We need a new airport!!!

Transportation topics in KC
WoodDraw
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by WoodDraw » Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:58 pm

Highlander wrote:
WoodDraw wrote:Well the leadership has been horrible here. They're putting it to a vote even if they have private funding. I think the mo supreme Court also held that quasi governmental fees didn't count towards the Hancock act. But I could be wrong on that.

A complete lack of good leadership and governance here. They should all be embarrassed. At least they got their bonds to play with though.


I thought it was a successful petition initiative that necessitated a vote?


My understanding is that the council promised a vote after the citizens for responsible government made a mess of everything. Back in 2014 or so? And then basically ignored it until they got through all of the bonds they wanted. And that's why they hopped on the private plan, so they didn't have to go pass more bonds. But they had already agreed to a vote.

WoodDraw
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by WoodDraw » Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:07 pm

Basically my understanding is this, dumbed down:

1. KC started talking about a new airport
2. The typical groups came out against, did a petition drive
3. The city agreed to hold a vote, assuming they would have to under state law anyway
4. City had more priorities, like passing the bonds, and asked everyone to hold off on anything involving money until they were over
5. Bonds all pass
6. City goes yay, now airport time
7. Private financing deal comes out, city goes fuck, we have to vote anyway

User avatar
normalthings
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by normalthings » Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:31 pm

Heard my first New KCI Terminal Radio Commercial Today!!!

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by im2kull » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:26 pm

KCPowercat wrote:Crazy to think these buildings wouldn't have been designed with backup utilities .


It wouldn't matter given that the problem (A broken water main) is beyond the scope of the local buildings utility infrastructure.

The misconception that having backup utilities for the building itself would avert any problems with failed water mains outside is like saying that having two runways at an airport would avert a shutdown in the event of a bomb threat to the terminals. A failure of one means the other fails automatically regardless of any backup systems in place...because the airport feeds the runways much like a city water main feeds the service branches that flow to individual buildings.

WoodDraw
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by WoodDraw » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:50 pm

im2kull wrote:
KCPowercat wrote:Crazy to think these buildings wouldn't have been designed with backup utilities .


It wouldn't matter given that the problem (A broken water main) is beyond the scope of the local buildings utility infrastructure.

The misconception that having backup utilities for the building itself would avert any problems with failed water mains outside is like saying that having two runways at an airport would avert a shutdown in the event of a bomb threat to the terminals. A failure of one means the other fails automatically regardless of any backup systems in place...because the airport feeds the runways much like a city water main feeds the service branches that flow to individual buildings.


Thank you for this. In the midst of our new conspiracy group.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by flyingember » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:48 pm

It's a conspiracy to have an airport where you could shoot straight into the airport from a car? There's plenty of unrealistic junk security things out there we protect from, but line of sight isn't one of them.

There's plenty of domestic nuts of all political persuasions that live across the midwest.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by im2kull » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:04 am

StrangerThings wrote:A few weeks ago I commented on a KC Star article about needing a new airport. I mentioned how unsafe it is being able to pull a vehicle up that close to the building/gates.


It'd be more unsafe to have a central security area, that anyone could enter, full of hundreds of passengers waiting like ducks in a barrel to be shot or blown up. That's the bigger problem.. and probably the reason that TSA themselves says that KCI's current arrangement of security points spread through the gates is actually the model system as far as actual security is concerned.

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!!!

Post by Highlander » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:50 am

im2kull wrote:
StrangerThings wrote:A few weeks ago I commented on a KC Star article about needing a new airport. I mentioned how unsafe it is being able to pull a vehicle up that close to the building/gates.


It'd be more unsafe to have a central security area, that anyone could enter, full of hundreds of passengers waiting like ducks in a barrel to be shot or blown up. That's the bigger problem.. and probably the reason that TSA themselves says that KCI's current arrangement of security points spread through the gates is actually the model system as far as actual security is concerned.


Any airport in the US including KCI in its current configuration provides anyone that has even a little bit of organizational skills and armament the opportunity to kill a lot of people. I don't believe one configuration is any safer than the other - there are always going to be trade-offs and KCI actually has long queue's too - it wouldn't take a lot of research to figure out when they max out.

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

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by ztonyg » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:51 am

WoodDraw wrote:Basically my understanding is this, dumbed down:

1. KC started talking about a new airport
2. The typical groups came out against, did a petition drive
3. The city agreed to hold a vote, assuming they would have to under state law anyway
4. City had more priorities, like passing the bonds, and asked everyone to hold off on anything involving money until they were over
5. Bonds all pass
6. City goes yay, now airport time
7. Private financing deal comes out, city goes fuck, we have to vote anyway


The city really messed up here. As I've mentioned before, no other city anywhere else in the country (except for specific instances like Burbank, CA) have agreed to hold a vote on airport capital improvements. It's really a bad plan to allow the public (which generally doesn't know all of the intricacies of airport security, management, etc.) to be directly involved in a major infrastructure project of this nature.

New stadiums, sure. New airport terminal shouldn't come to a vote.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by flyingember » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:18 pm

I bet the exterior walls are designed to resist that kind of attack. If someone is insistent much easier to jump out and run inside.
A domestic lone attacker with an improvised device forcing their way through security is the most likely risk we face.

