-
John Shelton 07/08/2010 6:04:00 PM
I was about to go on a long tirade, decrying wasteful expenditures and deploring Ms. Day's lack of connection to the people who have made DIA the great airport that it is (and her gross over-compensation, to boot). Then I saw Dave's comments, and decided that, rather than writing a long rant, I can just generally agree with him. Good job, Dave. I'm on your team.
-
sally struthers 05/05/2010 8:04:00 PM
Alan - You should dig a little deaper when you write articles. DIA has an undergound facility. Why else did they have to dig so much dirt out and why do they really have that much acreage? Most of it is in use, just underground. It's WAY more than just an airport. You keep referencing 'a city', well it really is, why dont you report about those real fact? This is just a bunch of propoganda.
-
residenttroll 04/03/2010 5:03:00 PM
Alan I like the style you wrote the article. You told the story of how Day would like to transform DIA. I would like to add some additional thoughts to my original post. I think the article points out some glaring issues: 1) almost a million dollars was spent with consultants for basically management work. 2) DIA is a city within a city with very little oversight. It works well when it can pay it's bills...but when it can't...it's going to be a big oops for Denver. 3) I think the rail line from DIA is a $ 1.4 billion waste of money. I agree that, for the most part, taxpayers of Colorado will be subsidizing the transportation of employees to DIA. Where does most of the travel inbound to Denver go? I am doubtful that downtown gets most of that inbound traffic. I would bet...most of the traffic goes to the mountains and areas outside of downtown. Thus, a rental car is needed for most transportation. If there were a couple of hundred of taxis shuttling back and forth from DIA and Downtown every hour of the day...that's one thing...but it's not happening. The RTD buses from the airport to downtown are rarely at 50% capacity. Unfortunately, the west rail line will have a negative ROI for years to come. We probably would be better off investing 1 billion in solar energy panels...at least the payout is in 50 years. 4) as a regular business and casual travelling...I hate airports. I need only five things: inexpensive parking, fast security with no wait times, comfortable seating at gates, bathrooms, and a door to get on the plane. I want to spend as little as time at the airport...and I am sure many road warriors would agree.
-
Residenttroll 04/03/2010 4:41:00 PM
Is there any truth that Pena and his brothers made tens of millions on the land around the airport?
Why does DIA or Denver even care about the debt load? They just jack up the runway fees, the fuel fees, the concession fees, the airport car rental fees, the parking fees, etc, etc.....at the end of the day, airports just shift their costs to the passengers. If passenger counts drop because a couple of airlines decide to move or shift their operations, Denver is screwed. To continue to amp up the debt at DIA is dangerous.
-
Cutthe 04/01/2010 12:50:00 AM
Contrary to this article, Stan Koniz did not return to his old position. DIA is currently listing a position on the City of Denver Jobs list for a Chief Financial Officer.
Stan is most likely like so many others discarded on the scrap heap at DIA until retirement. Many a position in the so-called "Strategic Initiatives Department".
-
Gail Adams 03/18/2010 11:07:00 PM
I've seen the original costs of the airport misstated so many times I have to write in and try to correct those perceptions. The base airport budgets were 3.3 billion -.5 billion for land and 2.7 billion for construction. Those are the budget figures the and the "at completion" costs of all construction, mostly completed by opening day in 1995. In order to adhere to those numbers, many small projects, landscaping and art budgets were cut over a year before airport completion. One example is the huge fountain in the Terminal that was a planter for cactus for several years until budgets could be funded to finish it. Many subsequent projects at DIA, like the move of the parking ticketing plaza and the addition of a new parking wing, etc., may have diven the costs closer to the 5 billion stated in the article over the years. But the original budget of 3.3 billion was the final cost of the airport as opened. I know all of this because one of my responsibilities was to be in charge of construction closeout, including change orders, for the DIA PMT (Program Management Team). I have the final "estimate at completion" figures for all construction contracts to validate my statements.
-
? 03/11/2010 1:24:00 AM
You know, I read your article about DIA, and honestly, from the cover, I thought that it was going to be juicer, and scandalous. I thought that the lady in jeans, carrying the odd luggage was going to be some sort of rebel type, starting trouble in the big city.
Well, here is some juice for your story: Did you know that Kim Day has been getting a bad reputation for cancelling important meetings with really important people? I mean the type of people who could make all that she is talking about for DIA come to past. Phil Washington is the head of transportation for the entire country, and Kim Day, cancelled her appointment with him, and basically refuses to even see him at all.
I really think Day needs to start rubbing shoulders with the right people, and if she doesn't know who they are, or where to start, well, she better ask somebody.
