We need a new airport!!!

Transportation topics in KC
User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3663
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby grovester » Sun May 14, 2017 7:30 am

Yeah, all that happened too.

Everything in Highlander's post, I've heard from the city. The problem is a lot of people don't care about or don't believe those points.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Sun May 14, 2017 10:21 am

pash wrote: But if I were asked to vote on anything having to do with a new terminal today, I would vote no in a heartbeat, for the sole reason that I will always oppose the agenda of politicians and civic leaders whose instincts are to get things done by dissembling and back-room dealing.


Like was done to build the Power & Light District.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8985
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby Highlander » Sun May 14, 2017 1:28 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
pash wrote: But if I were asked to vote on anything having to do with a new terminal today, I would vote no in a heartbeat, for the sole reason that I will always oppose the agenda of politicians and civic leaders whose instincts are to get things done by dissembling and back-room dealing.


Like was done to build the Power & Light District.


Was it the best deal KC could have got? Maybe not. But do you or anyone short of Dan Coffey really want to go back to downtown in to the days before the P&L District? I certainly would not. Without that deal, it's very likely that the Sprint Center isn't there, the streetcar doesn't happen, the P&L building isn't rehabbed, more business leaves downtown, we do not get NCAA and B12 tournaments, the College Basketball experience doesn't show up next door, much of what has been done in the Crossroads and the boom in smaller hotels never happens. That deal was the catalyst for much of what has happened downtown in the last 10 years. And I don't consider it a shady deal at all. Our leaders could have shown better skills at negotiation but they did exactly what they are elected to do.
Last edited by Highlander on Sun May 14, 2017 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8985
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby Highlander » Sun May 14, 2017 1:47 pm

grovester wrote:Yeah, all that happened too.

Everything in Highlander's post, I've heard from the city. The problem is a lot of people don't care about or don't believe those points.


It's amazing to read the comments in the Star every time this issue comes up. The fear of another Chicago O'Hare airport and raised taxes are the most prominent and ignorant voices in the debate (O'Hare does exactly what its supposed to do by the way and does it well). Funding an airport is like working off an actuary table - and unless we build an oversized Cadillac of an airport out of sync with our air traffic which nobody has proposed doing - the probabilistic ranges in potential revenue are pretty much a know entity and the financial risk is very low short of something extremely radical happening - like a new form of "beam me up" transportation.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4081
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby beautyfromashes » Sun May 14, 2017 3:15 pm

The city isn't even talking about the sales tax benefit that would come with the new airport. I'm sure retail sales would significantly increase. Where is the, "The city will get an additional $1m in sales taxes with no additional taxes raised on the population."? There's been no value play marketing at all.

ztonyg
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:38 pm
Location: Peoria, AZ

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby ztonyg » Sun May 14, 2017 10:47 pm

Highlander wrote:
grovester wrote:Yeah, all that happened too.

Everything in Highlander's post, I've heard from the city. The problem is a lot of people don't care about or don't believe those points.


It's amazing to read the comments in the Star every time this issue comes up. The fear of another Chicago O'Hare airport and raised taxes are the most prominent and ignorant voices in the debate (O'Hare does exactly what its supposed to do by the way and does it well). Funding an airport is like working off an actuary table - and unless we build an oversized Cadillac of an airport out of sync with our air traffic which nobody has proposed doing - the probabilistic ranges in potential revenue are pretty much a know entity and the financial risk is very low short of something extremely radical happening - like a new form of "beam me up" transportation.


Cincinnati (well Northern Kentucky) and Pittsburgh built those Cadillac terminals. They were great as airline hubs prior to the mid 2000s but now have vast areas either vacant or since demolished. Nothing I see here is anything like that. Kansas City needs a terminal like the one in Austin, Indianapolis, Nashville, or Raleigh-Durham. Nobody complains about those terminals.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28390
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby KCPowercat » Mon May 15, 2017 8:39 am

...and not many people go to those terminals to see how well they would fit us.

WoodDraw
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby WoodDraw » Thu May 18, 2017 8:22 pm

Someone smart really needs to write an explainer for what is going on here. I can't for the life of me figure out why this has been handled so poorly.

Is the tradeoff solely KC city bonds = cheaper vs. private = quicker?

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6588
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby flyingember » Thu May 18, 2017 8:48 pm

Lack of up enough public meetings for feedback. The plan was made without taking emotion and history into account. It was purely technical without identifying how critically importance convenience is, by the time that was clear it was trying to finish the process and go to a vote, not rethink its entire methods.

Planning has been underway for 5 years. How many chances for public input have there been at all stages? People on this site tend to be aware of what's going on. Did anyone see a public comment period in 2013 when the studies began? I don't remember one.

Now this private company makes the whole process look very backroom and secret handshake by showing up last minute with a new idea.

