Consolidated Rental Car Facility

[Zuplar]

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.

[bradh]

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

[Just the facts]

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.

[BG918]

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

[Zuplar]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[catch22]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[mobstam]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[HangryHippo]

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.

[AP]

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.

[mobstam]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[Rover]

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

[catch22]

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...



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.

[Pete]

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

[ljbab728]

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.

[catch22]

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.

[Just the facts]

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?

[ljbab728]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

Better link Contract decision for Oklahoma City airport rental car center shuttle is disputed | NewsOK.com

[bradh]

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)

[bombermwc]

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?