We need a new airport!!!

[flyingember]

This past weekend I had the opportunity to contrast directly the Baltimore airport (BWI) with the KC airport (MCI). Again, I find MCI to be a far faster and more efficient experience than the big box design like at BWI.

Leaving MCI (which is what most demolish-and-build-new advocates complain about), was a 30-minute experience -- park the car in the garage immediately adjacent to the tunnel and escalator. Use bathroom and buy magazine before security, 5 minutes. Walk through security (no line) 5 minutes, wait at gate about 20 minutes until boarding.

what would you think if you couldn't park in the short-term garage next to your terminal? if it was always full and you had to park and wait to ride the bus in? (say from the now closed terminal garage because why not use it?)

[herrfrank]

what would you think if you couldn't park in the short-term garage next to your terminal? if it was always full and you had to park and wait to ride the bus in? (say from the now closed terminal garage because why not use it?)

I would want more parking built. Which is what KC did back in the 1990s. For the first 20 years, MCI had slab lots in the circles at each terminal.

MCI is easy-to-use and fast. Does anyone dispute the speed with which a traveler can come and go from MCI?

My point is that for me and people like me, travelling around 150k miles per year, with many (more than 10) trips per year to KC (I live in Connecticut), MCI is supremely convenient compared to its peer cities. Yes I wish it still had an Admirals Club, yes it would be nice to have more pissoirs on the airside of the various secured sections, but these are small potatoes compared to the fact that I save something like 20 minutes each and every time I use MCI compared to other airports.

Time, moreso than money, is _the_ important commodity in life. You can make money....

[mykem]

what would you think if you couldn't park in the short-term garage next to your terminal? if it was always full and you had to park and wait to ride the bus in? (say from the now closed terminal garage because why not use it?)

I would want more parking built. Which is what KC did back in the 1990s. For the first 20 years, MCI had slab lots in the circles at each terminal.

MCI is easy-to-use and fast. Does anyone dispute the speed with which a traveler can come and go from MCI?

My point is that for me and people like me, travelling around 150k miles per year, with many (more than 10) trips per year to KC (I live in Connecticut), MCI is supremely convenient compared to its peer cities. Yes I wish it still had an Admirals Club, yes it would be nice to have more pissoirs on the airside of the various secured sections, but these are small potatoes compared to the fact that I save something like 20 minutes each and every time I use MCI compared to other airports.

Time, moreso than money, is _the_ important commodity in life. You can make money....

Nobody disputes the speed at which you can enter and exit the airport currently. The argument is, KCI has reached beyond it's capacity to further enhance security, and travel comfort. The 3 terminal's footprint cannot be extend up, down, or side to side. I don't think we would lose that much time, if any in a new terminal.
And I agree time is precious.

[herrfrank]

Nobody disputes the speed at which you can enter and exit the airport currently. The argument is, KCI has reached beyond it's capacity to further enhance security, and travel comfort. The 3 terminal's footprint cannot be extend up, down, or side to side. I don't think we would lose that much time, if any in a new terminal.
And I agree time is precious.

I'll give you travel comfort. But re: capacity to further enhance security -- the TSA claims that all airports it oversees meet specific minimum security standards. In fact, if you look on the departures screen at any airport, there is a scrolling message that lists an airport in Venezuela and IIRC one in Africa that do not currently meet TSA standards.

I agree that TSA is pushing for a new big box terminal. Not for better security, but for cheaper security (fewer screeners). Also, the city wants more revenue from parking and tenants.

But in my opinion, those wants are not adequate justification, and they ignore the most important thing. The paramount criterion is time.

[flyingember]

no arguemnt, time is the key aspect

to the terminal from the highway (or train in the future)
to get boarding passes and get rid of luggage
to security
through security
to get food
in and out of the restroom (the only place besides a sports stadium that you need to always have spare stalls no matter the cost)

in some places the airport's speed can be improved dramatically.

[KCPowercat]

This past weekend I had the opportunity to contrast directly the Baltimore airport (BWI) with the KC airport (MCI). Again, I find MCI to be a far faster and more efficient experience than the big box design like at BWI.

Leaving MCI (which is what most demolish-and-build-new advocates complain about), was a 30-minute experience -- park the car in the garage immediately adjacent to the tunnel and escalator. Use bathroom and buy magazine before security, 5 minutes. Walk through security (no line) 5 minutes, wait at gate about 20 minutes until boarding.

Leaving BWI was a 90-minute ordeal. Park the car in an enormous garage that required a 15-minute walk to the bus connection. The bus took another 10 minutes, followed by a 10 minute walk to the security checkpoint (no line, but huge, centralized, cavernous security lanes, requiring a slow, snaking walk). Clear security and walk another 10 minutes to the gate. Because of BWI's advice to arrive at the airport 120 minutes beforehand, wait 45 minutes to board. No power outlets anywhere, but at KC I didn't need them because I wasn't there long enough to need more power.