I think that some of her ideas are fine, and others need to really be reworked to be up to par. She just needs to be daydreaming with the right people is all.
-
Donald Missey 03/09/2010 9:52:00 PM
I am listening carefully to the comments here; some of the best are with respect to the 'extra cost' of building up DIA. It is true that DIA does not carry itself from a direct revenue perspective, and it probably never will.
Neither do roads, highways or the interstate, but we build them because we derive other benefits from them, and there are gains in other forms of revenue that don't go directly to the bottom line of the infrastructure.
The argument should move from DIA's current 'build anything' approach to a more carefully engineered set of links with the Front Range. If Denver Union Station is DRCOG's transit hub, DIA should become the Front Range transit hub.
-
Dave 03/09/2010 4:23:00 AM
Hey Westword--please get a decent comment editing program that actually prints comments they way they were written--with paragraph spaces--so it doesn't look like we're all a bunch of stream of consciousness latte junkies on crazy meth-addled diatribe. Such programs do exist everywhere else on this series of tubes. Thanks.
-
Dave 03/09/2010 4:18:00 AM
Alan- Thanks for the informative piece on DIA. I saw some of Ms. Day's plans on Channel 8 last summer and couldn't believe the profligacy of her ideas and the fecklessness of the city council members. They do realize we are in dire economic straits? I am glad someone else noticed and reported on it--EXCELLENT JOB!
We don't need visionaries to run DIA. We need competent people who can keep the snow off Pena and the runways and avoid shutdowns.
This lady is nuts:
"We have so many physical advantages," Day says. "JFK has limited land, LAX has limited land. Their gateways, in particular, are very constrained. They will cap out at some point in time, while we could well move up in market share."
Really, DIA can take away market share from LAX and JFK??? Has she ever looked at a map?
What is Parsons doing with that $160M???
Who pays that $330M in annual interest? Does that come from the City and County of Denver or higher ticket prices?
You state that DIA typically operates at a net loss--yet it is not clear who pays for this--Does the City and County of Denver pick up the tab?
Why couldn't Hilton/Marriot/Starwood build a onsite hotel on land deeded or leased to them by DIA? Let them burden the risk instead of us. And with the proposed frequent 25-minute light rail service to downtown, an onsite hotel seems less urgent. And is she serious about people taking the train to DIA to have a spa day??? Please get this woman a straightjacket (and a pay cut on that $240,000/year salary!).
Ms. Day's vision for the Great Hall is equally moronic. Where will those interminable TSA lines fit by the check-in counters? Not to mention everybody waits for their plane by the gate to listen for last-minute upgrades, seating assignments, delays, gate changes, etc. NOBODY will risk missing a flight to eat $18 jalapeno poppers at TGI Fridays and shop for Swarovski crystal in the Great Hall. Also, I love watching family members greet their loved ones coming up the escalators from the train--it's one of the few remaining joys in air travel these days.
The only proposal that makes sense is the light rail extension. When I see the neverending stream of cars on I70/Pena, it blows me away why there can't be a park-and-ride lot easily accessible off I70 and a convenient train to the terminal (perhaps on old Stapleton land? or even Stapleton itself). The gas savings alone would be worth it.
When the future of DIA is beholden to (a) oil prices and (b) two barely-out-of-bankrupcy airlines in United and Frontier, I don't see the need for Ms. Day's vaulting ambition for DIA.
Anyways, keep up the good work and write some followup stories on what this could cost us taxpayers and get this story on the radar.
-
Dawn P. Bookhardt-Bowen 03/08/2010 8:27:00 PM
Alan, I read your article "Airport: The Sequel-drama, dreams, and bold new schemes at DIA. It was very informative. I would love to see the right changes take place at DIA. It is a phenomenal airport, and I just love being in it. For months, I have been following stories about how to change the Great Hall. I do agree that the Great Hall needs to be handled with extreme care. Additionally, the vendors that are in the Great Hall need to be taken care of. It would be wrong to make changes that would make people's lives experience a decrease in lifestyle. Those vendors in the Great Hall feed their children with the income from those stores, so...can't mess them up. I know payoffs would be costly, but maybe until the new terminal is built, and then the vendors could be given first dibs on the new space in the new terminal. One thing that I always wished I could get to is one of those red carpet clubs. There are so few to get to, and if your flight is on a terminal other than where the red carpet club you belong to is on, you have to tough it out. Sometimes I just sit in one terminal, wishing I was in the terminal my red carpet club was in.
