A decrease in passengers and the sudden resignation of the airport director ought to spell two words for the Salt Lake International Aiport Authority -- s-l-o-w d-o-w-n. Clearly, a more modest approach seems in order.
At the very least, a 20-year plan that called for virtually destroying and replacing the airport ought to be reconsidered. That is, the timing should be reconsidered. The overall concept still is sound.Salt Lake City, a recent report showed, is one of the least expensive places to fly. Competition has made this a healthy destination and connecting point. It makes little sense to embark on a massive, fast-track project now that would end up increasing landing fees -- a cost that would be borne by air travelers in and out of the city -- to build a facility that mostly stands empty.
Airports rely on landing fees and some federal funds, not local taxes. They tend to be overlooked by city halls and taxpayer advocates. But the public still hates waste, and it ought to have positive feelings about a facility that, more than any other, is a gateway to the Wasatch Front.
Airport Director Russ Widmar resigned earlier this month in an apparent disagreement over the size and timing of the expansion. Widmar preferred an aggressive approach that would have seen two new terminals in place by 2005, at a cost of nearly $1 billion. But the number of passengers coming through the airport has been declining since 1997. Critics who worry about going too far too quickly are beginning to look prudent.
Some may wonder why such a radical expansion is needed at all. Among its casualties would be an international terminal built four years ago at a cost of $12 million.
But a careful analysis of the plan shows it would provide a model that allows for orderly expansion into the foreseeable future. Under the current configuration, the airport could build only a few more terminals in a semicircle around the roadway. Not only is this plan limited, it is inconvenient for passengers who must wait for shuttle buses to carry them between terminals.
The new plan is modeled after successful airports in Denver and Cincinnati. It calls for a large central terminal and parallel concourses to the north, all connected by an underground train.
No, the design is not flawed. Only the timing is in question. If the airport builds part of the expansion now, it can complete the project later when the need is apparent.