KCRag Forum

flyingember wrote:I've noticed the number one response recently online isn't to renovate, it's to do absolutely nothing.

Building new could lose not because people think we need to renovate instead, it will be because they think nothing should be done. See the streetcar P2 election, convention hotel, etc.

The city has been putting too many large projects up in a short time. It doesn't matter if all/most need to be done, it's just becoming easy to make a case the city is developing at the expense of its residents with incentive-based and tax increases, not from increased revenue. The airport is sliding into this same idea.

The city needs to step back and show results to people before it puts another huge project to a vote. A good starting point would be to find a tax to put up for repeal alongside the airport vote.

DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY! Educate the public, but absolutely the wrong effing time to take the foot off the pedal.

Build on strength. We are a long ways from 'catching up' on the deferred investments from the last 40+ years and this is a moment to do more than catch up.

loftguy wrote:
DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY! Educate the public, but absolutely the wrong effing time to take the foot off the pedal.

We've already had two years to educate the public on the airport and the disinterest has grown stronger and more vocal because the city hasn't been educating people.

The process underway has resulted in the train vote failing, a lawsuit against the convention hotel and a petition against BNIM.

The streetcar vote was 100% legal and aboveground. It still left a lot of people unhappy.
The train expansion vote process was "here's how great it is" vs "we don't want more taxes" and those against fed on the people who were unhappy over the first election and won

The convention hotel process was to sign a contract before announcing it. Legal? Yes. A bad way to handle things? Yes.

The BNIM project largely got swallowed up by the same people that were upset with.

The airport has all the same noise and very little visible support. A popularity contest will drive the election result. And if there isn't an election, even if one isn't needed, it will drive the pro airport, pro streetcar (and they're largely the same people) out of office.

We can't hold down the accelerator and get anywhere if one wheel is in a boot.
We're moving forward in ways we need to and leaving behind the people that have the voice to influence.

No matter how you proceed, there will be a vocal minority against progress. Slowing down will only give them more opportunity to make their arguments. The only thing the general public will acknowledge is results after the fact. No one is going to give credit for doing things one at a time.

grovester wrote:No matter how you proceed, there will be a vocal minority against progress.

The "against" camp regarding a new airport is not a minority. It is a huge majority.

chingon wrote:

grovester wrote:No matter how you proceed, there will be a vocal minority against progress.

The "against" camp regarding a new airport is not a minority. It is a huge majority.

According to whom? I've not seen any data reflecting this.

I would argue that both camps are in the minority, with the majority being undecided, uninformed or uninterested.

grovester wrote:I would argue that both camps are in the minority, with the majority being undecided, uninformed or uninterested.

I doubt it's a huge majority nor is it a tiny minority.

My guess is when we get close

about 1/3 will vote against an airport no matter what. They don't want to spend the money and think it's ok as is.

1/3 will be for it because they dislike the crowds, lines, restrooms

That leaves 1/3 to convince. Some basic targeted education right now can counter the opinion of the clear no crowd. Hold a Q&A session with a long line behind at the airport, some targeted photos of crowds of cars trying to unload, a full garage sign.

pick those key aspects of user operations and repeat the themes over and over until the election. No one really cares about concrete or security at the end of the day. Show the convenience people say they like not working.

flyingember wrote:

grovester wrote:I would argue that both camps are in the minority, with the majority being undecided, uninformed or uninterested.

I doubt it's a huge majority nor is it a tiny minority.

My guess is when we get close

about 1/3 will vote against an airport no matter what. They don't want to spend the money and think it's ok as is.

1/3 will be for it because they dislike the crowds, lines, restrooms

That leaves 1/3 to convince. Some basic targeted education right now can counter the opinion of the clear no crowd. Hold a Q&A session with a long line behind at the airport, some targeted photos of crowds of cars trying to unload, a full garage sign.

pick those key aspects of user operations and repeat the themes over and over until the election. No one really cares about concrete or security at the end of the day. Show the convenience people say they like not working.

