We need a new airport!!!

[aknowledgeableperson]

"We still have people on this forum arguing on behalf of the downtown airport."

In looking at the LaGuardia Airport as an example of a major airport on a compact land mass look and see how the second runway is built. Doubt they could build a second runway at a right angle to the main runway without doing infill into the river let alone the interference of Broadway Bridge.

[flyingember]

Good news from airline consultants today. They want a new terminal. Table any renovation talks that cost more.

loar blew her wad on the it's-only-$300-million-and-still-as-convenient myth of the crawford plan, which was totally debunked today. the consultant reminded everyone that her low-ball figure is for ONE terminal (we'd need two to be renovated) and NONE of the 25 proposals -- including crawford's -- saved the beloved 'walk to gate' feature that is often held up as KCI's main attraction.

We would need three renovated with their plan when you look at one goal of a new terminal. That's future expandability or space for the future. 35 gates now, able to add more later.

We lost hates with their plan so we would reasonably need a third terminal again in the near term. They were doing 18-19 gates per and that's the minimum number needed when you multiply by two.

So multiply their cost by three just to start.

[kboish]

NONE of the 25 proposals -- including crawford's -- saved the beloved 'walk to gate' feature that is often held up as KCI's main attraction.

This is really the key element that people who want to renovate needs to understand. No matter what happens, we will not have the same airport as before. An attempt to figure out how to reuse the horseshoes in form is just going to leave no one with what they really want.

[KCPowercat]

Worst of both worlds... And more expensive.

[KCPowercat]

Seems like a pretty good financing package presented yesterday to the city.... And historically showing that these projects don't drive up customer flight costs.

[grovester]

From my buddy from the East Bay who's traveling from Austin:

"So my flight is delayed 3 hours but Austin has the most awesome airport - live music, great food - and the President is here!"

I don't think this is too much to ask?

[im2kull]

I think that today's bombing in Brussels and the mass casualties underscore just how idiotic and vulnerable to attack centralized security checkpoints are. Who in their right mind could argue that having everyone bottled up in one, unsecured, common area is a good idea to thwart terrorism and enhance security? Needless to say that I hope we quit being forced force fed the idea that a centralized security checkpoint is a "Good" idea and a reason why KCI needs a new terminal. The terrorists today probably thought they were shooting fish in a barrel. 200-300 people were supposedly in the central security checkpoint at the time of the bombing. A bigger blast or any semi-automatic weapon would have killed scores more.

[KCPowercat]

Great timing to use tragedy to push your opinion.

[shinatoo]

He's not wrong. I think we need a new terminal but I have long been worried about the clustering of people pre security. Especially when standing on that bridge at Midway in Chicago.

[KCPowercat]

Not getting into it right now... Using a tragedy abroad to push your opinion about KCI terminal renovations is pretty gross.

[mykn]

Not getting into it right now... Using a tragedy abroad to push your opinion about KCI terminal renovations is pretty gross.

I guess I don't see why it's not something that can get brought up. No different than talking about gun regulation after a mass shooting. I'm in favor of a new airport btw. Terror events are incredibly rare and I don't really see this event as having much sway on me for the design of a new airport.

[KCPowercat]

Timing was my only comment. It just happened this morning.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

Knock yourselves out.

[WSPanic]

We shouldn't be designing our airports with the goal of minimizing casualties in a bombing. We should be designing our airports to be as secure and efficient as possible without putting people at risk.

If it's simply unsafe to have that many people in a given area at one time, the terrorists have truly won. May as well shut down the schools, stadiums and office buildings too.

[brewcrew1000]

From my buddy from the East Bay who's traveling from Austin:

"So my flight is delayed 3 hours but Austin has the most awesome airport - live music, great food - and the President is here!"

I don't think this is too much to ask?

I was at Spring Training in Az a couple weeks ago and got to talking to a guy, told him I was from KC, one of the first things he mentioned to me was how much your airport sucked

[mykn]

We shouldn't be designing our airports with the goal of minimizing casualties in a bombing. We should be designing our airports to be as secure and efficient as possible without putting people at risk.

If it's simply unsafe to have that many people in a given area at one time, the terrorists have truly won. May as well shut down the schools, stadiums and office buildings too.

Don't forget, they also bombed the subway. I'm a little worried about this streetcar thing, all those people at just a few stops waiting for it. Individual cars might just be the safest option.

[flyingember]

We will NEVER be able to make outside of security safe. Send the people to the ticketing line. Or have multiple people hit each security area. Or target baggage pickup. There, you bypassed that problem.

KC has a notable issue many airports don't have. Right now it's possible to throw something over the security walls. Lob an explosive and suddenly pre/post security is irrelevant for safety.

Now, add chemical weapons into the mix. Right now the terminals are one big area for air flow. By going central security it would be possible to put in walls that drop at the detection of certain chemicals. So it someone releases mustard gas it won't get past this barrier.

[brewcrew1000]

Don't forget, they also bombed the subway. I'm a little worried about this streetcar thing, all those people at just a few stops waiting for it. Individual cars might just be the safest option.

Lol, this is why the suburbs were built, more people spread out meant less casualties during a possible bombing during the cold war.

[flyingember]

Lol, this is why the suburbs were built, more people spread out meant less casualties during a possible bombing during the cold war.

Your assessment of the safety of the suburbs is horribly off.

During the cold war the Bannister complex was probably the major target in KC. A 10mt bomb over it would affect as far away as Olathe and Blue Springs