KCRag Forum

ldai_phs wrote:The H shape has some big advantages over the x and k. The top 2 being expansion options and airside geometries.

One key point in the large “we started with tons of options” section of one of the documents is the taxiways and runways limits our options. It had little images showing all the ideas looked at and they all fit inside the space available.

The airport basically will have to expand inside the three runways that wrap around the four terminal spots. A design that makes that easiest is the smartest one.

The chance for this to change was likely the south terminal plan tha got killed due to road costs.

New issue of KC Sudio magazine has nice photos and article about new terminal, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and other terminals they have designed.

I, too, prefer the H shape honestly. I think there is more potential for growth.

Just read this article in the biz journal - top places KC flies too, duh - all the hub airports. I am sure that we don't "choose" to vacation to ATL, DTW, MSP and others LOL But, I get it, it is the top "destinations" (in other words, mainly connection cities) from KC
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... tions.html

moderne wrote:New issue of KC Sudio magazine has nice photos and article about new terminal, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and other terminals they have designed.

Any new renders?

Can we get the airport moved to a regional authority or at the very least port of KC?

KCPowercat wrote:Can we get the airport moved to a regional authority or at the very least port of KC?

Probably not for free or without a fight.

Why? Who is going to fight it and who is going to charge the city to change ownership?

KCPowercat wrote:Why? Who is going to fight it and who is going to charge the city to change ownership?

Fight: the same people who were against the new terminal and/or the ones who claimed that the airlines were basically taking control of the airport. When working the campaign I noticed, Citizens for Responsible government seemed to back the "airlines taking control and that's bad" argument as well. I am sure they would do something similar for this.

Charge: If the city gives up ownership of a large asset to a regional group, it shouldn't be for free. Moving the airport to a regional authority will take years.

your argument is the city should receive money to move the airport to a regional authority? Okay...but it's not going to cost the city.

I don't care if it will take years, we need to get it moving that direction.

Not without a metro wide transit tax.

grovester wrote:Not without a metro wide transit tax.

What?

KCPowercat wrote:

grovester wrote:Not without a metro wide transit tax.

What?

The idea is regional control should come with regional funding for transportation.

That doesn't make sense with a regional airport authority idea.

Why should kcmo cede authority for the airport to non-kcmo entities without reciprocal actions?

Maybe I misunderstood and you mean only kcmo centric groups like port kc?

KCPowercat wrote:That doesn't make sense with a regional airport authority idea.

Not everything at the airport is funded with ticket fees

Parking brings in $56 million
rental income is about $1.5 million
$18 million from grants

last year $3 million came from the general fund

No

grovester wrote:Why should kcmo cede authority for the airport to non-kcmo entities without reciprocal actions?

Maybe I misunderstood and you mean only kcmo centric groups like port kc?

Because KCMO shouldn't really want to be the sole decision maker of airport operations....and the annoyance of public vote to do anything.

Update at Council Business Session Today

Bigger airport. Well that's cool. Financial close has slipped a couple months.

report here:https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/hi ... al-designs