It's probably 30 seconds from entry to being in a secure area packed with hundreds of people if one is lucky enough. The problem here is the exit gate that's usually wide open as lots of people get off a plane.

In many airports the design is setup so there's little reason to be near the exits so a "shifty" character ready to run through can be identified easily. In KC you have people standing right outside them constantly.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by flyingember » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:28 pm

StrangerThings wrote:I don't think anyone thought a device in a van could do that kind of damage in the Oklahoma City bombing. Same situation outside of MCI would be utterly devastating. It sucks to have to think about this crap, but I don't see the world getting anymore peaceful!

An armed assault is ~2x more likely

https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... since-1970

The world has gotten dramatically more peaceful since the 1970s

They use the OKC bombing as an outlier. And given it's clear potency, you really can't protect from it except with more distance for more people, and a new terminal would help there by moving people away from the driveways. We learned from mythbusters that barriers to a degree can replace distance when you're talking about shockwaves. So a structure where you have some kind of notable wall between the entry hall and the gates could help here. A major attack is a different subject, but a suicide bomber would be less impactful with better separation of people into more spaces.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3308
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by TheBigChuckbowski » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:42 pm

Why is the airport under any more threat than P&L, Westport, a sporting event or concert?

WoodDraw
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by WoodDraw » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:14 pm

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:Why is the airport under any more threat than P&L, Westport, a sporting event or concert?


It's a very weird digression that makes no sense.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4416
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by earthling » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:36 pm

And it's unfortunate that we are already heading into 'presumed guilty until proven innocent' territory. I'm with the camp that says we have let the terrorist win. But back to the absolute need for a new airport terminal because it's the only right answer. :)

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

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by aknowledgeableperson » Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:27 am

"the reason we have to vote on it is the State of Missouri Hancock Amendment."

Airport bonds, as well as water and sewer bonds (all three types are revenue bonds) were subject to a vote well before Hancock. The city owns and operates the airport and for the city to issue any debt, even debt retired by revenue bonds instead of by the taxpayers, a public vote is required. Many large airports are operated by an agency like a port authority that can issue bonds without a public vote.

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!!!

Post by Highlander » Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:34 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote:"the reason we have to vote on it is the State of Missouri Hancock Amendment."

Airport bonds, as well as water and sewer bonds (all three types are revenue bonds) were subject to a vote well before Hancock. The city owns and operates the airport and for the city to issue any debt, even debt retired by revenue bonds instead of by the taxpayers, a public vote is required. Many large airports are operated by an agency like a port authority that can issue bonds without a public vote.


So why did an entirely private option also require a vote?

Were the airport renovations subject to vote? I don't remember if they issued bonds but I suspect the price tags were big enough that they were well beyond the maintenance budgets. I cannot recall an election on the issue but I wasn't in KC during the renovations.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by flyingember » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:58 am

The KCEB site has results back to 1989 but nothing says "airport" on it.

This is interesting, it says there were recommendations for a new terminal back in 1992.
https://flykci.com/media/1383/25aug15-a ... mittee.pdf (p3)

So this is a 25 year effort at this point.

I hadn't seen this document before, the before/after photos are nice.

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

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by aknowledgeableperson » Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:30 pm

Highlander wrote:
aknowledgeableperson wrote:"the reason we have to vote on it is the State of Missouri Hancock Amendment."

Airport bonds, as well as water and sewer bonds (all three types are revenue bonds) were subject to a vote well before Hancock. The city owns and operates the airport and for the city to issue any debt, even debt retired by revenue bonds instead of by the taxpayers, a public vote is required. Many large airports are operated by an agency like a port authority that can issue bonds without a public vote.


So why did an entirely private option also require a vote?

Were the airport renovations subject to vote? I don't remember if they issued bonds but I suspect the price tags were big enough that they were well beyond the maintenance budgets. I cannot recall an election on the issue but I wasn't in KC during the renovations.


Airport revenue bonds were voted on previously but were not used. It was quite common to ask for a larger amount at first knowing not all was needed at once. The bonds used to build Kemper originally were passed in the 50's but were not issued till 15 years later. Water and sewer bonds were the same.
The private option does not require a vote. The vote is to honor a promise the council made to the citizens awhile back to conduct a vote.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10721
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by mean » Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:24 pm

Yikes. I think they'd be better off just skipping the vote, unless making verbal promises is legally binding somehow, and say, "Hey this new option negates the need for a vote!". People would definitely moan a little, but I have to think going against a negative vote would be far more disastrous.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28426
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by KCPowercat » Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:09 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote:"the reason we have to vote on it is the State of Missouri Hancock Amendment."

Airport bonds, as well as water and sewer bonds (all three types are revenue bonds) were subject to a vote well before Hancock. The city owns and operates the airport and for the city to issue any debt, even debt retired by revenue bonds instead of by the taxpayers, a public vote is required. Many large airports are operated by an agency like a port authority that can issue bonds without a public vote.
Thanks for the correction...got that from a bad source I guess.....and yes our airport needs to be in the port authority's control.

Post Reply