Because the star requires Facebook to post remarks, I will sometimes creep on those who post remarks just to see if I can figure out a demographic (those that reveal their bona fide FB pages at least). Non-quantified observation suggest that people who love the airport as it is are most likely to be fairly old. I don't think they necessarily like it because they cannot walk from point A to point B, or are fundamentally against paying for something new, but rather because they remember the golden days of the airport when it actually did receive accolades and have never adjusted to the reality that its obsolete. There are other demographics that think flying by the seat of their pants (literally) is what everyone else should be doing (e.g., arriving at the airport 15 minutes or less before one's flight departs) and they generally think KCI is fine too. Obviously, if everyone did that, it would be a very ineffective way to travel. There will be those who will not want any change, many of which never fly, and will clearly vote against change but I suspect the majority of people who spend any time at KCI will ultimately vote for a new terminal. I've never personally met anyone that actually likes KCI.

Highlander wrote:
Because the star requires Facebook to post remarks, I will sometimes creep on those who post remarks just to see if I can figure out a demographic (those that reveal their bona fide FB pages at least). Non-quantified observation suggest that people who love the airport as it is are most likely to be fairly old. I don't think they necessarily like it because they cannot walk from point A to point B, or are fundamentally against paying for something new, but rather because they remember the golden days of the airport when it actually did receive accolades and have never adjusted to the reality that its obsolete. There are other demographics that think flying by the seat of their pants (literally) is what everyone else should be doing (e.g., arriving at the airport 15 minutes or less before one's flight departs) and they generally think KCI is fine too. Obviously, if everyone did that, it would be a very ineffective way to travel. There will be those who will not want any change, many of which never fly, and will clearly vote against change but I suspect the majority of people who spend any time at KCI will ultimately vote for a new terminal. I've never personally met anyone that actually likes KCI.

Being strongly against something or being a senior citizen correlates strongly with voting.

That's why I put this group, despite being relatively small, as a full 1/3 of the vote

That's my thing. I'm not super excited about spending the money, but I'm not so strongly against it that I'd actually bother to vote against it. I think the airport people are being disingenuous and it pisses me off when I feel like the government is lying to people, but if I ran to the polls every time a government official or politician lied I'd never have time to do anything but vote.

^^^ Yes, I agree with this. If the message was about the desire to have a better entrance to the city and civic pride, then I might be inclined to consider voting for additional funds. But, the whole "It costs less to build new", just seems disingenuous. I'd also be a yes vote if they were incorporating rail transportation as part of the new build.

When the airlines also got on board with the new terminal, that helped validate for me that is was the cheaper option. They are looking at their bottom line first. I don't see why they would back a more expensive option that will raise their costs.

Someone must conduct a professional poll on this question before the city gets too much farther along in the process. My gut tells me of KC taxpayers, you're going to find 60%+ opposed to the "demo A and new terminal buildout" plan. A significant portion (more than half per the Star) of trips involve an O&D address in Johnson County, and I think those customers are probably going to be more in favor of the plan (maybe 60-40 in favor), because of the distance they have to drive and therefore the possible excess "cushion" time they spend at KCI.

I live elsewhere, but I have a longstanding downtown client as well as family in KC, and I am against this plan (for expediency, I'll call it the VanLoh plan). As I've mentioned upthread, for business travelers without checked luggage and meeting a private car, service, or taxi (and this describes a plurality of business travelers and quite a few casual travelers as well), KCI is perhaps the most time-efficient airport in the world. Out of almost 80 airport interactions per year for the past 3 years, plus 10 more per year in each of the preceding 30 years, I have been delayed inside security departures IIRC four times. Twice I recall camping out in the (now closed) Admirals Club -- once in the 1990s when it was upstairs and once more recently when it was downstairs inside security. Other two times, once in the 1980s and once in the past year, I left security and visited one of the (admittedly crappy) airport bars.

