Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP clearly put a significant amount of work, thought, and time into this plan. KCI only needs to maintain all three terminals (or "concourses") if in fact a major airline proposes using the airport as a hub. That has not happened, and may not happen in the future. The current city proposal (a big box approach) is not my favorite, but I believe the federal TSA wants to greatly reduce the number of checkpoints at KCI. Is that worth demolishing terminal A and building a new box? I believe not, and some better proposals are needed, like the OP's idea.
I think it is workable with a few modifications. The tram would need to route mid-concourse somehow, perhaps a loop rather than a linear approach. What about implementing this approach with only two of the existing horseshoe terminals? It would reduce costs, and it would be a more practical size. One of the major considerations for heavy users of the transportation system (frequent flyers) is airport "friendliness." KCI ranks highly despite its limited airside amenities -- it's all about how little time is wasted. Look online for the comments about the new Delta concourse at JFK Terminal 4 -- the worst of the big box syndrome: enormously long walks and badly designed connections.
KCI is a 30-minute airport and even faster on arrival. No need to arrive hours before flying. Airports like SEA-TAC or MIA are 1.5-hour airports. Those airports must offer more amenities, because travelers are stuck for hours walking and waiting.
The OP clearly put a significant amount of work, thought, and time into this plan. KCI only needs to maintain all three terminals (or "concourses") if in fact a major airline proposes using the airport as a hub. That has not happened, and may not happen in the future. The current city proposal (a big box approach) is not my favorite, but I believe the federal TSA wants to greatly reduce the number of checkpoints at KCI. Is that worth demolishing terminal A and building a new box? I believe not, and some better proposals are needed, like the OP's idea.
I think it is workable with a few modifications. The tram would need to route mid-concourse somehow, perhaps a loop rather than a linear approach. What about implementing this approach with only two of the existing horseshoe terminals? It would reduce costs, and it would be a more practical size. One of the major considerations for heavy users of the transportation system (frequent flyers) is airport "friendliness." KCI ranks highly despite its limited airside amenities -- it's all about how little time is wasted. Look online for the comments about the new Delta concourse at JFK Terminal 4 -- the worst of the big box syndrome: enormously long walks and badly designed connections.
KCI is a 30-minute airport and even faster on arrival. No need to arrive hours before flying. Airports like SEA-TAC or MIA are 1.5-hour airports. Those airports must offer more amenities, because travelers are stuck for hours walking and waiting.
While KC is well designed for O&D traffic, it makes for terrible hub logistics. If we want KCI (and Kansas City, in general) to be a O&D town, then the model in place is fine because it is convenient for residents. But if we want to expand KC to hub status we need to rethink the model because having two crappy restaurants, a BK and a couple Starbucks that are never open in disconnected terminals that has sections segregated from shops/restaurants for transferring passengers just sucks.
If we want KC to be a "30 minute airport" we still need to boost our offerings. On several occasions I have had an early morning flight for work and thought "oh, I'll just grab some breakfast at the airport" only to find the BK upstairs is closed (or worse, the employees are catatonic and unresponsive), the Starbucks is not ready to take customers boarding at 5:30 AM for the 6:00 AM push, and the other offerings for breakfast severely limited.
The airport really is an embarrassment. When I fly up to see my dad in NYC, LGA (which I hate more than any other airport) still has more offerings for the traveller than KCI.
Last edited by KC_Sleuth; 10-09-2013 at 12:37 PM..
Coming from someone who is moving to the KC metro area (and very much looking forward to it) and also travels a decent amount for work - KCI is really good for people who prioritize how much time they wait in airport security over everything else. It took me 2 minutes to get through security. Granted, this was a Saturday at 3p, but still.
Everything else, not so much. I know Southwest flies a decent amount of flights out during the week, but if you want to be a focus city, let alone a hub (and have more choices/lower prices), KCI is going to have to be centralized. The airport was obselete when they started adding checkpoints in the 1970's, let alone post-9/11 security. KCI's geographic location is ideal - it's practically begging for a great airport.
The fact that my wife said that the bathroom in the plane was nicer than the only one we could find post-security should say all you need to know. I can't imagine a layover in KCI.
Other than the airport though, really great city. Here's hoping the NHL sticks a team in the Sprint Center, the P&L district is awesome. Alot like the Arena District in Columbus, OH.
The tram would need to route mid-concourse somehow, perhaps a loop rather than a linear approach. What about implementing this approach with only two of the existing horseshoe terminals? It would reduce costs, and it would be a more practical size.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. A phased-in approach is actually built into the plan. There's no need to "link up" more horseshoe concourses than necessary. As it stands, they're already planning on shutting down Terminal A anyway. So I would start with two horseshoes, then expand to the third if things are picking up. Ultimately, as the buildings age, they can be replaced with more modern concourse buildings, still attached to the Central Terminal proposed here.
As for the tram, I considered putting the stops further away from the Central Terminal, to reduce the walk from any given gate, but I decided against it for 2 reasons. 1) I wanted it to be quickly accessible to those who have just emerged from Security Screening, and 2) if it's going to be an elevated track (which is less expensive, I presume, than an underground one) then it can't bisect the tarmac. Thus, it would need to run alongside the terminal building. However, if it was subterranean, that would open up new options.