However, in order to do this, I think that a red carpet area should be open to all flyers, and then choice drink and magazine stores should be in the same vicinity. Also, a map showing where all of the restaurants and stores in the airport are would be nice. I fly often enough in and out of DIA, but to remember each concourses options gets taxing. Closing off the Great Hall to non-ticketed people could really be a downer on the other hand. I enjoy many meals and cups of coffee with my mom or family members when they are early to board flights. Honestly, it is a nice way to wind down to the "good byes," and takes the pain of watching people you love leave away. But, I do understand making the airport more flyer friendly, efficient, and just an all around airport to be in. The long lines can get irritating, and the baggage fees makes me want to take only a carry-on to a summer long vacation.
One thing that I know for sure is that when people are waiting for their flights, they will take time to eat, drink, and enjoy a magazine or newspaper. It is the lucky flyers who can stop and browse for a book to read (normally book buyers are more choosy, and that takes more time, but they will settle for a magazine when time is limited). Flyers also will make time to pick up missing electronic pieces to phone chargers, or headphones, and maybe an adapter of some sort. I think that if the Great Hall dreams become a reality, it shouldn't be so sterile that people feel uncomfortable, but rather the flyer's needs for that area should be meant.
-
Gregg Looker 03/05/2010 7:46:00 PM
I'm proud our Mayor and our Manager of Aviation are taking the lead in DIA's planned growth. Bill Smith, who led the construction effort until his death, had an old U.S. West poster on his wall which stated: "You have to make dust or eat dust!"
-
Donald Missey 03/05/2010 3:28:00 PM
Along with the effort that Kim Day is putting into the DIA development are the adjacent efforts of the City of Aurora and Ed Tauer. From North to South they include Porteous, 1,287 acres, www.denveraerotropolis.com, SolarTAC, 1,762 acres,and a 500 acre Lend Lease project that has been in the news, and the Ports to Plains project which will terminate East of Denver, probably in Aurora. Taken as a whole, DIA is within scale to build their portion of future development.
The impending tragedy is that the Denver MPO is rarely if ever speaking with Aurora's planning department; they seem to have extremely little information regarding what is occurring outside of Denver, even when it is published in the DRCOG 2035 plan.
-
John 03/05/2010 3:40:00 AM
I believe building airports like this are a huge risks in medium/large sized cities because a lot of it depends on the Airlines. St Louis spent a Billion dollars on a new runway because of increased demand. While construction was happening, TWA (The main hub in St Louis) went belly up, American bought TWA and pretty much turned STL into a ghost town. The runway is not used now and is considered a White Elephant. Even though it's a risk, i still love DIA
-
Alan Prendergast 03/05/2010 1:16:00 AM
Gee, I've been called plenty of bad names, but piece-puffer...that's harsh.
Reuben, did you happen to read about the $480,000 DIA spent on consultants to "help implement its vision" anywhere in this toddlin' town other than my puff piece?
How about the $4.1 billion debt load and $330 million in debt service a year? Did you hear about that on 9 News, which is so worked up over $9000 in cupcakes?
Didn't think so.
As for how DIA expects to pay for a billion-plus in expansion, the answer is in the puff piece: more bonds. The city issued $250 million in new airport bonds last year, a small part of which is going toward the hotel-station project. The article reports that the debt load is expected to go up in the next few years as more bonds are issued, and that one forecaster sees DIA's cost per enplanement increasing by fifty percent in five years.
Higher landing fees generally mean higher ticket prices. Day says that won't happen. To quote her on that point doesn't constitute an endorsement of her position, last time I looked.
If this be puffery, make the most of it.
-
JJ 03/04/2010 11:25:00 PM
Could you guys get ANY further up Hickenlooper's ass? What happened to critical journalism, like you did with Webb?!
-
Reuben Espinosa 03/04/2010 11:05:00 PM
So Kim Day spent $480,000!! on a study to tell airport employees, "Hey we're a business."
You wouldn't know it from from reading this puff piece. The article failed to press Day or her boss, gubernatorial candidate and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, on where the city will find the massive additional revenues needed to pay for adding another half-billion-plus dollars to the current $4.1 billion airport debt balance.
-
Donald Missey 03/03/2010 10:07:00 PM
2.3 million more people are moving to Colorado within the next 20 years, including natural growth in the state. Of those 2.3 million, only 67,000 will be living in Denver, according to Colorado's own deomgraphic analysis.
DIA is the natural hub for transit development in the Colorado Front Range. It is time for DRCOG to become FRCOG, and develop a transit system that reaches every city in the Front Range with DIA as it's hub.
If Denver does not look ahead to a DRCOG 2.0 called FRCOG, it is going to run into Poundstone 2.0
