I have a Hertz Gold account but even with my family discount the rates are usually way higher than what I get get at Budget and similar.

I was talking about skipping counters here -

How often will those buses be completely full of people?

OKC averages 4,795 arriving passengers per day. Over about 15 hours 9am-midnight. Which is about 319 per hour. And half of those are probably local passengers with cars already at the airport, and a quarter probably have someone picking them up at arrivals. That leaves it down to probably 80-90 rental car customers per hour. On a 10 minute headway, that's anywhere from 13-15 people per bus. And then those 13-15 will not have the same rental company, so they will split into even smaller numbers....

I don't see an issue.

I was talking about skipping counters here -

Right, but what I'm saying is that I'd have to pay almost double at Hertz, so I'm not likely to go that route.


As far as jamming up the counters, trust me, it happens which is one of the big reasons I hate this plan.

I mentioned that last time I was in town I had a reservation with the one off-site rental car place (because it was incredibly cheap) and there were easily 20 people on the shuttle just for that one company.

I just left a message for the airport admin to find out the answer to the question if the in-terminal car rental counters will remain.

Just learned the rental counters in the baggage claim area will be removed when the new facility opens.

I asked about future use and they mentioned general office space (they are maxed out) and possibly waiting areas.

Also, they are just in the process of seeking proposals for the planning phase of the big expansion project.

They ought to just knock those counters out and add more exits and windows open that area up. They are pretty small spaces, the areas behind the counter wall are no more than 6-7 feet wide to the exterior. So if they were to make them offices, they still would be pretty small.

I was also told the facility will be very similar to the one in Albuquerque.

Note, it's just the same sort of rental car counters in the airport now, just relocated:



http://airchive.com/photos/2011/12/albuquerque-international-sunport-rental-car-center-2011-_17617.jpg


http://airchive.com/photos/2011/12/albuquerque-international-sunport-rental-car-center-2011-albuquerque-international-sunport-abq-_17615.jpg

I would say Denver's setup is somewhat similar being offsite, and I never have any issues. Sure I got to get on the bus, but the whole area is covered there and the bus driver even loads and unloads the luggage. I really don't mind.

Yeah, I flew into Denver a little over a year ago and felt like the offsite rental and return process was a snap; much better than most cities with similar set ups. I just hate how far the airport is from town there.

When I spoke to the airport people about this facility, they told me the shuttles will be "bump and go", which means at least 3 and as soon as one gets to the pickup curb, then one in front will depart. Same way at the facility drop-off.

So, hopefully that means there will at least be a shuttle waiting at the airport curb at most times, because they admitted the canopy there is too high to provide any meaningful protection from the elements.

Yeah, I flew into Denver a little over a year ago and felt like the offsite rental and return process was a snap; much better than most cities with similar set ups. I just hate how far the airport is from town there.

Yeah the airport is definitely out in a pasture. Gives them plenty of room to expand though.

Gives them plenty of room to expand though.

You ain't lying...you could probably lay another DIA on the property and still be comfy

While taking a cab from downtown Denver to DIA my friend asked a cab driver why they built DIA so far out. The cabbie said they wanted it to be close to where the planes landed. I thought that was a pretty good response. Oddly enough though, it is closer from DIA to downtown Denver than it is from OU to downtown OKC, so go figure.

Oddly enough though, it is closer from DIA to downtown Denver than it is from OU to downtown OKC, so go figure.

It's about the same distance, 24 miles* (center of downtown Denver to DIA terminal and center of OU's campus to the center of downtown OKC). It's 26 miles* from the center of OU to the WRWA terminal. It feels closer because it's more built-up than in Denver where it is open plains that are just now starting to develop as you get closer to I70. West of Pena will always be open space due to the wildlife refuge/contaminated military arsenal.

* on GoogleMaps using roads/highways not actual distances

I friend of mine works ATC at DIA and I know they are expanding in the near future. He said at some point with all the technology they have, the latest and greatest in the country, that they will be almost doubling their runways. They already can land and send off multiple plans at once, so they are pretty efficient. I've toured the tower a couple times now, usually whenever I'm in Denver and I always enjoy the view and learning about aviation. Once you get out on Pena Blvd, getting to downtown Denver is a snap.

I am not sure the relevance of OU to downtown in comparison of DIA to Denver. DIA is AWAY from Denver on the undeveloped side.

The DIA rental area is quite far from the terminal, but once you are on the bus it doesn't matter how far it is. It only matters when you go to planning your time to turn in your car and make it to your flight.

The separate car facility is getting fairly common for mid sized, and even some large volume airports. It is generally efficient and doesn't interfere with the terminal itself or the immediate parking adjacent to the airport. I fly a lot and actually find them to be quite workable.

