Southwest is practically begging KC to let the airport build a new terminal (Kansas City: lease, restaurant)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

I hope you're not going to tell me that you believe there is widespread agreement on what constitutes advancing or improving.

Take "transit", for example, which is anything but. There has never been a more effective ghetto maker....and what else would be expected from a 19th century concept that we moved beyond 100+ years ago. The underlying agenda(s) that push "transit" are as left-wing as it gets.

So is the let's get with the 21st century police state program and scrap an airport that was leaps and bounds ahead of most others just a few years ago agenda underlying the KCI new terminal fervor.

Everyone wants progress. But the left's backward and upside-down vision of what constitutes progress can only be seen using a mirror.

Your boldfaced statement shows where you've gotten stuck in the past, although your opinion is based in part on your opposition to the security theater apparatus, an opinion I share to a degree.

KCI's design was indeed revolutionary. But it should tell you something that only one other airport followed its design - and that airport compensated for two big defecis in the original's design, namely, too-shallow concourses and no separation of arriving and departing traffic.

The installation of plain old metal detectors rendered KCI problematic enough that TWA, which recommended this design in the first place, went back to the city demanding a redesign. The city refused. (Forgive me for repeating myself, but this is relevant history that it seems to me you ignore.)

Since most airlines hub now, which means passengers changing planes, clustering gates makes more sense now. And that's easier with a finger pier than with a C-shaped concourse.

As for your comment about rail transit, do you know who really loves the stuff? Real estate developers, that's who. The impact-development crowd notwithstanding, this bunch aren't social justice warriors.

[luzianne]

It will be interesting to see what voters say next Tuesday.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by luzianne

It will be interesting to see what voters say next Tuesday.

For the longest I had been believing that the East Side residents would kill this vote, but now thinking that since this vote is the only ballot item for KC, that the East side residents will probably sit it out and the Northland and the rest of KC voters may get out and vote yes. I'm thinking it's going to pass, close, but pass.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

For the longest I had been believing that the East Side residents would kill this vote, but now thinking that since this vote is the only ballot item for KC, that the East side residents will probably sit it out and the Northland and the rest of KC voters may get out and vote yes. I'm thinking it's going to pass, close, but pass.

You may be right. The people who are for it are adamantly for it and I think will show up at the polls. The people who are against it may not want it, but more apathetic than strongly against it, and may not show up at the polls. And a lot of the metro has no say, so their opinions don't matter. I'll be watching the returns Tuesday night.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by luzianne

And a lot of the metro has no say, so their opinions don't matter. I'll be watching the returns Tuesday night.

Honest question: Who all do you think should get to vote on this? I use KCI exclusively (driving up from Springfield MO). Should my opinion matter?

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by rwiksell

Honest question: Who all do you think should get to vote on this? I use KCI exclusively (driving up from Springfield MO). Should my opinion matter?

I'm not upset that a lot of the metro doesn't have a say. It is what it is. But ideally, if it is a public vote, I think it should be a regional vote that includes all counties in the KC metro.

[brooksider2brooklyn]

It will be quite the disaster if voters say no.

[elkotronics]

It will be quite the disaster if voters say no.

I think this would be a huge yes for the region. It's not like someone who has a car with 90,000 miles that's running well and is trying to decide if he should trade up for a new car. This is an airport for a major U.S. Metro city that is seriously deficient. If a reputable airline like Southwest is irritated with your airport, you should want to build an upgrade for them, so they'll give you their business. It's not just passengers that will benefit from a nice, upgraded airport, it's airlines, their pilots and their flight attendants that will, too.

Over here in the Seattle Metro, (I'm actually on the east side of the Cascade Mountains, 180 miles from Seattle) the City of Seattle is considering upgrading aging Key Arena. Fine, but the traffic around Key Arena is already horrendous, even when there's no events. So, Chris Hansen's a developer who is trying to get a new arena built called Sodo Arena. It's over by Century Link Stadium and Safeco Arena. In a great spot for NBA basketball. He's got opposition from the Seattle Mariner Group, the Port of Seattle (we refer to them as the POS), and the Seattle City Council themselves, who think that NBA basketball is a huge afterthought to their alternative...view. Think of the TV show The View, think of Barbara Wa-Wa, and you'll get it.

I've never heard more dumb reasons against getting an NBA franchise back active in a Metro before. But I digress. I am no longer there in the KC Metro but I think this one should be a vote yes.

[beasley106]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I'm not upset that a lot of the metro doesn't have a say. It is what it is. But ideally, if it is a public vote, I think it should be a regional vote that includes all counties in the KC metro.

Requiring the approval of voters just to upgrade or replace an existing terminal should not even be required in the first place especially since the airport itself does not even rely on public taxpayer dollars in order to operate (it instead generates revenue from landing/parking fees, leases to stores and restaurants, etc so people who don't use it don't pay for it in the first place and in most cases it actually generates more revenue). Every major airport in the country is not required to have to get voter approval just to expand or replace their terminal building which makes the situation even more ridiculous.

[elkotronics]

Requiring the approval of voters just to upgrade or replace an existing terminal should not even be required in the first place especially since the airport itself does not even rely on public taxpayer dollars in order to operate (it instead generates revenue from landing/parking fees, leases to stores and restaurants, etc so people who don't use it don't pay for it in the first place and in most cases it actually generates more revenue). Every major airport in the country is not required to have to get voter approval just to expand or replace their terminal building which makes the situation even more ridiculous.

After reading the above, if this vote fails, I will lose major respect for the people in the KC Metro. This thing should pass with a resounding yes.