship. 26D6764E-43C5-4065-B00A-3C9C68700938.thumb.jpeg.7eb1538850d2d7a410fce8e5461f42ec.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taller_is_better said:

Not sure the money would be there, as this would likely be vastly more expensive than a billion dollars but here is how I would reconfigure Hopkins while using the same site and basic infrastructure. Would be a multi phase development that ends in having 2 basic terminals with drop off and baggage locations for each, one is the existing and the other new. Each with 2 concourses. New garage with rental car within, new hotel, new multi modal train and bus station across 237 connected to new terminal by people movers. D and A would only have gates on airfield side. B could be configured for gates only on the terminal facing side or both of there is room. Sorry for the poor penmanship. 

 

This is awesome - nice work. I particularly like that new terminal location, it really opens up the space. I think rebuilding B where it is, with a short perpendicular gate area at the end, makes more sense than a new remote terminal. I also prefer the current A location, as having gates on both sides keeps the concourse length manageable. I like the tram concept, but I’d have it outside security to connect multimodal transit center, new terminal / rental cars, RTA / old terminal, new international concourse. And Concourse C needs a substantially widening or rebuild. 

 

Thanks for mapping the layout - it’s so much easier to visualize that way. I’ve been thinking about doing the same and you beat me to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

This is awesome - nice work. I particularly like that new terminal location, it really opens up the space. I think rebuilding B where it is, with a short perpendicular gate area at the end, makes more sense than a new remote terminal. I also prefer the current A location, as having gates on both sides keeps the concourse length manageable. I like the tram concept, but I’d have it outside security to connect multimodal transit center, new terminal / rental cars, RTA / old terminal, new international concourse. And Concourse C needs a substantially widening or rebuild. 

 

Thanks for mapping the layout - it’s so much easier to visualize that way. I’ve been thinking about doing the same and you beat me to it. 

 

Agreed, fantastic work. I do like the separate unit terminal for Concourse B, the only hangup I could see is taxiway clearances with gates on both sides. Concourse C could potentially be razed and a unit terminal ran along the length of the current apron towards the end of the expanded Concourse D. I also like the idea of the people mover connecting multiple nodes landside along the length of the complex. The rendering almost reminds me of the current setup over at Lambert (STL):

 

 

STL.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Taller_is_better inspired me to finally document my thoughts on CLE Hopkins airport renovations as an overlay on top of the satellite image.  He proposed some of the same things I'd been thinking about, and also had suggestions I'd never thought of.   

 

CLE_airport_proposal_1.png.3be84dd0ad26f4156f1e040717c4ed39.png

 

Project timeline:

Phase 1:

- New Arrival/Departure Terminal.  Also keep existing Arr./Dep. Terminal; renovate existing baggage claim area
- Renovate D Concourse so that at least one side can handle 737 / A320 sized jets (my understanding is that it currently cannot)
- New parking garage and rental car center replacing current Orange surface parking lot (good idea on adding rental car to new garage, @Taller_is_better)
- Protected elevated pedestrian walkways (like Boston Logan terminal connections)
- Ground Transit Center (shuttle / ride-share). A permanent building housing a waiting area.

 

Phase 2:

- Replace A Concourse with double level International Concourse, featuring modern Customs & Immigration.
- Full renovation of north security / TSA
- New hotel along 237 (currently Orange parking lot).
- New multimodal transit center (Amtrak, Local Commuter Rail)
- Elevated automated Tram (outside security) connecting International Concourse / Existing Terminal / RTA, to New Terminal / Rental Car / New Hotels, to Multi-modal transit center. 
- Potential future extension of Tram to Red/Blue lot area, for future expansion, hotel, garage, or other

 

Phase 3:

- Rebuild B Concourse.  Add perpendicular gate hall at end. Milwaukee MKE has something similar to this in their Southwest terminal, it's quite nice.
- New AmEx Centurion style lounge near existing food court. (Or in the new Terminal)

- Widen C Concourse.  Keep the main walking corridor with the skylights. Widen towards the runways to add good moving walkways, more gate waiting areas, and significantly better restrooms (the ones in Detroit airport would be a good model).  Existing restaurants on the east side of this concourse could remain as is.
- Renovate current south security / TSA
 

Also evaluate burying 480 and Brookpark Rd in order to extend the runways to the northeast.  My understanding is that longer runways would make longer flights more cost-effective because they don't have to accelerate as quickly and therefore burn less fuel.