Arriving both airports was easy, but again KC had us in our car and on I-29 within 7 minutes of the plane parking at the gate. 1 minute on jetway, 1 minute out of secure zone, 1 minute to parking, 1 minute to pay, 3 minutes on roadway to I-29. BWI was a 10 minute walk out of the terminal to the bus and another 10 minute bus ride, followed by 15 minutes back roads to get to I-95.

Adjusting for wasted time at gates, Kansas City is still twice as fast as a big box terminal. Ultimately, the primary criterion for airport preference is how little time frequent travelers must spend there.

These don't seem like similar configurations. A new KCI would also have a walkable garage setup according to plans. If you would compare BWI to parking in KCI economy or rental car, that would be a better comparison.

I mean we can make KCI even smaller like Wichita or Omaha airport and I bet you could shave a few more minutes but not sure the ONLY criteria is speed from one mode of transportation to the other.

[dnweava]

I've been to airports all around the US, and to airports in 8 other countries and MCI is by far my favorite and I think a new terminal is a horrible waste of money that will only raise fares and not attract any new business or flights to KC.

The thing nobody talks about with MCI, if I am dropping off a family member at the airport, I can park in short term parking and hang out with that person and even go to eat with them in the terminal then they can go through security at the last minute and make the flight. While waiting for a ride to pick you up, waiting for bus, etc, you have the shops literally right inside the pickup area so you can eat or shop literally 15 seconds away from the curb.

Since the airport will obviously get either a remodel or a brand new terminal, I decided to throw my idea into the ring. I redesigned the 2 terminals currently being used so you can access all gates from a single secured zone. We don't have to rebuild any of the parking, roadways, baggage claim, or check in desks. We would only need to build new gate areas (shown in black) with 1 security gate from each terminal(purple zone) so you get the benefit of reusing most of the existing infrastructure everyone likes while getting better/roomier gate areas and less security gates. There will be 2 moving sidewalk bridges between the terminals, 1 connecting the gates(secured area) and 1 connecting the non secured area while connecting the new light rail station(shown in red) to both terminals if the streetcar/light rail plan ever makes it to the airport.

[kboish]

I actually like this idea...i, of course, have zero idea of how feasible it is, but it seems to give the best of both worlds...new "single terminal" while retaining the familiarity of what is there now.

[earthling]

I love fresh new ideas no one thought of (that I know of), even if half baked. Would rather see a new terminal but if there is a case for retrofitting existing terminals, something along these lines could address many off the problems.

I do think KC planners need to think about what it wants to be in 15 years and the current terminals don't fit any future vision I'd have of KC or most effective airport design. But at the same time, this idea doesn't suck if cost effective. If the cost to retrofit is same or more than a well designed new terminal that factors future 15+ year growth, then no. But if half the cost, then maybe. I'd generally lean towards something well planned for future growth (Orlando/Tampa), not a retrofit (the mess called DFW). Either way, this needs to get in front of KCI planners.

[DaveKCMO]

DESIGN CONTEST

[flyingember]

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/28/47 ... anges.html

good article. the problem is the opposition is acting like it's $0 vs $1.2 billion when it's not.

He said the committee should seriously consider whether spending more in the next few years would save money in the long run and help the city build a state-of-the-art airport that would last an additional 40 years.

here's the raw numbers I've found

$500-700 million today to get another 10-15 years life
$250 million spent in 2004 to get to where we are today
= $750-1150 million and maybe we get 25 years life between the two

versus $900-1200 million to get 40 more years.

we can't afford to not work on the airport so the city needs to put a simple ballot measure up to let the people choose between the two options that are realistically on the table. repair vs new and have 1:1 comparable text for the ballot language.

I have a hunch that most the people that want to spend less today will be very angry if they choose the option and in another decade we're right back to the same discussion. so the ballot language needs to be painfully clear that it's a short term solution to work on the current terminals. that in 10-15 years we will have another large bill

[knucklehead]

The suggestion that these "business leaders" speak for the average business traveler is absurd.

Personally, I think the current version of KCI is great for frequent travelers who live in KC. But it is 42 years old and will have to be replaced eventually. Since it will probably take 10 years to approve, finance and build a replacement, it is not a terrible idea to start the planning now.

What the current group of replacement advocates lack is an understanding of Kansas City. We can afford a great replacement that has the same attributes as the current version. They want to put us into the cookie cutter/mediocrity accepted by other cities who can't afford our quality of life. The airport management harps on the inefficiencies of having multiple terminals. Well, it doesn't seem to have jacked up our ticket prices. And dam it we can afford it. So what if Baltimore can't afford it.

And the last thing we want is to be another Denver. Hubs are not what Kansas City wants. Higher prices and more crowded. On what planet are those things good?

What Kansas City deserves is a simple, elequent terminal that allows you to minimize the amount of time you spent at the airport. Think in terms of the concepts reflected in the private terminals used by rich people for their private jets.

