New York Times Article PCB Airport/Beaches

[GoodWitch58]

Thought this might be interesting to everyone. Hope it links properly.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/u...74400&en=1713838221e1516b&ei=5059&partner=AOL

 

[Kurt]

Thanks for posting the link.

?It?s pretty hard to imagine any demand for direct flights from Bay County to, say, London or Paris,? said Melanie Shepherdson, a staff lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has sued to stop the airport project on environmental grounds. ?It?s kind of a joke when you think about it.?

Not a joke to a few people in SoWal I know.

What's a joke is NYT, NPR, and the likes of CNN thinking there is still a debate on whether development is going to happen in the panhandle or not. :roll:

The airport is at the center of a growing debate over whether to keep the Panhandle relatively quiet or to seek the kind of development that has made other parts of Florida vibrant, if teeming, hubs of sprawl.

. . . a little further down . . .

St. Joe owns most of the land surrounding the proposed airport site, and plans to build 5,800 homes and 4.3 million square feet of commercial space in the West Bay sector, a 78,000-acre area that includes the airport.

Seems like 2 different people wrote different parts of the article.

 

[flyguy]

What I don't understand is why people think a new airport will suddenly bring in new tourists.

I have no doubt a new airport will benefit the area economically based on the influx of capital and the redevelopement of the old airport. The influx of capital will be mostly taxpayer money to pay for new construction. But that is not the same as bringing more tourists and vacation home buyers.

The current airport is without question underutilized. And if someone wants to bring in a 747, you could land it at Fort Walton. The problem is, no airlines want to because the passenger traffic will not support it.

To me the key quote in the article is:

"Given that the current airport is operating at only half its capacity ? with 12 outbound flights a day ? the plaintiffs say it makes no sense to build a sprawling replacement"

I have to agree that St. Joe is going to reap the greatest benefit and the taxpayers will be paying for an airport that will be underutilized for many many years to come.

Just my humble opinion,
Flyguy

 

[TooFarTampa]

The current airport is without question underutilized. And if someone wants to bring in a 747, you could land it at Fort Walton. The problem is, no airlines want to because the passenger traffic will not support it.

I believe the traffic is light because the prices are so high to fly into PCB. Makes for a vicious circle. Most people I know choose FWB every time. It's a drive to SoWal, but not a terrible one. Either way you would need a car so what's an extra 30 minutes of driving to save $100 or more a person?

 

[Bob]

What I don't understand is why people think a new airport will suddenly bring in new tourists.

I have no doubt a new airport will benefit the area economically based on the influx of capital and the redevelopement of the old airport. The influx of capital will be mostly taxpayer money to pay for new construction. But that is not the same as bringing more tourists and vacation home buyers.

The current airport is without question underutilized. And if someone wants to bring in a 747, you could land it at Fort Walton. The problem is, no airlines want to because the passenger traffic will not support it.

To me the key quote in the article is:

"Given that the current airport is operating at only half its capacity ? with 12 outbound flights a day ? the plaintiffs say it makes no sense to build a sprawling replacement"

I have to agree that St. Joe is going to reap the greatest benefit and the taxpayers will be paying for an airport that will be underutilized for many many years to come.

Just my humble opinion,
Flyguy

Nothing sudden will happen. The wisdom of this airport is that it an integral part of the overall infrastructure needed for growth. Of course, if you want no growth, you'll be against the new airport. You can't sell international service to an air force base facility that has a total of 6 gates. Better to have 4 thousand acres donated for the project, than ante up for the same land when the current facility is too small. The current investment in the new airport will seem small 20 years from now.

 

[Jdarg]

I believe the traffic is light because the prices are so high to fly into PCB. Makes for a vicious circle. Most people I know choose FWB every time. It's a drive to SoWal, but not a terrible one. Either way you would need a car so what's an extra 30 minutes of driving to save $100 or more a person?

I think it depends on where you are flying. We use both PCB and Valparaiso to fly to Louisville- the prices are always within $10-20 of each other, so we shop based on departure and arrival times.