 

And in case you'd like to download the powerpoint file I used to create this image and play around with your own layout proposals, I shared the file on Google Drive.  Feel free to download from here:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vB5yKYnK7AhqsWK9jWSfHnBrebSDX0mu/view?usp=sharing

 

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 6:33 PM, Frmr CLEder said:

Sorry its viewed as poisonous, but it's yet another scandal due to the City of Cleveland's mismanagement; one that continues to erode trust in airport operations. It is what it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^My understanding is that the poison symbol is intended to be a reaction to the news posted, not how it was posted or the poster of said news. So if I post bad news, I expect to get the “poison” reaction. I agree that it is rather counterintuitive. In short, I’m pretty sure @KJP was agreeing with you and simply reacting to the news. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

@Taller_is_better inspired me to finally document my thoughts on CLE Hopkins airport renovations as an overlay on top of the satellite image.  He proposed some of the same things I'd been thinking about, and also had suggestions I'd never thought of.   

 

CLE_airport_proposal_1.png.3be84dd0ad26f4156f1e040717c4ed39.png

 

 

This exercise was also a reminder that there is a significant amount of available space around the exiting terminal for expansion. There really is no need to go tearing down the IX Center to build a new terminal over there. Just keep the terminal where it is, expand it, and then renovate or rebuild the old parts. That way we can leverage the existing infrastructure, such as the Red Line connection, the parking garage, the recently renovated areas, the proximity to the rail lines where Amtrak runs, etc. I’m reasonably confident that this proposal would cost less than starting from scratch. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

This exercise was also a reminder that there is a significant amount of available space around the exiting terminal for expansion. There really is no need to go tearing down the IX Center to build a new terminal over there. Just keep the terminal where it is, expand it, and then renovate or rebuild the old parts. That way we can leverage the existing infrastructure, such as the Red Line connection, the parking garage, the recently renovated areas, the proximity to the rail lines where Amtrak runs, etc. I’m reasonably confident that this proposal would cost less than starting from scratch. 

 

The only nit I would pick:  The international arrivals/departures center based on four of the low-numbered gates in today's Concourse C, as proposed in the current (2013?) Master Plan, is the best choice, since it locates the int'l gates more centrally to gates for any possible connecting flight.   Hiking from the north end of your proposed Int'l Concourse to Concourse D would be daunting for lots of old/disabled/child-accompanied travellers.  And if CLE is to have more than one flight to Europe in the mid-2020s, it will need all the connecting passengers that can be mustered.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dougal said:

 

The only nit I would pick:  The international arrivals/departures center based on four of the low-numbered gates in today's Concourse C, as proposed in the current (2013?) Master Plan, is the best choice, since it locates the int'l gates more centrally to gates for any possible connecting flight.   Hiking from the north end of your proposed Int'l Concourse to Concourse D would be daunting for lots of old/disabled/child-accompanied travellers.  And if CLE is to have more than one flight to Europe in the mid-2020s, it will need all the connecting passengers that can be mustered.


I like it. Renovated A continues as a discount carrier concourse. We would only need a few international gates anyway. 

Edited by Boomerang_Brian
Typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 9:14 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

This exercise was also a reminder that there is a significant amount of available space around the exiting terminal for expansion. There really is no need to go tearing down the IX Center to build a new terminal over there. Just keep the terminal where it is, expand it, and then renovate or rebuild the old parts. That way we can leverage the existing infrastructure, such as the Red Line connection, the parking garage, the recently renovated areas, the proximity to the rail lines where Amtrak runs, etc. I’m reasonably confident that this proposal would cost less than starting from scratch. 

 

I like it Brian, thanks for using computer graphics vs. my scribbles and white out!  My thoughts on the international / customs being in a new build (A) vs. a few gates in renovated C is that you could really do a clean 2 story concourse where the gates are all open to the other concourses on the top level (so they are used for all flights not just international, but arriving Intl. passengers deplane down escalators to the bottom level where customs is and connects to baggage claim, or they take new escalators up to the terminal towards the current walkway from the food court area to A. I'd worry squeezing it into a reno of C with customs could be clunky.  I think it would be cool, in regards to the long walk to D, I was thinking we would have people movers running thru the new expanses. Its still not that long a walk when you look at airports like MIA or someplace where you can walk for 30 minutes and international flights leave from pretty much any gate.  It could all be amazingly open with lots of glass / light and high ceilings, and I love the new Southwest MKE concourse at end of B. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:


I like it. Renovated A continues as a discount carrier concourse. We would only need a few international gates anyway. 

This represents a major improvement, thanks.