What about the people making connections? Screw them. Don't want them at my airport anyway.

The current conceptual design shown in the document posted a few days ago is mediocrity in spades. We can do better.

My guess is a high quality design focused on what KC residents want will actually be cheaper than what the bureaucrats want. If it means more jobs at the airport - what is so terrible about that? We will still have a lot lower ticket prices than the moron hub cities. (although a hub would probably produce more net jobs - but at a price).

[KCPowercat]

The airport needs people making connections....this according to southwest. It provides is more direct flights and according to them makes their business model work.

[knucklehead]

The KC metro has a population of 2 million and the nearest airport is Omaha.

That is more than enough population to mean we don't have to ruin our airport just to add some resturants and overpriced shops for connecting passingers.

[herrfrank]

...Sprint’s young executives, and the young people the corporation is trying to attract, want a much more contemporary airport with “power, power, power” for their cellphones and other high-tech devices.

He told the story of the company’s chief lobbyist, who was with a group of bankers, attorneys and entrepreneurs one night when their flight was delayed in Terminal A, which the airport has since shut down. All the shops closed by 6 p.m., and they were told they could take a shuttle to another terminal or the nearby Marriott hotel if they needed a meal.

White asked what kind of business message that sends about Kansas City “if things roll up at 6 p.m."

Nothing in the new terminal design would guarantee that shops stay open after 6pm. It feels like the quoted article is trying to make MCI into much more than what it is, as if the airport needs to personify the hopes and dreams of millenials in Overland Park.

MCI works as an airport, and it works well. There are plenty of bathrooms, just remember to use them before security. I'll bet that the lack of power outlets could be resolved for less than a million bucks. That and the hours of a sandwich shop justify this billion-dollar boondoggle?

[flyingember]

Nothing in the new terminal design would guarantee that shops stay open after 6pm. It feels like the quoted article is trying to make MCI into much more than what it is, as if the airport needs to personify the hopes and dreams of millenials in Overland Park.

MCI works as an airport, and it works well. There are plenty of bathrooms, just remember to use them before security. I'll bet that the lack of power outlets could be resolved for less than a million bucks. That and the hours of a sandwich shop justify this billion-dollar boondoggle?

it would not guarantee but could certainly help with store hours. if you have three (now two) locations, one per terminal, you need double or triple the staff during the day. move to one location in one terminal and they can take the same sized staff and spread them out over more hours.

with restrooms you're thinking healthy adult. think 4-year-old, elderly person or individual with a urinary health issue. choosing when to go isn't always picture perfect. public facilities need to account for the most common exceptions, not the norm.

[knucklehead]

Just one more comment on hubs.

I have never had a flight delayed in the air over Kansas City because of "air traffic delays" in Kansas City- it is common on both coasts. In fact the air traffic control delays that occur at KCI are almost always on departing flights and the delay is at the airport you are flying to. In addition some flights leaving KCI are delayed because the arriving flight (i.e. the airplane) is delayed getting to Kansas City because of air traffic delays at the originating airport.

KCI can have weather delays but they don't happen very often because of weather in KC. In any event, a new airport does not change the weather.

A hub just means more air traffic control delays.

The lack of delays is just one more way in which the quality of life in KC is higher than on the coasts.

[herrfrank]

...with restrooms you're thinking healthy adult. think 4-year-old, elderly person or individual with a urinary health issue. choosing when to go isn't always picture perfect. public facilities need to account for the most common exceptions, not the norm.

I would wager that the current MCI you are never more than 50 yards from a toilet. Yes, in an emergency you may need to exit security and later re-enter (but if it's an emergency bio need, so be it). I would further wager that the new terminal design will have areas more than 50 yards from a toilet. The airport's current layout minimizes the distance from any one point to the curbside wall, where the toilets are.

I agree that in one big box terminal you will probably have a better quality sandwich shop (not sure that the hours will improve) than in the current two terminals in use. This all seems like an elaborate expense for upgraded airport food and to save TSA some screener salaries.

[mean]

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/28/47 ... anges.html

good article. the problem is the opposition is acting like it's $0 vs $1.2 billion when it's not.

here's the raw numbers I've found

$500-700 million today to get another 10-15 years life
$250 million spent in 2004 to get to where we are today
= $750-1150 million and maybe we get 25 years life between the two

versus $900-1200 million to get 40 more years.

What, exactly, does that $500 to $700 million buy? How much of it is actually necessary? I'd like to see a nice itemized list of everything they want to do and how much each thing will cost, because I'm pretty confident they could do nothing but routine repairs / maintenance and get 10-15 years of life.

[aknowledgeableperson]

And this is where the initial sales pitch failed and the director can be hold accountable. As pointed out earlier this is not a matter of spending nothing or spending $1.2B. Some money is going to have to be spent in the next few years just on needed basic repairs and some minor improvements/upgrades.

The case of need should have been presented to the city's citizens first. And after that case was made then present the various options.