 

[flyguy]

Nothing sudden will happen. The wisdom of this airport is that it an integral part of the overall infrastructure needed for growth. Of course, if you want no growth, you'll be against the new airport. You can't sell international service to an air force base facility that has a total of 6 gates. Better to have 4 thousand acres donated for the project, than ante up for the same land when the current facility is too small. The current investment in the new airport will seem small 20 years from now.

I do agree that eventually the area will grow into a new airport and agree in general with your post.

I just think the growth in tourists will eventually justify a larger airport. The airport will not be the source of growth in tourists. And the growth in tourists is many years away to reach a point of needing a larger airport.

JMHO
Flyguy

 

[PC Snoop]

Yep regardless of suggestions to the contrary of the nation's newspaper of record the new airport will happen. It is important to St Joe, but it is important to President Bush and it is important to our friends at the Dept of Homeland Security .
Based on what I have gleaned from 30-A summer reading list book "Green Empire", St Joe press releases and relatively informed professionals (none are realtors) this is why I think it will happen.
4K acres of slash pine to be built to all interested parties exact specifications. DHS wants to be able to scan sniff, poke and no telling what else to every FexEx size package that leaves or enters the country. Tell all small package shippers that they will send all packages to the new DHS facility at our new airport and they will comply. This will be a working test facility to keep us safe from the bad guys over there. Build a building or campus. Thus all the shippers are here with a bunch of freight landings and fees everyday to be handled by living wage workers.
Anyone else see the name that is suggested for the new airport? "Emerald Coast International Airport". Not "PC/Bay Co. Int'l Airport". Why do they do that, Elmer? Because it is strategically sited to the whole area. It's area of draw is appox. 75 miles. That is FWB plus to Port St Joe. PSJ does not have an airport to speak of, so that is good. But you say that FWB has a perfectly good airport. Consider that that perfectly good airport is only there because the USAF likes to be nice and let the civilians us their runway. Post 9-11 the USAF must have reconsidered their desire to be nice with the new emphasis on "Operational Security and Threat Vulnerablity" criteria. Especially when you consider the primary mission of the base and its importance to national defense. FWB loses on that score. Another reason to build a brand new airport in the area. Any excuse will do to justify breaking the lease. BRAC considerations, national security, what ever and then sweeten the deal with $$$ to 4 or 6 lane Hwy 20. FWB is closed, now go to ECIA to catch your flight.
The airport is a done deal. St Joe has in excess of 1200 acres already under lease or sold. The plan is set. The players lined up. Just need the pres here for the ground breaking.

 

[beachmouse]

The problem with that argument is that if you're talking west of Sandestin, your back up airport is Pensacola because of better prices and flight availability than you'd find in PC. Nice airport, and they've got some non-stop options you'd otherwise have to go to Birmingham to see.

That, and if there was some great conspiracy to get rid of commercial service at VPS, they hardly would have spent $30 million in 03-04 for a shiny new commercial air terminal there. (Which looks oddly similar to the proposed Bay County airport. Is there a common architect recycling plans?) Plus, it's in the Air Force's own best interest to have readily available commercial air service close to base. Lots of the seats outbound and inbound from VPS are AF-related business travelers. Add in a pretty public recent community push to get Southwest flying out of VPS, and it just doesn't make sense.

 

[sand flea]

I do agree that eventually the area will grow into a new airport and agree in general with your post.

I just think the growth in tourists will eventually justify a larger airport. The airport will not be the source of growth in tourists. And the growth in tourists is many years away to reach a point of needing a larger airport.

JMHO
Flyguy

This has been done before. Case in point is The Columbia International Airport, in Columbia, South Carolina. Their origional airport was land locked by down town development and The university Of S.C. They built the new airport in the boondocks(sand hills) between Pelion, S.C. and West Columbia. When my family and I moved to W. Col'a. to work at this airport the country was in the grips of the '80's recesion, but an industrial
park developed around the airport and, UPS moved in to ship their products. In some over 5 years this all was surounded by housing.

I think that this could bring some econimic diversity to the area and, who knows ,we could all use a few more customers.