We need a new airport!!!
-
- New York Life
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:30 pm
- Location: Northland
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Did it strike anyone else as odd that AECOM took down their fly through video of their iconic KCI plan? Do you think they're worried about other firms ripping off their ideas? They used to have it on their web site and now it's gone.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Any competing company that wanted a copy downloaded it already.KCFan wrote:Did it strike anyone else as odd that AECOM took down their fly through video of their iconic KCI plan? Do you think they're worried about other firms ripping off their ideas? They used to have it on their web site and now it's gone.
Big companies always watch the competition's media closely. If they don't, they're really small or don't want to be in business very long.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12661
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Here is one airport getting a big makeover
http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/th ... li=BBnb7Kz
"The news of the improvements will be music to the ears of the 28+ million passengers who pass through LaGuardia last year. The renovations will include four billion dollars contributed by the New York and New Jersey Port Authorities, and an additional 3.4 billion dollars contributed by Delta Airlines.
The project will include upgrades to the current facilities (new jetways, pedestrian bridges, lounge space), as well as two entirely new C and D terminals.
The project is expected to be completed by 2021. No word if the improvements will include airport robots."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/th ... li=BBnb7Kz
"The news of the improvements will be music to the ears of the 28+ million passengers who pass through LaGuardia last year. The renovations will include four billion dollars contributed by the New York and New Jersey Port Authorities, and an additional 3.4 billion dollars contributed by Delta Airlines.
The project will include upgrades to the current facilities (new jetways, pedestrian bridges, lounge space), as well as two entirely new C and D terminals.
The project is expected to be completed by 2021. No word if the improvements will include airport robots."
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3121
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
- Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I honestly think the LaGuardia Airport makeover is a huge waste a money. I know LGA is a dump but the thing that is most frustrating about LGA is the constant delays due to air traffic or minor weather issues and that is not going to be solved in a billion dollar makeover.
- DaveKCMO
- Ambassador
- Posts: 20072
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
- Location: Crossroads
- Contact:
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10233
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Two new terminals will be built so its not really a make over. I always felt it KCI's equal - it gets the attention for being a bad airport because it's far more known than KCI. If KCI had that kind of exposure, we'd be hearing about it via late night stand up comedy.aknowledgeableperson wrote:Here is one airport getting a big makeover
http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/th ... li=BBnb7Kz
"The news of the improvements will be music to the ears of the 28+ million passengers who pass through LaGuardia last year. The renovations will include four billion dollars contributed by the New York and New Jersey Port Authorities, and an additional 3.4 billion dollars contributed by Delta Airlines.
The project will include upgrades to the current facilities (new jetways, pedestrian bridges, lounge space), as well as two entirely new C and D terminals.
The project is expected to be completed by 2021. No word if the improvements will include airport robots."
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
It's probably more a chance to redesign everything than anything. Like KC looked into space utilization needs in the different areas of the airport.
-
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2836
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Have to strongly disagree with this. LGA is worse than "a dump." Water pours through the ceiling when it rains (and sometimes when it doesn't), there are often just exposed wires hanging from the ceiling, and the HVAC apparently just straight up doesn't work in Terminal C (according to a bartender who served me there -- I've only used Terminal C a handful of times so I don't have much personal experience to draw on in that particular building). LGA is basically the posterchild for American infrastructure in general -- it was probably very nice fifty years ago and then neglected and underfunded and is now decrepit and wholly inadequate to its purpose.brewcrew1000 wrote:I honestly think the LaGuardia Airport makeover is a huge waste a money. I know LGA is a dump but the thing that is most frustrating about LGA is the constant delays due to air traffic or minor weather issues and that is not going to be solved in a billion dollar makeover.
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3121
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
- Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I'm just saying NYC is better off if the entire thing was just destroyed and a new airport was built in a different location because the remodel is not going to solve the delay issues. From an air traffic standpoint something near the NY/Connecticut border would ease the congestion of JFK and EWRphuqueue wrote:Have to strongly disagree with this. LGA is worse than "a dump." Water pours through the ceiling when it rains (and sometimes when it doesn't), there are often just exposed wires hanging from the ceiling, and the HVAC apparently just straight up doesn't work in Terminal C (according to a bartender who served me there -- I've only used Terminal C a handful of times so I don't have much personal experience to draw on in that particular building). LGA is basically the posterchild for American infrastructure in general -- it was probably very nice fifty years ago and then neglected and underfunded and is now decrepit and wholly inadequate to its purpose.brewcrew1000 wrote:I honestly think the LaGuardia Airport makeover is a huge waste a money. I know LGA is a dump but the thing that is most frustrating about LGA is the constant delays due to air traffic or minor weather issues and that is not going to be solved in a billion dollar makeover.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
.