I am not sure the relevance of OU to downtown in comparison of DIA to Denver. DIA is AWAY from Denver on the undeveloped side.


It is relative in the sense that people from OKC (of all places) were commenting about how far away things are in another city, when it is closer than what they drive here.

It's not too bad of a drive. I usually take the bus into the city. Think it's $20 RT. Cheaper than a cab for sure.

It is relative in the sense that people from OKC (of all places) were commenting about how far away things are in another city, when it is closer than what they drive here.

No, to be apples to apples, place Will Rogers 20 miles west of Yukon. That's what the Denver airport is like. Most of Denver is on the other side. Just picking an arbitrary location is meaningless. It is without context just trying to prove some point.

I realize it is a moot point now, but I still think that a separate rental car facility is a bad idea. I have rented cars from airports all over the country (most recently, Ft. Lauderdale, Newark Liberty, ATL, Denver), and I think that set-up that is currently at Will Rogers is still the best arrangement.

My wife and I flew up to San Jose this past weekend. I had never flown into SJC before (very clean and modern, by the way), but their rental car facility is in a large parking garage literally right across the street from the terminal. Renting the car and returning it was so convenient and such an incredibly easy experience (granted, our arrival and departure times were definitely not during peak times). The whole experience only reiterated for me what a mistake we are making at Will Rogers.

Not to be too harsh, but sometimes I feel that the powers that be in this city are so eager to prove that we are "big league" (by copying what everyone else is doing) that we ignore common sense.

Not to be too harsh, but sometimes I feel that the powers that be in this city are so eager to prove that we are "big league" (by copying what everyone else is doing) that we ignore common sense.

I made the exact same point when I first heard about this.

Also, things like this are easy to accomplish and make it look like you are really doing something to improve the airport because you are merely taxing people (car renters) who don't have any representation.

How do you think this would have gone over if they instead planned to tax everyone who flies in and out of the airport an extra $10 a throw, or raised parking garage rates substantial to fund this project? Local people would rebel like crazy and the press would be all over it.

Agreed. I've said repeatedly I thought the best option was to continue expanding the garages northward in their current configurations leaving the closest one for rentals. That would have been big league.

My experience was opposite in Toronto (YYZ). Their car rental facility was 'right across the street' in the parking garage but you had to walk outside quite a way to get there and it wasn't set up very conveniently. It was freezing cold in the winter and I didn't appreciate be exposed to the elements. On the other hand, in San Diego (SAN), there was a shuttle to the offsite car rental and even though it was pouring rain, it was still more pleasant than in Toronto. Also, only took maybe an additional 10 minutes. Not picking sides, or saying whether or not building this is justified. Just giving some of my experiences.

My experience was opposite in Toronto (YYZ). Their car rental facility was 'right across the street' in the parking garage but you had to walk outside quite a way to get there and it wasn't set up very conveniently. It was freezing cold in the winter and I didn't appreciate be exposed to the elements. On the other hand, in San Diego (SAN), there was a shuttle to the offsite car rental and even though it was pouring rain, it was still more pleasant than in Toronto. Also, only took maybe an additional 10 minutes. Not picking sides, or saying whether or not building this is justified. Just giving some of my experiences.

In my opinion, this is what makes the situation all the more frustrating. They could have torn down the short term hourly parking garage and built a new, larger one in its place that could accomodate both short term parking and a larger rental car center (by reconfiguring the shuttle/bus/taxi lanes and eliminating the open garden space). Patrons could then get to the rental car center by simply walking across the street (if the weather was nice) or using the pre-existing tunnel (if there was rain, wind, snow, hail, sleet, thundersnow, or any other combination thereof).

I don't know anything about construction costs, but I bet that it would have been similar in price (maybe cheaper?) and there would be no ongoing operating costs related to running a shuttle service.

The reason they are building this remote facility rather than expanding the parking (which is sorely needed) is because they can fund this project with taxes on the rental car companies and the renters and neither can do much about it.

Then, they can gain more revenue by converting the former rental car space to short-term parking.

Is that a bad strategy for the city and its taxpayers?

To be fair, revenues from increased short term parking will be nil -- the current short term lot is never full, plus has a 1-hr free grace period. It's not an evil strategy to raise parking revenues from short term parking which already generates very little.

I'd rather the rental car patrons pay for the facility rather than an increase in the passenger facility charge to all passengers regardless if they rented or not.

This is part of a bigger picture. The coming terminal expansion will be shuffling a lot of things around. And it's my understanding that the rental agencies do not like the current setup. It's extremely inefficient for them to move their cars around the airport.

