KCRag Forum

I used to live 10 miles away from O'Hare, and when the flight paths were right, it was enough to prevent phone conversation inside my brick building. My (relative newcomer's) impression is that most Kansas Citians will not consent to the inconveniences that come with living in a larger city, be those limited parking, paying for public services, or having to cease conversation when UA1114 goes overhead. So no, I don't see the airport moving any closer to the population center than it is now.

Psychologically, the airport seems further away to me than it really is because there is no direct, inexpensive public transportation there. I don't mind the drive to KCI, and long-term parking is cheap and convenient. But if I don't want to leave my car there, I can either spend $1.50 on a 90-minute (at best) bus ride, or $60 on a 25-minute limo ride. For people who are short on both time and money, those are not great options.

Psychology is a good point.
ORD is less than a mile closer but feels much closer because it's in the middle of the transit web.

A few years back we used the train to/from midway and I thought the speed was respectful for the distance.

Moving the terminal south of the runways would have been a big win for the perceived distance, but that ship has sailed (plane has departed?).

I was at the airport this morning.

People were double parking in the circle because everyone was in the same location to let people out.

It was a mess.

Eon Blue wrote:Moving the terminal south of the runways would have been a big win for the perceived distance, but that ship has sailed (plane has departed?).

Yeah that would have been nice. Thanks MoDot

flyingember wrote: People were double parking in the circle because everyone was in the same location to let people out.

Barring the ultimate solution of segregating departure dropoffs and arrival pickups from each other, the signs above the doors that currently list just the airline should also list a range of gates for that door and/or if ticketing/bag drop or baggage claim is behind that door; that would help reduce the tendency for everyone to stop at the first sign for an airline.

Even better would be to designate the areas closest to the baggage claims as being for picking up arrivals only.

The history of the TWA overhaul base being relocated, posted by AKP above, is the best explanation for why we didn't build a new airport in any of the bottoms.

The other reason for its' current placement is the fact that the airport is owned by KCMO. Thus, no airport being built on the Kansas side, and no airport built on land within the city limits of Independence, Lee's Summit, etc.

Putting an airport in south Kansas City would likely have been nixed because at the time locations were being discussed, Richards-Gebaur (Grandview Field) was an active military base. It wasn't available to become a municipal airport then, and the US military wouldn't have allowed a civilian airport so close to its' flight paths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richards- ... Force_Base

FangKC wrote:The history of the TWA overhaul base being relocated, posted by AKP above, is the best explanation for why we didn't build a new airport in any of the bottoms.

The other reason for its' current placement is the fact that the airport is owned by KCMO. Thus, no airport being built on the Kansas side, and no airport built on land within the city limits of Independence, Lee's Summit, etc.

Putting an airport in south Kansas City would likely have been nixed because at the time locations were being discussed, Richards-Gebaur (Grandview Field) was an active military base. It wasn't available to become a municipal airport then, and the US military wouldn't have allowed a civilian airport so close to its' flight paths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richards- ... Force_Base

Richards Gabaur is 2 miles further from downtown than MCI.

Are we really still talking about distance from downtown to the airport? Jeeze. Kansas Citians sure are stupid sometimes. NO city wants their airports close to downtown. It's bad business for everyone. Some are just plain stuck with it however due to existing investments. MCI's location is the envy of plenty of people and cities around the globe. Plus you're all missing the biggest point. Instead of comparing mileage as a bird flies, compare travel times. MCI takes what..20 minutes MAX to get to downtown. Try doing that from Denver, Dallas, or 90% of the other airports people are listing as "More desirable" location wise. It can take you 20+ minutes to go from Denver Intl to Aurora! HA!

^I've always thought San Diego's airport was a horrible location for being so close to downtown. This big chunk of land is basically being wasted on an Airport. I always thought you could build a nice neighborhood right were the San Diego airport is located.

im2kull wrote:Are we really still talking about distance from downtown to the airport? Jeeze. Kansas Citians sure are stupid sometimes. NO city wants their airports close to downtown. It's bad business for everyone. Some are just plain stuck with it however due to existing investments. MCI's location is the envy of plenty of people and cities around the globe. Plus you're all missing the biggest point. Instead of comparing mileage as a bird flies, compare travel times. MCI takes what..20 minutes MAX to get to downtown. Try doing that from Denver, Dallas, or 90% of the other airports people are listing as "More desirable" location wise. It can take you 20+ minutes to go from Denver Intl to Aurora! HA!