Last edited by pash on Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
They're being anti-idiot. Most people don't know what you know. It's legal text saying "no, we're not issuing revenue bonds. To show you how serious we are about this, we are saying we can't issue revenue bonds without a new election. Don't get it in your head we're really can issue revenue bonds from this vote"
it's stupid that it has to be included but it's there because the everything is a conspiracy anti-government sue the city over any project types will say "but..." if it wasn't there and get into people's heads
it's stupid that it has to be included but it's there because the everything is a conspiracy anti-government sue the city over any project types will say "but..." if it wasn't there and get into people's heads
- wahoowa
- Ambassador
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 2:57 pm
- Location: CBD
Re: We need a new airport!!!
the bolded part doesn't surprise me. they clearly wanted to use the "all costs paid solely from ......" language, but don't want to be hamstrung by the potential limitation on their authority to the construction of a terminal without even the possibility of general airport revenue bonds.
not my area of law, but it seems to me that the fact that state law requires voter approval to issue airport bonds doesn't absolve them of the need for that savings clause. so if they think they might need those bonds, why not include that contingency in the authorization? otherwise they risk the need for both a bond vote and a resolution approval. just get the initial authorization scope to include whatever contingency you might need and minimize the extra steps down the road.
keep in mind that the target audience here isn't just the people who unconditionally want a new terminal. it also includes people who only want it if it's funded by airport revenues or whatever else that isn't (perceived as) a tax increase. so they probably made the calculation that you capture more votes in favor by including the "paid solely from....." language and bringing the corresponding contingency into play than the contingency language costs you votes for people who read that and think "oh man no, no more votes let's do this right now."
it certainly could be written better, but it's not that bad.
not my area of law, but it seems to me that the fact that state law requires voter approval to issue airport bonds doesn't absolve them of the need for that savings clause. so if they think they might need those bonds, why not include that contingency in the authorization? otherwise they risk the need for both a bond vote and a resolution approval. just get the initial authorization scope to include whatever contingency you might need and minimize the extra steps down the road.
keep in mind that the target audience here isn't just the people who unconditionally want a new terminal. it also includes people who only want it if it's funded by airport revenues or whatever else that isn't (perceived as) a tax increase. so they probably made the calculation that you capture more votes in favor by including the "paid solely from....." language and bringing the corresponding contingency into play than the contingency language costs you votes for people who read that and think "oh man no, no more votes let's do this right now."
it certainly could be written better, but it's not that bad.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
.
Last edited by pash on Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2836
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
There's already an airport on the NY/CT border and it's a pain in the ass to get to from the city, especially if you don't have a car (as fewer than half of households in NYC do), but even if you do have a car it's not great. I do think it's shortsighted to pour billions into LGA, which is going to be underwater in a few decades, but Westchester Airport isn't really a great option either.brewcrew1000 wrote:I'm just saying NYC is better off if the entire thing was just destroyed and a new airport was built in a different location because the remodel is not going to solve the delay issues. From an air traffic standpoint something near the NY/Connecticut border would ease the congestion of JFK and EWRphuqueue wrote:Have to strongly disagree with this. LGA is worse than "a dump." Water pours through the ceiling when it rains (and sometimes when it doesn't), there are often just exposed wires hanging from the ceiling, and the HVAC apparently just straight up doesn't work in Terminal C (according to a bartender who served me there -- I've only used Terminal C a handful of times so I don't have much personal experience to draw on in that particular building). LGA is basically the posterchild for American infrastructure in general -- it was probably very nice fifty years ago and then neglected and underfunded and is now decrepit and wholly inadequate to its purpose.brewcrew1000 wrote:I honestly think the LaGuardia Airport makeover is a huge waste a money. I know LGA is a dump but the thing that is most frustrating about LGA is the constant delays due to air traffic or minor weather issues and that is not going to be solved in a billion dollar makeover.
