A new Kansas City International Airport?

A funny thing happened yesterday.

I've been posting on this blog and on Facebook--both at "Things
and places we loved in great KC when we were younger" and "The Kansas City International Airport" page--that I'm squarely against the plans to vacate the existing KCI/MCI airport, only to build an entirely new facility.

Because of that, Mr. Joe McBride, Senior Manager in Marketing and Communications for the Kansas City Aviation Department wrote me. He sent me a note, asking me to read through it and then this information on the airport:

A new, single terminal for KCI Airport customers

Kansas City International Airport reached its 40th birthday in 2012. In the last 20 years KCI has undergone two Master Plan Update Studies. Both studies called for investigating building a new, single terminal to address aging infrastructure, outdated features and inefficient design from the 1960s. The Kansas City Aviation Department was given Federal Aviation Administration and City Council approval to commission a study to investigate the feasibility of building a new terminal.

Now underway is an 18-month study by Landrum & Brown. Funded by a Federal Aviation Administration grant, the study's Scope of Services includes: Airport planning services to identify passenger terminal operational requirements; a survey and inventory of environmental conditions; a plan to implement a program for the design and construction of a new terminal; and a financial planning document to provide funding alternatives. A critical step in the refinement of the terminal complex facility requirements is the need to better understand and respond to the needs of passengers arriving and departing the Airport. This will be accomplished through user intercept surveys in the terminals.

After the study is complete, the Aviation Department will evaluate and determine if it is feasible to go to the next steps, which include financing and terminal and roadway design. The total project cost estimate is $1.2 billion. Funding may include federal, existing Passenger Facility Charges, Aviation Department funds or other mechanisms.

To put the study into perspective, KCI's passenger terminals were designed in the late 1960s, prior to airline hubbing, terrorism and security checkpoints. The layout is very inefficient for passenger flow, security screening, baggage handling, concession variety and the taxi and bus operation. While the terminals were renovated nearly 10 years ago, the infrastructure is aging and there is little room for growth. City officials at that time decided to extend the useful life of the passenger terminals at the lowest possible cost. Shortcomings still exist.

Most issues are rooted in the narrow structure and not enough room. Lanes cannot be added to alleviate long security lines at peak times or to incorporate lanes for TSA trusted traveler programs. Adequate seating and amenities cannot be added inside security. Mergers create issues like United operating out of two terminals, closure of concessions after an airline moves, empty gate areas, and Terminal B garage filling up three days each week. The latter is not as simple as moving Delta or Southwest since no other existing areas have the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate them.

Features of a new terminal would include: just 30 gates needed - smaller overall footprint than the other three terminals combined, making it more efficient and cost-effective to operate; more room for a variety of concessions and amenities; more room for security checkpoints, cueing and less intrusive security screening technology; easy walks due to efficient layout and people movers; reduced ticket lobby size; self bag check; common-use gates for airline flexibility; separated arrival and departure areas for less traffic congestion and safer pedestrian routes; green LEED building design standards; lower operating costs; and others.

The new terminal can be the next big project for Kansas City, creating many construction jobs. A more efficient layout might make Kansas City more attractive to airlines. The new terminal would be a facility Kansas Citians can now be proud of and help Kansas City attract new businesses and jobs. After the new facility is constructed the Aviation Department will explore ways to make good use of the old terminals still standing.

If it is feasible to build a new terminal we will task planners to produce efficient concepts that best achieve the level the customer convenience of KCI's current terminals that Kansas Citians appreciate. As is in the case of the Master Plan process, terminal design will be developed with public input. The prospect of starting from scratch and to incorporate the strengths of KCI's terminals in a sparkling new facility is an exciting opportunity!

Here, then, are reasons I wrote back to him of why I am, to date, strongly against the plan to build a new airport:

It's my contention that the conclusion to tear down or walk away from the current KCI/MCI was made long ago. The Airport Authority only seems to be searching now for a way to make it happen, without the input or agreement of Kansas Citians as to what should happen. It's not enough to want to make the airlines happy alone. Kansas Citians and all the people from the region need to be behind these ideas, too, and that hasn't happened, to date.

I'm absolutely no fan of replacing our terminals at KCI, certainly.

Part of the reason is that it is a good, workable layout and the other
part is that it makes no sense to "throw buildings away" and start all
over.

Yet another reason, however, is because I've seen in the Star reports for months on months that the Airport Authority decided they should do this--throw the old terminals away and start all over yet the plans have continued to change, over these same months. It seems clear there is not now nor has there ever really been a clear plan for KCI. Now, you show here that there is a study, going on at this very moment, on what we should do at, about and with our airport.

So if change needs to come to KCI/MCI, cannot the center, existing terminal be turned over to security, with the other two are then used as the connections to our planes? That seems far more workable and less wasteful. It seems it would be a way to accomplish the goals for reducing security costs while not, again,"throwing away" the entire airport. I'd love to see if that's an option. It seems far more responsible, less wasteful and less expensive, too.

It also seems that the conclusion to get rid of the airport was clearly made prior to any study, let alone this one that is now ongoing.

Another note on the evolving, elusive "plan" of a new terminal at KCI, deals with the part about "The new terminal can be the next big project for Kansas City, creating many construction jobs."

This is a weak argument, at best, as the jobs would be extremely temporary. Would local construction companies want the work? Sure. Would there be benefits of the work for these people? Again, yes, but it would be just months of work, at longest. This is a fairly weak argument for tearing down an entire airport only to build another.

As for the claim about "green LEED building design standards" in the new facility--this is laughable since about the least "green" thing you can do is walk away from or tear down an older, existing, working facility. It would be very "un-green" to plow up the new ground and build this new facility, too, on top of this, so please, forget the "green" claim. It insults our intelligence.

The next comment, that "A more efficient layout might make Kansas City more
attractive to airlines," while true is not something anyone can possibly promise and we all know that. It's possible but no guarantee.

Then there is the statement that "The new terminal would be a facility Kansas Citians can now be proud of..."

The fact is, Kansas Citians are already proud of our airport, at least some, even lots of us. We needn't tear down the old airport to make us somehow yet more proud.

The next claim that a new airport would "help Kansas City attract new businesses and jobs"?

Regarding jobs, no one can really promise new jobs as the result of a new airport. Could it happen? Yes, sure. Can it be promised? No, certainly not. The arts in town seem to be doing far more for growing any attraction for our metropolitan area than any development like this.

Finally, the claim that "After the new facility is constructed the Aviation Department will explore to make good use of the old terminals still standing."

We understand they'll do their best to make the most of that old airport--if left standing--but even in a good, strong economy, no one can promise anything to come of the old location. In the worst economy in the last 80 years--since the Great Depression--no one can really make any promises along those lines.

I have to say, I will continue to fight this any and every way I can, on the KCI Facebook page, here on my blog and everywhere else I can unless or until I'm shown why this needs to happen for the people of the area and not for the airline companies.

I'm all about change in my life and city and nation and world but I'm for smart change and change that is well thought-out and planned.

The plan to tear down and replace our airport has been anything but.