For each car that is dropped off, the rental car company has to have a driver drive it a full mile loop back to the detail servicing shop. Consider the hundreds of cars per day -- that's several hundred miles per day in gas just to move the cars back to the detail shop...

http://i.gyazo.com/ddcc9a87f4fd505ef6038042b702c77c.png

I'm sure over a year's time that adds up... I don't claim to know anything about the rental business, but it seems inefficient to me. With an expanded garage you still have that inefficiency -- multiplied by a larger number of cars.

Where the current rental detail and storage lots are, is where they want to move employee parking to, because the terminal expansion will wipe out the employee lot south of the post office. (On the far right of the image) I think they also want to add another surface lot for travelers over there too.

They will likely just move the short-term parking up a bit and use the rest for long-term.

This is part of a bigger picture. The coming terminal expansion will be shuffling a lot of things around. And it's my understanding that the rental agencies do not like the current setup. It's extremely inefficient for them to move their cars around the airport.

You're exactly right. It's not just about being convenient for the travelers.

You're exactly right. It's not just about being convenient for the travelers.

And a reminder this had complete support from the rental agencies; and they were at the table during the design process. This "tax" is being directly applied to those who use the service.

No, to be apples to apples, place Will Rogers 20 miles west of Yukon. That's what the Denver airport is like. Most of Denver is on the other side. Just picking an arbitrary location is meaningless. It is without context just trying to prove some point.

Okay, lets go with Yukon. From downtown Denver to the parking deck at DIA is 18.3 miles as the crow flies. 18.3 mile west of downtown OKC (and passing through Yukon) would put the parking deck near Banner Road and I-40 - 6 miles from the center of Yukon.

Or did I totally get that wrong and you were equating downtown Yukon with downtown Denver?

A controversy has arisen.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5337200?embargo=1


An attorney for Oklahoma City’s Red Carpet Charters says the company was undervalued when a United Kingdom-based operator was chosen over Red Carpet for a shuttle bus service at Will Rogers World Airport.
five-member airport committee evaluated proposals by First Transit and Red Carpet, assigning First Transit a score of 91 and Red Carpet a score of 89.4. Attorney Jerry Foshee said the 1.6-point difference amounted to a statistical tie.

Red Carpet and owner Jeff Polzien have been good corporate citizens for 29 years and supporters of voter-approved MAPS redevelopment projects, Foshee said. He said the evaluations were “at the very least contradictory” and that trustees should have asked for new proposals.

Better link Contract decision for Oklahoma City airport rental car center shuttle is disputed | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/article/5337200?)

Are they asking local preference? I am all for supporting local business but when they are given advantages over others it's just a feel good deal, sometimes resulting in higher costs and below par work (not saying this is case here though)

Wait, so are they planning on having a single contracted entity provide shuttle services for all rental brands? I don't disagree with that, and consolidating the shuttle service will probably make things more efficient. But I'm curious why the Pony service wouldn't pick up this instead of contracting it out to a third party. The biggest thing we could possibly need on a regular basis would be the shorter busses like the new Metro Transit busses. We definitely do NOT need the big Hertz busses you see at other airports. The smaller shuttles take care of everyone just fine. You can have more of them (which means they run more often) if you use the smaller ones instead of larger ones.

I mention that because that would be a new business for Red Carpet. Their charter services have always been focused around long-haul type charter busses, not shuttles. It's a whole different ball game. So I'm curious if the Brittish firm has experience in handling shuttle services. And at the same time, I'm wondering why a local vendor wouldn't have been given preferential treatment for this if the overall cost was the same. I know nothing of the Brittish group, but perhaps they have experience in this whereas Red Carpet has none?

I believe part of the decision was the fact that the British based company had stop and go experience that the local bidder did not. The local has had few buses and they were dedicated to a few pick-ups and only for their service. Rightly or wrongly, they preferred the company with SPECIFIC experience.

And as I mentioned this is a service that will almost exclusively be used by out of town visitors. This needs to have good execution, and we don't want to add to the existing (soon to be) inconvenience of off-airport, by adding unreliable service. We don't want the shuttle service to be a two year contract sandbox run for Red Carpet -- they simply do not have the resume to support their bid. Tough luck, but if you don't have the experience someone else does then get over it when you aren't selected.

Shouldn't this thread be renamed and moved to the appropriate section?

Anywho, here are a couple pictures.

10/06/2014

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2947/15276104049_65f54e5fd7_b.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5599/15276278990_2a511e9d9c_b.jpg

Not exactly speeding along at jet speed there are they?

Not exactly speeding along at jet speed there are they?yeah lol. . . I also wonder if they're going have covers for the cats that will be exposed to the elements.

Seems like it's a lot further along then when I went by it a little over a month ago.

January 15 2015

Pete's Most Hated Project

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8617/16336486295_a9985f82b0_b.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8604/15716569193_73472faaa9_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7506/15716569353_fe1127b0cf_b.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8570/16148902998_ed7356ee3f_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7534/15716569763_369c21b7e5_b.jpg

Boooooo!!!!