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10233
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I am glad they are spelling it out for the ballot. Every time I see the issue discussed in the Star, I am still seeing comments regarding a new airport being a waste of tax dollars. There will always be some people opposed to any improvements when something is already working, albeit in KCI's case - working pretty poorly, and there are still a few true believers that KCI is the best airport in the world but those people are in a rapidly decreasing minority. If people understand that the airport will essentially be built by user fees, it will pass easily. We can talk about what design is more convenient until the cows come home but in the end of the day, educating people about how the airport will be financed and paid for is where the votes will come from.DaveKCMO wrote:
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 11240
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
- Location: Historic Northeast
Re: We need a new airport!!!
That may be true, but I personally never cared as much about where the money came from as I did the fact that the whole thing seemed like a revenue grab from the beginning. I don't think people care as much about whether it is a tax as they do that it may be being collected under false pretenses, personally. I think they need to be convinced there is a genuine need, as I eventually was.
I came around because the good folks here persuaded me that the greater good / long term progress / future flight potential was at stake, not because they persuaded me that we needed some new deicing crap or more shopping choices or a fancy food court that we pretty objectively don't need. Although the bathrooms are admittedly godawful, that's something I would have lived with before.
I rest my case.savekci.org wrote:When I started this site in 2013, it was not because the idea of a new single terminal at Kansas City International Airport was necessarily a horrible one. It was because the reasons given for it were misleading and as was later proven in some cases, untrue.
I came around because the good folks here persuaded me that the greater good / long term progress / future flight potential was at stake, not because they persuaded me that we needed some new deicing crap or more shopping choices or a fancy food court that we pretty objectively don't need. Although the bathrooms are admittedly godawful, that's something I would have lived with before.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34108
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I'd implore every voter to not vote for a new terminal because of food choices post-security.....yet to be honest with themselves about how convenient our current situation really is.
post security is actually one of the lesser improvements I think we will get out of the new terminal.
post security is actually one of the lesser improvements I think we will get out of the new terminal.
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10233
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I've read and enjoyed material put out by Kevin Koster in the past do not agree with him here. He is making the city's handling and marketing of the new terminal the issue. The issue is KCI's obsolesence.mean wrote:That may be true, but I personally never cared as much about where the money came from as I did the fact that the whole thing seemed like a revenue grab from the beginning. I don't think people care as much about whether it is a tax as they do that it may be being collected under false pretenses, personally. I think they need to be convinced there is a genuine need, as I eventually was.
I rest my case.savekci.org wrote:When I started this site in 2013, it was not because the idea of a new single terminal at Kansas City International Airport was necessarily a horrible one. It was because the reasons given for it were misleading and as was later proven in some cases, untrue.
I came around because the good folks here persuaded me that the greater good / long term progress / future flight potential was at stake, not because they persuaded me that we needed some new deicing crap or more shopping choices or a fancy food court that we pretty objectively don't need. Although the bathrooms are admittedly godawful, that's something I would have lived with before.
And I'd caution people about stating their own flying preferences and attaching a "we" to to statement. I've had maybe 5-10 airport meals in the last 5 years despite flying an inordinate amount. Yet, every time I walk by a food court, it is packed. Obviously, a large part of the flying public dines in airports - whether that service is or isn't important to you or me is kind of irrelevant - lots of people do care. And perhaps we should care, the more food and alcohol that is consumed in an airport, the more revenue for the airport and the less reliance on ticket surcharges.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I've always thought the goal should be to decrease resident costs through smart projects that allow people from out of town to spend money. Find what works for most people and don't worry if it benefits you directly.Highlander wrote:Obviously, a large part of the flying public dines in airports - whether that service is or isn't important to you or me is kind of irrelevant - lots of people do care. And perhaps we should care, the more food and alcohol that is consumed in an airport, the more revenue for the airport and the less reliance on ticket surcharges.
I was in the Charlotte airport once at about 5am. We had nearly the first flight of the day out of town.
The second the two closest food places to the gate opened the lines were 10-15 deep with mostly business travelers.
Clearly there was demand for the services.
And echoing points made earlier, it's not about food, it's about flights.
If a new terminal can bring flight options and more competition that drives down prices and more connecting flights that's more money coming to KCI from outside KC and serves the same goal.
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10233
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I think its about the preponderance of problems that KCI poses to travelers including flight availability, lack of modern amenities, uncomfortable gate situations, dismal atmosphere, being an unfortunate gateway to KC, other inefficiencies and yes even food.flyingember wrote:Highlander wrote: And echoing points made earlier, it's not about food, it's about flights.
If a new terminal can bring flight options and more competition that drives down prices and more connecting flights that's more money coming to KCI from outside KC and serves the same goal.