We need a new airport!!!

[GRID]

This is a great idea. I actually proposed it a while back. There is plenty of room to build on and around terminal C and between the old TWA base. That's where the fourth terminal was to go anyway. Tear down terminal C and move all the airlines into A and B during construction. Then when the new terminal is complete, you are still able to interact with the other terminals, their garages and that would make them more usable. Then you can use all the existing infrastructure that is already in place. I never understood why the city would build the terminal in a brand new area and walk away from all the exiting highway and parking infrastructure like the flyover ramps from I-29 etc.

As a transportation planner, most of the savings (money and time) will be from all new infrastructure they would not have to build. The highway improvements alone (152 improvements and all new ramps and roads) would be 200 million plus. Building tunnels and bridges to get traffic across the east/west runway is another 100-200 million. Those are all huge funding and design jobs that would need years of environmental studies and would take many more years to design and build. The terminal itself would probably be about the same size and quality as the one proposed to the south and could be built quickly without all the infrastructure changes. Then down the road terminals A and B can be torn down for expansion of the terminal if they are not already retrofitted to be used as international gates, charter, private office aviation space etc.

[FangKC]

This appears to be a more reasonable and less expensive plan. Let's get going.

[KCPowercat]

We need to quit "retrofitting"

Where in the article does it say anything about retrofitting? It says on the site of terminal A which I take it to be demolishing A, leaving the site left to build new.

That would make it more palatable. Not how I read it....based on the difference in size of the "blobs" between the south terminal idea and Terminal A site in the map they showed it appears that it's not the best location for a new terminal...more like "making it fit in the space available"....typical KC attitude.


MoDot didn't have a problem building a $50M tunnel for one runway in St. Louis....

[KCPowercat]

It makes more sense to do this than build it way out in a field.

That's 5+ miles closer to downtown....one of the complaints of our airport now. That has to factor into this decision.

[KCPowercat]

This is a great idea. I actually proposed it a while back. There is plenty of room to build on and around terminal C and between the old TWA base. That's where the fourth terminal was to go anyway.

That's not the proposal.

[aknowledgeableperson]

...more like "making it fit in the space available"....typical KC attitude.

I would tend to agree. To change I would make the space between and including A and B. Like making the space around A for passenger drop-offs and the space around B for passenger pick-ups. More of a longer, narrower building.

[mykem]

The proposed south terminal was suggested for a few of reasons.
1. Made the drive for most in the metro closer.

2. Would be cheaper to run a light rail line to the south terminal.

3. The least disruption to airport activities.

4. 0 contamination to the airport ponds from the runoff of deicer in the winter.

If the south terminal were to be built. I would suggest MO 152 become the new I 435, and close all of the current I 435 that is north of MO 152.

[im2kull]

4. 0 contamination to the airport ponds from the runoff of deicer in the winter.

You sure about that?

[shinatoo]

The proposed south terminal was suggested for a few of reasons.
1. Made the drive for most in the metro closer.

2. Would be cheaper to run a light rail line to the south terminal.

3. The least disruption to airport activities.

4. 0 contamination to the airport ponds from the runoff of deicer in the winter.

If the south terminal were to be built. I would suggest MO 152 become the new I 435, and close all of the current I 435 that is north of MO 152.

How does it make rail cheaper?

[KCMax]

The proposed south terminal was suggested for a few of reasons.
1. Made the drive for most in the metro closer.

2. Would be cheaper to run a light rail line to the south terminal.

3. The least disruption to airport activities.

4. 0 contamination to the airport ponds from the runoff of deicer in the winter.

If the south terminal were to be built. I would suggest MO 152 become the new I 435, and close all of the current I 435 that is north of MO 152.

How does it make rail cheaper?

I assume since its closer to downtown, that is less rail you'd have to build out.

[shinatoo]

The proposed south terminal was suggested for a few of reasons.
1. Made the drive for most in the metro closer.

2. Would be cheaper to run a light rail line to the south terminal.

3. The least disruption to airport activities.

4. 0 contamination to the airport ponds from the runoff of deicer in the winter.

If the south terminal were to be built. I would suggest MO 152 become the new I 435, and close all of the current I 435 that is north of MO 152.

How does it make rail cheaper?

I assume since its closer to downtown, that is less rail you'd have to build out.

It's closer to downtown by like 800 feet (not sure how far it is across the runway). So i guess there is some savings. For cars it cuts off five miles, but almost the same distance could be saved by just building the same proposed tunnel under the runways that they are planning to build and letting cars approach the same, existing, terminal location from the south. Seams like with a little more planning they could get nearly the same benefits of the new plan without nearly the same cost of scrapping most of the infrastructure.

[mykem]

I thought building a new terminal in the terminal A location meant there would be no new tunnels cut under the runways. As for the 0 contamination to Airport ponds... That was part of the airport administration's arguement for building a new terminal to the south.

[SWFan]

It makes more sense to do this than build it way out in a field.

That's 5+ miles closer to downtown....one of the complaints of our airport now. That has to factor into this decision.

I know this is not what you meant by your post, but I do hear people complain about how far the airport is from the city.

So where do people think the airport should be located?

Its only 15 miles as the crow flies from downtown at its current location. If you stick it in JoCo they'd put it out past Gardner, which would put it further away from downtown. If you put it on the east side of the city, it would have to be out past Blue Springs, again, further away from DT than current location. Looking to the SE corner of the city, again, out past Lee's Summit, further away from DT than current location. Move it out to KCK, I'm assuming a few miles east of the Legends and now you right about the same distance from DT as the current location.

I just don't see how the airport could get any closer to DT without spending bazillions in acquiring currently developed property or spending bazillions in legal costs to hush up nearby residents and businesses that will be stuck with jet traffic flying over their heads.

[shinatoo]

I thought building a new terminal in the terminal A location meant there would be no new tunnels cut under the runways.

That would be correct. BUT, if you wanted too, you could still bring the entrance in from the south and build a tunnel to shave that five mile loop off the current entrance. Personally I don't think it would be worth it. But if getting the airport closer to downtown (by five miles) is the goal, then that seams like the least expensive way.

[DaveKCMO]

As for the 0 contamination to Airport ponds... That was part of the airport administration's arguement for building a new terminal to the south.

this important item was somehow missing from all of the recent coverage on the change in plans.

[mykem]

^^^ Exactly!!! Where's that argument now????

[Highlander]

As for the 0 contamination to Airport ponds... That was part of the airport administration's arguement for building a new terminal to the south.

this important item was somehow missing from all of the recent coverage on the change in plans.

Why is this ever important? The ponds are at best a "nice to have" amenity, they are manmade and not necessary to the operations of an airport. I suspect storing the contamination in the ponds would even be preferable to letting the de-icer enter the drainage and find it's way into the Missouri River ecosystem.

[KCPowercat]

I believe the story said the chemicals getting into the ponds weren't being contained there....they were getting back into the water supply.

[chaglang]

As for the 0 contamination to Airport ponds... That was part of the airport administration's arguement for building a new terminal to the south.

this important item was somehow missing from all of the recent coverage on the change in plans.

Why is this ever important? The ponds are at best a "nice to have" amenity, they are manmade and not necessary to the operations of an airport. I suspect storing the contamination in the ponds would even be preferable to letting the de-icer enter the drainage and find it's way into the Missouri River ecosystem.

You need the ponds for stormwater detention, which is then released into the sewer system. Letting the deicer collect in those ponds would give it an easy path back into the ecosystem. That's best-case scenario. Worst case is collecting it in a pond and letting it sit. When it's not seeping into the groundwater, migrating birds are landing in it.

[pash]

.