:)

Pete,
What exactly are your objections to this facility? I have always hated the current Rental configuration. This doesn't appear to be worse.

Pete,
What exactly are your objections to this facility? I have always hated the current Rental configuration. This doesn't appear to be worse.

Can't believe you've missed my previous rants. :)

1. They have added a tax to all rental cars to pay for this thing. So, rates have gone up.
2. Having to stand out in the elements waiting for a shuttle bus. The curb is covered by a very high canopy which is not going to do much protecting from the weather.
3. Can't get my car while waiting on baggage (works great right now).
4. Having to clamor on and off shuttle buses.
5. Bus system means that groups are collected and then dumped into the facility at the same time, causing people to race off lest they get stuck behind others.


That's most of it.

got it! reminds me of the Phoenix Off site facility minus the weather most of the time

Can't believe you've missed my previous rants. :)

1. They have added a tax to all rental cars to pay for this thing. So, rates have gone up.
2. Having to stand out in the elements waiting for a shuttle bus. The curb is covered by a very high canopy which is not going to do much protecting from the weather.
3. Can't get my car while waiting on baggage (works great right now).
4. Having to clamor on and off shuttle buses.
5. Bus system means that groups are collected and then dumped into the facility at the same time, causing people to race off lest they get stuck behind others.


That's most of it.

I have the same list of annoyances, but this seems the be the standard at most airports now.

I just look at it as the more annoying flying gets the better hope we have of getting a high speed rail system nationwide.

At least it's a somewhat attractive facility that complements WRWA...

I totally agree Pete, but as said here, it's the trend right now. And since the airport paid for this one, expect it to be this way for a LOOOOONG time.

The similar center at SEATAC is pretty damned impressive. But like you, I HATE HATE HATE having to use rental car shuttles...UGH!

This is an easy thing for the airport to "accomplish" because they can tax people (those renting cars) who are not presented and thus it's easy to raise the money for new construction.

At least it looks nice. It's come a long ways since I flew back in October.

Can't believe you've missed my previous rants. :)

1. They have added a tax to all rental cars to pay for this thing. So, rates have gone up.
2. Having to stand out in the elements waiting for a shuttle bus. The curb is covered by a very high canopy which is not going to do much protecting from the weather.
3. Can't get my car while waiting on baggage (works great right now).
4. Having to clamor on and off shuttle buses.
5. Bus system means that groups are collected and then dumped into the facility at the same time, causing people to race off lest they get stuck behind others.


That's most of it.

So, the shuttle bus picks up upstairs at the drop off area? I would think they would pick up downstairs by the baggage claims. I never use the parking since we always have people dropping us off and picking us up.

So, the shuttle bus picks up upstairs at the drop off area? I would think they would pick up downstairs by the baggage claims. I never use the parking since we always have people dropping us off and picking us up.

They will pick up on the ground level but out at the furthest curb, where hotel shuttle buses current come and go.

You walk through the open coutyard and are pretty far away from the terminal building itself.

So, instead of walking 50 more feet and hopping in your rental car, you will now stand out there waiting for a shuttle.

I used a consolidated rental car facility at Fort Lauderdale a few weeks ago.

It was easy and painless. Then again, I did arrive at 6am so the peak arrivals had not started yet.

I used a facility just like this in Cleveland 2 summers ago. It was very smooth, easy, and convenient. I saw no issues like those people have listed above.

I used a facility just like this in Cleveland 2 summers ago. It was very smooth, easy, and convenient. I saw no issues like those people have listed above.

Yeah I've used the one in Denver a couple times and it's always been real smooth.

Eh, as someone who very frequently flies out of Will Rogers, I welcome this change. There have been several annoying instances over the last year where the parking garage has been full and this would open more spaces for daily parking and hopefully reduce the frequency of that issue.

I used the consolidated facilities at SFO and ATL a lot and I liked them. The biggest problem with SFO though was that it was a pretty long walk to get to the skytrain station. ATL is super easy and you only have to be outside for a few seconds. However, I prefer Philadelphia where rental cars are for suckers because the train goes right to City Center in 20 minutes.

Yeah, I've used them in recent years in places like Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, Kansas City and Newark and had no real complaints. The situation in Denver is similar though not truly consolidated, and it worked fine too.

I understand that in a perfect world it would be nice just to walk right to your rental car a few feet from the terminal, but it was also nice to park at the curb and to walk your lived ones to the gate and wait with them. Times change, and as the airport and city grow this is a change that makes sense, allowing for more close-in parking for departing OKC residents.

Personally, I'm fine with the hassle and expense falling more on arriving non-resident travelers. Lord knows other airports make it plenty difficult on those flying to/from OKC by putting connections at the furthest gate possible, etc.