My take on revitalizing the urban core. (Fairfax, Richards: contractor, closing)

[adebord]

The downfall of KC's urban core has been several decades in the making, mostly by poor planning by city leaders which has forced big ticket items (airport being the largest and most idiotic) out into the suburbs. This has created new infrastructure problems such as the lack of viability of light rail just due to the distances required.

I am a pilot myself so the impact of MCI way up north has always befuddled me personally. In the late 60's the FAA did a survey of the most 'dangerous' airports in America. KMKC (Wheeler) topped the list primarily due to river fog which plagued early to mid century aviation as poor weather navigation and landing systems were in their infancy. Another concern was the proximity to 'the hill' but this really isn't a problem with modern aircraft climb rates and established traffic patterns.

So the cities' remedy of this was to use a large section of land up north and build a super-airport on it to hopefully please TWA. TWA was pleased for about 5 years until security in commercial aviation became a necessity. This security age took one of the best airports in the nation and made it one of the worst. Long gate-gate distances, only way to transit terminals is by bus. It truly is the worst modern commercial airport in use in the United States and the bottom line shows it. Post 9/11 the TSA allowed MCI to be operated by a private security contractor simply because it is the most expensive airport to operate on a per passenger basis in the nation hands down. Not only is it expensive but inconvenient to the point passengers and airlines intentionally avoid connections here. Airlines merely exist to serve the local O&D traffic (origin and destination) which isn't much.

Moving out into the boonies has other problems. It lures businesses that would otherwise be located in a city core (could you imagine having zona rosa on the riverfront?) and also causes some dangers for the airport itself. In 2009 MCI had the highest number of "wildlife" strikes of any airport in the U.S largely attributed to it's rural location. At 10,000 acres it is one of the larger airports in the nation and in turn has one of the highest grounds upkeep costs also.

With the advent of CAT III approach systems and 0/0 (zero miles viability, cloud ceiling at 0 feet) operations Wheeler now seems 'right sized' and in the perfect location to re-centralize the city. You may instantly claim that there is not enough room, the runways are too small and it will cost too much. However that simply isn't true. To the Southeast of the old terminal across 169/broadway there is adequate (and completely UNUSUED) room for a terminal to straddle 169/broadway with the gates on the west side, connected by enclosed pedestrian bridge or the existing underpasses to the street front and parking on the west side. The traffic to the airport would be handled by the heart of america bridge which already has an interchange into I-70/35.

Extending runway 1/19 to the north by 1,000ft or so is not just doable but realistic and makes the airport available to pretty much any commercial aircraft short of an A380 or 747 conducting a long range international flight which doesn't happen now and wont happen anytime in the foreseeable future. The airport already exists, the city already owns it and the modifications are inexpensive in relation to the operation costs of MCI. If the terminal were designed to modern security standards operating costs will be extremely low and southwest would probably see it as a viable hub.

Not to mention the 'charm' of arriving on your flight and seeing the skyline.



Let me know what you think, Just my .02c.

[xenokc]

There are many cities that have successfully revitalized the urban core with distant airports. See Denver and Minneapolis.

I think KC has been on the right path, at least with downtown. The core, especially downtown, is more functional now than it has been in 25 years. To continue to improve, KC needs to focus on developing more housing as a higher priority, not an urban airport. Businesses are important but I'd like to see pursuing residential growth as a higher priority.

I do agree that it was a mistake to build MCI so far away, but I don't think an urban airport is a major factor for revitalizing an urban core. Granted, it would be great if the old downtown airport could be used for commercial flights again, even if it's just smaller jets to regional cities and perhaps Denver/Chicago for connections. I'd use it if I'd have to make a connection from KCI anyway.

[msamhunter]

An urban airport probably wouldn't be beneficial as the land requirement would be massive. Urban Cores need a mixture of green space, affordable housing as well as local shopping ie a local grocery store as well as walkability in the immediate area and to the main business district downtown.

[brewcrew1000]

Wheeler almost seems the size and similar layout as SAN (San Diego), not sure if SAN is bigger but it seems kind of tucked away, hills on one side, and a downtown on the other side

[denverian]

Originally Posted by brewcrew1000

Wheeler almost seems the size and similar layout as SAN (San Diego), not sure if SAN is bigger but it seems kind of tucked away, hills on one side, and a downtown on the other side

I was thinking the same thing. The OP has an interesting idea... although it'll never happen.

[brewcrew1000]

SAN also has water/bay on another side similar to Wheeler

I've always thought it would be great for an outside the box airline like Allegiant or Skybus (Even though they only lasted a year) to go into Wheeler

[adebord]

It would really be optimal for Southwest. They prefer non-primary airports because they don't codeshare and the other airline traffic is detrimental to their quick turn around times and schedules.

Chicago midway and San Diego are both smaller than Wheeler.

[kcmo]

I work for the FAA and there is no way that the runways at MKC are long enough, nor have the safety cushions beyond them to support a major commercial airport. They already had to shorten the long runway at MKC to accommodate an arresting system (cushions at the end of the runway) or the FAA was threatning to withhold federal funding for the airport.

I thought at one time there was a proposal to expand MKC across the Missouri River into the Fairfax District. This idea was brought up before they decided to move to MCI (the old overall base). MCI was already there, the city just added the terminals and made it the main airport. That's why it's so far away. The site was not selected by the city as much as they had an airport they could use and went with that. TWA quickly learned that the terminal setup sucked and asked for a new terminal at MCI long ago. It's the main reason KC lost TWA's hub to St Louis.

Midway was grandfathered in and is a secondary airport to ORD and San Diego has a 9500 foot runway so it can accomodate large passenger jets and MKC (or Midway) can't. The FAA today wouldn't allow MCI existing runways to be used as a commercial airport when MKC has 3 long runways just 15 miles away.

We are way past any of this now though. The city really needs to just concentrate on building a new terminal at MCI and making MKC a fantastic urban business airport which I think the city has done, mostly with money redirected from the closing of Richards Gebaur (the FAA said the city could keep money that would have otherwise gone to improve RG in SKC).

MKC is an awesome airport now. Both runways have been rebuilt, it has a 24/7 tower, the terminal has been rebuilt and they have built a ton of new modern hangers and a new pilot's lounge with a restaurant etc.

It's too bad that so much of KC's corporate community is clear out in JoCo and therefore using the crappy JoCo exec airport instead of flying into one of the country’s most impressive commuter business airports and then being a five minute drive to a downtown office.