The best "downtown" airport that has capacity and hasn't restricted development too much is in Phoenix. For as much heat as Phoenix gets for being a sprawled city, the airport is only 3 miles from downtown Phoenix and is about about 4 miles from downtown Tempe (the two biggest CBDs in the metro area). It also has a light rail connection to both downtown and is maybe a 10 minute drive by car to either.

The biggest drawback (and I've ran into it several times) with Phoenix's airport setup is that it IS located adjacent to the CBD so one has to fight rush hour traffic to get to or from the airport on weekdays. In addition, there are significant height and development restrictions to go along with the airport's location.

MCI has 2 distinct problems (and none are its location).

Problem #1 is that the terminal complex is severely outdated and it needs a new, single, 30-40 gate terminal with ample shopping / dining / restroom facilities both inside and outside of security. The terminal also needs a centralized security checkpoint. For examples of what I'm talking about look at Austin, Indianapolis, or Nashville.

Problem #2 is that the airport has no good public transportation link to downtown. The other cities mentioned above (Denver and Dallas) all have (or will soon have) rail connections from their downtown areas to their main airport. A light rail and/or commuter rail setup between MCI and downtown will do wonders to fix this issue (but it's not cheap).

brewcrew1000 wrote:^I've always thought San Diego's airport was a horrible location for being so close to downtown. This big chunk of land is basically being wasted on an Airport. I always thought you could build a nice neighborhood right were the San Diego airport is located.

That airport was also the #1 airport in the country when it comes to discussions about airport relocation. There were plans around the time of 9-11 to build a new airport either on Camp Pendleton, MCAS Miramar, or on the US side of the Tijuana airport but those plans have fizzled out after failure to get all of the parties involved to agree.

http://news.yahoo.com/airbus-green-ligh ... 24405.html
Airbus looking to build U.S. Factory for supersonic jet. Why not KCI?

Needs to be near the ocean so it can do supersonic flight test.

shinatoo wrote:Needs to be near the ocean so it can do supersonic flight test.

Flightime to the Gulf of Mexico would be 1 hour or less at max. US speeds.

So you want them to do Flight testing in the middle of america? What if the plane just blew up on the 2nd test and some city just had raining pieces of debris all over the city

brewcrew1000 wrote:So you want them to do Flight testing in the middle of america? What if the plane just blew up on the 2nd test and some city just had raining pieces of debris all over the city

Airbus does assembly in Mobile today. It's right at the city but they have a photo showing a runway literally going out to sea.
http://www.airbus.com/company/americas/us/locations/

So your thought is doubtles something they take into account.

A supersonic plane probably has more similarities to a space shuttle or rocket rather than a legacy Airbus or Boeing plane that has tons of years of research and engineering into its design.

Report: Cost estimates favor new terminal at KCI

A committee — and the math — favor construction of a new terminal at Kansas City International Airport instead of renovating the existing terminals, according to a presentation the City Council heard Thursday.
A committee of airline and city representatives told the City Council that its members support building a new terminal at KCI. Renovating the terminals, the committee said, would be more difficult, cost more and provide fewer opportunities to improve convenience to flyers.

Two different new terminal concepts were cheaper to build and operate than two other designs that renovated the existing terminals.

Looking through the presentation, one of the things that stands out for me is the frequent-traveler survey that indicates is among the top 10 least pleasant airports.

Another point they make is that the departure lounges are too small, and can't be expanded. I have noticed in the past that there aren't enough seats in the departure lounges to accommodate passengers, so you often have to stand around for long periods waiting.

The other point made is that is will take longer, and be more difficult to do a renovation, and be more disruptive to passengers and airlines during the construction. A renovated terminal concept will also cost more to operate when it's done.

The other thing that stands out is that both new terminal designs are on the north side of the terminals (demolishing Terminal A), and not south of the existing terminals.

http://tinyurl.com/heuxk3h

KCI cost estimates finally arrive: Renovations cost more than single terminal

Plans for Kansas City International Airport could cost somewhere between $964 million to $1.2 billion with new terminal concepts costing less than renovations, according to city staffers and consultants.

Pat Klein, an assistant city manager for Kansas City, told the Kansas City, Missouri, City Council that four concepts were evaluated, two which contemplated renovations to existing terminals and the other two envisioning a new, single terminal.

The four concepts were chosen after months of private meetings among officials with the city, Aviation Department, consultants and airlines.

Costs for renovations were driven up in part by having to build new parking structures, while new terminal designs could reuse portions of existing parking garages.

The most expensive plan was a $1.2 billion renovation, while the cheapest option was a $964 million new terminal design. There was also a $1 billion renovation design, with another $972 million single-terminal option.

http://tinyurl.com/p3r5dl7