Wow, I really like your idea. I have been a big supporter of the "whole new terminal" from the start, but there has always been a part of me that was a little sad that I wouldn't be able to look down and see those three circles when taking off and landing at MCI. I have been flying out of MCI since I was a little kid and there were no parking structures in the middle of the terminals, just surface lots. When there always seemed to be a man with a machine buffing the endless miles of hardwood floors. When there were indoor smoking sections and pay phones everywhere. Oh the nostalgia.
But anyone who thinks we can leave it like it is, should be sentenced to spend 4 or 5 hours there without leaving (as if they had a long layover). And as far as the argument that no one changes planes here because they all go through hubs...When MCI was not an outdated dinosaur we were able to attract airlines here and we WERE a hub (TWA, Eastern, Braniff)
I think the parking layout of your plan needs some work. They aren't going to let people get that much unrestricted access that close to the tower, and I have never heard of "Trusted Travelers" getting special parking. (I would love it though, as a TSA Pre member) I think with your design the existing parking system could pretty much remain as is or very similar. They definitely need to add a REAL cell phone waiting lot though. I don't see why they can't section off part of the "limo lot" inside International Circle for that.
Wow, I really like your idea. I have been a big supporter of the "whole new terminal" from the start, but there has always been a part of me that was a little sad that I wouldn't be able to look down and see those three circles when taking off and landing at MCI. I have been flying out of MCI since I was a little kid and there were no parking structures in the middle of the terminals, just surface lots. When there always seemed to be a man with a machine buffing the endless miles of hardwood floors. When there were indoor smoking sections and pay phones everywhere. Oh the nostalgia.
But anyone who thinks we can leave it like it is, should be sentenced to spend 4 or 5 hours there without leaving (as if they had a long layover). And as far as the argument that no one changes planes here because they all go through hubs...When MCI was not an outdated dinosaur we were able to attract airlines here and we WERE a hub (TWA, Eastern, Braniff)
I think the parking layout of your plan needs some work. They aren't going to let people get that much unrestricted access that close to the tower, and I have never heard of "Trusted Travelers" getting special parking. (I would love it though, as a TSA Pre member) I think with your design the existing parking system could pretty much remain as is or very similar. They definitely need to add a REAL cell phone waiting lot though. I don't see why they can't section off part of the "limo lot" inside International Circle for that.
Although it would probably be more efficient and economical to build new. I have no problem with this plan either. But I can't see how KC people would like it because you would have much further walks than even big hub airports. I would take this plan in a heartbeat over the existing KCI or any of the other renovation plans I have seen because you actually have a central concourse, the gate areas would be much larger with their own fully secure concourses and the arrivals are separate from departures. This plan would also allow the airport to grow and and have more gates than the proposed new terminals. But this would probably cost close to 1.5 billion to do and it would require people to walk a lot, and that would not go over well. The more I look at this plan, the more I personally like it though especially if they keep cutting back on what they would do with a new terminal. Again, this would cost far more than a new, smaller stand alone terminal, but it actually may be a better plan if people could deal with the longer walks and higher cost.
Although it would probably be more efficient and economical to build new. I have no problem with this plan either. But I can't see how KC people would like it because you would have much further walks than even big hub airports. I would take this plan in a heartbeat over the existing KCI or any of the other renovation plans I have seen because you actually have a central concourse, the gate areas would be much larger with their own fully secure concourses and the arrivals are separate from departures. This plan would also allow the airport to grow and and have more gates than the proposed new terminals. But this would probably cost close to 1.5 billion to do and it would require people to walk a lot, and that would not go over well. The more I look at this plan, the more I personally like it though especially if they keep cutting back on what they would do with a new terminal. Again, this would cost far more than a new, smaller stand alone terminal, but it actually may be a better plan if people could deal with the longer walks and higher cost.
Thank you for the compliment. You may be right about this plan costing more than building new, I guess I'd have to plead ignorance on that.
But I disagree with the walks being "much further" than even big hub airports. Let's take a modest hub as an example: Cleveland. I calculate the longest possible walk from curbside drop-off to gate is about 1600 feet. That's a 6-minute walk for the average person (3 mph). That's equivalent to what I calculate for my design, as well. So it might be more walking than you'd do at Indianapolis or St. Louis, but it's certainly not "much further than even big hub airports." That's not even close to being true.
And just in case even a 6-minute walk is too far, there's a tram!
Thank you for the compliment. You may be right about this plan costing more than building new, I guess I'd have to plead ignorance on that.
But I disagree with the walks being "much further" than even big hub airports. Let's take a modest hub as an example: Cleveland. I calculate the longest possible walk from curbside drop-off to gate is about 1600 feet. That's a 6-minute walk for the average person (3 mph). That's equivalent to what I calculate for my design, as well. So it might be more walking than you'd do at Indianapolis or St. Louis, but it's certainly not "much further than even big hub airports." That's not even close to being true.
And just in case even a 6-minute walk is too far, there's a tram!
Yea, the big airports are just huge, so I could be off there. However, from the central terminal to the other end of one of the terminal circles would be a pretty good walk, although nothing that would bother me. I would imagine, the vast majority of the flights would use the closer in gates making walks minimal. I wonder if they could do moving sidewalks around the circles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