As for Brookpark Rd., it seems like there was previously talk of submerging, with runways passing over the roadway, similar to what you see at so many other airports, but they went with simply rerouting Brookpark to the north instead. I guess it was less expensive.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burying I-480 might be a little tricky as there is currently an overpass for Berea Freeway (237) and rail tracks just to the east, unless that section would also be buried. Aren't the recently extended runways long enough now?  Also, It would be nice if Customs & Immigration improvements could be done in phase 1 instead of phase 2 as that issue should be resolved as quickly as possibly.

Edited by skiwest
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2020 at 3:12 PM, Dougal said:

 

The only nit I would pick:  The international arrivals/departures center based on four of the low-numbered gates in today's Concourse C, as proposed in the current (2013?) Master Plan, is the best choice, since it locates the int'l gates more centrally to gates for any possible connecting flight.   Hiking from the north end of your proposed Int'l Concourse to Concourse D would be daunting for lots of old/disabled/child-accompanied travellers.  And if CLE is to have more than one flight to Europe in the mid-2020s, it will need all the connecting passengers that can be mustered.

 

9 hours ago, skiwest said:

...  Also, It would be nice if Customs & Immigration improvements could be done in phase 1 instead of phase 2 as that issue should be resolved as quickly as possibly.

 

Completely agree on both.  Four new international gates at the base of C, to be built before any other part of the proposal.  These could be two level, with jetbridges on the current main level and escalators carrying international arrivals down to a new customs area.  Get this done ASAP - current customs & immigration at CLE is an embarrassment.

 

I updated my "rendering".

 

CLE_airport_proposal_2.png.3bfee270f63469d750d3c8a8651249f3.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You need more than four int'l gates. We've already had times where we had three flights all arrive at the same time---MBJ, PUJ, and Iceland--all around 630pm---with 600 people all at once I'm glad I wasn't stuffed into that tiny FIS.  This is to be the airport of the future--at least for the next 20-30 years---so I'd say, we'd need to accommodate AT LEAST six simultaneous int'l arrivals and an FIS big enough to accommodate this. Intl' departures don't require any special gates as planes could leave from any gate. The location where you have it is good, so CLE-bound passengers can exit directly into the CIty instead of the nonsense that happens now forcing all arriving passengers to go through security to enter the airport just to leave it. For anyone that IS connecting in CLE, you need the ability to route those passengers leaving the FIS to go through TSA security before mixing with other passengers. This should be a TSA checkpoint different than the ones for passengers originating in CLE.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^You need more than four int'l gates. We've already had times where we had three flights all arrive at the same time---MBJ, PUJ, and Iceland--all around 630pm---with 600 people all at once I'm glad I wasn't stuffed into that tiny FIS.  This is to be the airport of the future--at least for the next 20-30 years---so I'd say, we'd need to accommodate AT LEAST six simultaneous int'l arrivals and an FIS big enough to accommodate this. Intl' departures don't require any special gates as planes could leave from any gate. The location where you have it is good, so CLE-bound passengers can exit directly into the CIty instead of the nonsense that happens now forcing all arriving passengers to go through security to enter the airport just to leave it. For anyone that IS connecting in CLE, you need the ability to route those passengers leaving the FIS to go through TSA security before mixing with other passengers. This should be a TSA checkpoint different than the ones for passengers originating in CLE.


Good point - I wasn’t thinking about Caribbean / Mexico tourist flights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@surfohio is that a photo of the actual tunnel? If it's yours great shot! Reminds me a tad of a claustrophobic version of Detroit's. It's crazy what small aesthetic things such as lighting can add to either a concourse walkway or tunnel.

 

image.thumb.png.d1b26bd44b72d08f2d6d6a172f45acbc.png

 

image.thumb.png.4e924429cefec634a92916e419de1f7a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GISguy  Nah I found it on google, but there's not a lot of pics out there.  I think I've only been through that CLE  tunnel once or twice. Detroit's is like an acid trip! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GISguy said:

@surfohio is that a photo of the actual tunnel? If it's yours great shot! Reminds me a tad of a claustrophobic version of Detroit's. It's crazy what small aesthetic things such as lighting can add to either a concourse walkway or tunnel.

 

It is not claustrophobic at all.  The escalator lobbies were light filled, and the ceilings in the actual tunnel are higher than most.  This may be a better picture.  

IMG_2689.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

It is not claustrophobic at all.  The escalator lobbies were light filled, and the ceilings in the actual tunnel are higher than most.  This may be a better picture.  

 

I always admired the "paper" airplanes that hung (are they still there?) from the ceiling on the D end of the tunnel.

 

img_1739-edit.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...