Four, one-hour delays out of 300+ airport interactions does not IMHO warrant a total revamp of the infrastructure as in the VanLoh plan. Of course this is anecdotal, but most voters in KC will have an anecdotal relationship with KCI. I cannot overstate my strong affection for the speed with which I can both arrive at and depart from the airport as it exists today. Nothing comes close, not on the coasts, not in Europe, not in Asia. KCI is built for speed, and I like that a lot.

The city needs the airlines to go on record in a more explicit way. Southwest taking out a full page ad will go much farther than anything the city could do.

herrfrank wrote:Someone must conduct a professional poll on this question before the city gets too much farther along in the process. My gut tells me of KC taxpayers, you're going to find 60%+ opposed to the "demo A and new terminal buildout" plan. A significant portion (more than half per the Star) of trips involve an O&D address in Johnson County, and I think those customers are probably going to be more in favor of the plan (maybe 60-40 in favor), because of the distance they have to drive and therefore the possible excess "cushion" time they spend at KCI.

I live elsewhere, but I have a longstanding downtown client as well as family in KC, and I am against this plan (for expediency, I'll call it the VanLoh plan). As I've mentioned upthread, for business travelers without checked luggage and meeting a private car, service, or taxi (and this describes a plurality of business travelers and quite a few casual travelers as well), KCI is perhaps the most time-efficient airport in the world. Out of almost 80 airport interactions per year for the past 3 years, plus 10 more per year in each of the preceding 30 years, I have been delayed inside security departures IIRC four times. Twice I recall camping out in the (now closed) Admirals Club -- once in the 1990s when it was upstairs and once more recently when it was downstairs inside security. Other two times, once in the 1980s and once in the past year, I left security and visited one of the (admittedly crappy) airport bars.

Four, one-hour delays out of 300+ airport interactions does not IMHO warrant a total revamp of the infrastructure as in the VanLoh plan. Of course this is anecdotal, but most voters in KC will have an anecdotal relationship with KCI. I cannot overstate my strong affection for the speed with which I can both arrive at and depart from the airport as it exists today. Nothing comes close, not on the coasts, not in Europe, not in Asia. KCI is built for speed, and I like that a lot.

That is a lot of assumptions and jumping to conclusions right there. Nice work.

grovester wrote:The city needs the airlines to go on record in a more explicit way. Southwest taking out a full page ad will go much farther than anything the city could do.

this. something that hits buzzwords and read between the line phrases

"It's time for KC to prepare for the future and SouthWest is right there, working with the city to build a brand new 21st century terminal"

.

I think they have been holding their cards close to their vest. At some point they will have to pick a side.

Part of it has been testing the public mood, but I would think most has to do with the final financial mix. All ticket fees or some parking, concession, or other contribution?

pash wrote:Neither Southwest nor any other airline has publicly supported building a new terminal. All they have said is that of the two choices given them by Mark VanLoh—an absurd and absurdly expensive retrofit, versus a new terminal built from the ground up for less money—they would prefer the latter.

Officials for Southwest have, however, publicly fretted that the higher fares necessary to pay for the project, whatever it is, will harm their business. If you have the impression that the airlines are enthused by the prospect of a new terminal, you are mistaken.

Airlines (through Southwest) have said the following:

- Doing nothing is not an option

"It's time for some airport improvements," Kelly said.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... eeded.html

- They prefer the lower cost one terminal option that they've seen data behind
- They don't seem to be fretting that much lately

It’s less expensive to build a new terminal, which will be constructed in a way that’s affordable, has lower operating costs, is efficient, utilizes space better and has the customer conveniences that the travelers deserve,” Dan Landson of Southwest said in a statement.

“It’s important to remember that it’s the airlines that will pay for the project and not the taxpayers,” he continued. “We look forward to completing negotiations and presenting a final recommendation” by next May.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... rylink=cpy

I'm confused why people think that all these groups (the airlines, airport officials, experts, and airport committee) are pouring over all this data and proposals but are coming up with a disingenuous proposal....like Teresea Loar throwing a fit. It doesn't make any sense to me....especially when those doubting all these groups that have seen the info, have no information of their own except anecdotes about how much digging a ditch cost one time or how many delays they've had in X year.

.