Had the city gauged public opinion in 2012 I imagine we would have a different outlook today. The city could have directed a focus on convenience as important for any plan and framed things that way. I don't think a new terminal will be less convenient, I just don't think the advisory group spent enough time on that aspect.


The Go Bond was a success because the city focused on what their surveys have shown are a top item for many years. The city took the time and built the plan off this, not making a plan and then gauging opinion. Which is the opposite of the airport planning.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3663
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby grovester » Thu May 18, 2017 9:01 pm

No, everyone agreed sidewalks suck. Not everyone agrees the airport sucks.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28390
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby KCPowercat » Thu May 18, 2017 9:43 pm

As I've put it together after years of watching and today's business session

Pros:
Quicker to market by two years
No bond issuance by the city reduces our outstanding bonding capacity (which is independent of how bonds are paid off)
Big ticket item using local engineering firm so more local jobs, etc.

Same as traditional airport financing plan:
No tax on citizens
City has sign off on details including max price
City gets asset
small increase in user fees/ticket cost (about the cost of a bottle of water was stated today)
public vote

Cons:
Higher interest rates (mitigated by quicker construction)
Appearance of cronyism
Risk of Burns and Mac going cheap to max out their profits (may be mitigated by final agreement with city)


Probably more to add to these lists....

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby pash » Fri May 19, 2017 1:55 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28390
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby KCPowercat » Fri May 19, 2017 2:16 pm

Bonding capacity is definitely a pro in this deal. No matter how safe airport bonds are.

This project with private funding is scheduled to be done 2 years faster than the original city plan.

User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2791
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby voltopt » Fri May 19, 2017 2:32 pm

pash wrote:It still looks to me like the only real purpose of this scheme is to trick voters into thinking that the private sector is eating some of the cost of a new terminal.


This vote will fail because of its lack of transparency. The problem KC voters have with a new single terminal isn't the (non-existent) tax bill. It's the demolition of an old airport they believe works for them. I think this deal shows a political spinelessness from our civic leaders. If they had any sort of will, they would put the airport question on the ballot as a public bond issue as originally planned. Turning the financing from public to private will not make the people attached to the old terminals happy, and I think the murky and challenging nature of the sole-source private financing that they are pursuing will actually be what sinks it in November. Additionally, the provincial argument of "KCI will move to Omaha or JoCO" is a bad one, but if it has any merit it isn't increased or lessened by a private or publicly financed project.

I'm not surprised that our leaders are so quick to follow this limited vision, but what they should be doing is fighting the political fight for traditional financing. If they truly believe a public private partnership is the way to go, this entire process should be opened up in a formal RFP process with full vetting of this and other competitive bids. I'm afraid ramming this MOU through will lead to nothing happening at KCI for a very long time, and possibly some legal trouble from local entities excluded from the process.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28390
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby KCPowercat » Fri May 19, 2017 3:03 pm

This will pass easily in November.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4081
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby beautyfromashes » Fri May 19, 2017 3:18 pm

^ I agree. I think the reasons and need for a new airport are starting to be understood by citizens. There just needs to be a proper presentation of what the experience will be in the new terminal, what we can possibly expect in the way of new destinations in the future and a guarantee that B&M will provide for any cost overages while creating an airport worthy of the city.

User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2791
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby voltopt » Fri May 19, 2017 3:19 pm

KCPowercat wrote:This will pass easily in November.



Why do you think this? Because of the private financing?

I'd like to think that a bond issuance proposal would also pass. Two big negatives from the sole-source P3 proposal:

1. Higher interest rates and desire for profitability leads to a less than inspiring terminal design - which we will be stuck with. Think Savannah Airport.
2. The misunderstood nature of the financing gives the 'SAVE OUR KCI" people another angle to campaign against, one which will resonate "OMG CRONYISM!!" Supporters of the plan will condescend "This is the only way, you don't know what's good for you!" which will have an increased negative impact.

But, who knows? Why not try a bond election, and that failing, quickly go with this as the 'last chance!!!!' effort or something, instead of jumping right to it without actually trying anything besides nervous talk. At this point, a public vote hasn't been attempted. That is a lack of political will.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4081
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby beautyfromashes » Fri May 19, 2017 3:21 pm

^ I'd take a guaranteed contract with B&M proving completion two years earlier than a bidding process with cheap debt any day. Time is money.

User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2791
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby voltopt » Fri May 19, 2017 3:22 pm

My point is, the B&M proposal is unnecessary at this point. Voters are already starting to understand the need, as you said. This new approach will only muddy the waters and ultimately will give us a watered down solution, at least on the passenger experience side, if it passes.

User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2791
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby voltopt » Fri May 19, 2017 3:25 pm

I'd take 3% less in interest and public oversight, personally. I disagree that pressure to perform and save dollars will lead to a more inspiring and lasting terminal design. Remember, this will be the front door of Kansas City for a generation. I'd take my chances with bond issue first. Voters aren't stupid, and I think many will see through this proposal.


Return to “Kansas City Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests