New KCI terminal should open in late February (Kansas City, Weaubleau: to live, vs)

[KC_Retiree]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

People already hate this terminal and want their far superior "old" airport back. Just a sampling.......

https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-03-12...-say-to-fix-it

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/l...272895540.html

https://www.sleepinginairports.net/r...rt-reviews.htm

Your comments are cut and paste Chamber of Commerce talking points completely irrelevant to what's important to people and what they really want. You evidently spend most of your time with captive audiences of people too young to know any better and have no clue.

We already knew this was a complete waste before it left the drawing board. A month in and it's already a disaster that people hate. Those of us dry behind the ears saw it coming 4 years ago.

Good Lord. You cherry pick a few poorly written reviews (at least one of which was actually referencing the old terminal) from an obscure website and a curmudgeonly Letter to the editor in the Star and declare the new terminal a failure. All those grey hairs you like to boast about certainly are not making you necessarily any wiser. Nothing could be further from reality than what you state.

The fact is that the new airport is opening to overwhelmingly positive reviews while the old terminal was generally regarded as one of the worst airports in the country (documented in another post in this forum in the past couple of days).

Here are a few posts on Yelp about the airport. Those written before the opening on the new terminal in late February 2023 paint of dismal picture of KCI. Those posted after the new terminal open offer a much improved viewpoint of KCI.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/kansas-city...-kansas-city-5

Contrast that with the god awful reviews KCI was getting prior to the new terminal on this site:
https://www.airlinequality.com/airpo...sc&pagesize=20

Thus far, every person that I've known that has actually been to the new airport or that I've seen interviewed on local media has had very positive impressions of the new terminal. I'd be happy to post links but not sure where to start because there are so many. The airport made a big hit with visitors to KC for both the Big 12 and regional NCAA tournaments. In fact, one Texas resident who regularly visits said they were dreading the airport experience but was delighted to find the old terminal had been replaced.

As for the NPR article you posted, every airport is going to have a few hiccups when starting out. From what I have experienced and understand, the arrival traffic issue has already started sorting itself out as people learn that there are now two lanes (instead of one at the old terminal) available for pickup, that they cannot sit indefinitely in the pickup lanes but rather instead should wait at the cell phone lot until there pickup is ready. Or they can simply park in the garage (1st half hour is one dollar). Problems solved.

The people of Kansas City, those that actually fly, and other users of the airport are clearly more than happy with the new terminal and absolutely nobody but a few fearful curmudgeons want to go back to the old terminals. And even that latter small population will dwindle when those people actually have to use the airport and see that it's a vast improvement over what we had.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by electronicmaji

The new airport is a good start. It's not where the city needs to be to compete with the other major cities in the country. But it's a good start. There's a lot of potential for the KCMO metro that is heavily being held back by a lot of significant infrastructure issues. As long as locals are reticent on improving these issues and moving forward then the region will not grow, will not be able to continue to attract new businesses, employees, and the changes it needs to advance. It's really quite obvious.

Just curious: what are those other infrastructure issues?

Surely they're not highways — the city has either the lowest or the second-lowest level of road congestion of any 2m+ metro in the US.

I can think of a couple off the top of my head, but I'd like to hear a non-native's perspective on the subject.

I can't seem to find any information on how many gates the three terminals of the old KCI had, but the number 60 comes to mind. That's 20 more than the new terminal has and 10 more than it will have if it's expanded to its maximum capacity. Since Terminal A (which was demolished to build the new facility) was mothballed already the last time I flew into KC, I'd say that the new airport should be able to handle future passenger traffic growth for a while.

Terminals B and C are also going to be demolished, which means that should traffic grow faster at new KCI, there should be room for a second terminal building in the footprint of the old airport.

I'm looking forward to flying into new KCI next month.

[rrampage]

I've seen the new terminal there. It is quite impressive. Reminds me of the new SLC terminal area, only just the MCI airport is smaller. Seems quite hassle-free at MCI these days.

[Okey Dokie]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

I can't seem to find any information on how many gates the three terminals of the old KCI had, but the number 60 comes to mind.

The last gate at Terminal C was 60, but I’m not sure every number was used. Was it like a hotel, and no gate 13? I seem to recall Southwest had some gates like 37A and 37B but did they each have their own jetways?

I too am curious as to what infrastructure problems we have - although I was downtown last week and it still seems like most of the streets are in atrocious condition.

[rrampage]

Originally Posted by Okey Dokie

The last gate at Terminal C was 60, but I’m not sure every number was used. Was it like a hotel, and no gate 13? I seem to recall Southwest had some gates like 37A and 37B but did they each have their own jetways?

I too am curious as to what infrastructure problems we have - although I was downtown last week and it still seems like most of the streets are in atrocious condition.

The old terminal had more gates. The new terminal has less gates, but is more efficient. There is plenty of room to expand.

[KC_Retiree]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

Just curious: what are those other infrastructure issues?

Surely they're not highways — the city has either the lowest or the second-lowest level of road congestion of any 2m+ metro in the US.

I can think of a couple off the top of my head, but I'd like to hear a non-native's perspective on the subject.


I'm looking forward to flying into new KCI next month.

I would consider KC's interstate system an infrastructure issue. Not because of congestion or lack of highways but rather too many highways concentrated in the KC urban core choking off once vibrant neighborhoods and isolating them from one another. Check it out on google maps sometime. I suspect KC has a higher proportion of its urban core devoted to interstates and interchanges than any metro in the nation. The plethora of highways leaves the River Market, Columbus Park, the CBD, Crossroads to some extent and other parts of the core as isolated neighborhoods with no continuity and enormous barriers to development. I was in Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago and I enjoyed being able to walk from the PMOA all the way to south Philly beyond the Italian market without any highway interruptions. In KC, you cannot get from Columbus Park to Crossroads (a much shorter distance) without crossing 3 interstates.

Enjoy the new KCI. It's great. After passing through security (it took all of about 5 minutes BTW), my wife turns to me and says "we finally have a real airport".

[sub]

At this point, they just need to work with what they have in terms of freeways.
One thing they’re doing is covering up the south loop which will fill that particular gap.
Perhaps some strategically placed pedestrian bridges would help as well.
If they’re putting a baseball stadium downtown, then it would be wise to keep all freeways in place, as in don’t remove the north loop like has been suggested. If they do remove and redevelop that, then they’d better get it right.
One thing that’s refreshing about KC is the ease of getting around in a car.
Mass transit needs to improve with a more comprehensive and cohesive bus system.
I also envision a streetcar/light rail system similar to what Salt Lake City has that would connect the airport to downtown and spread out to denser areas from there and maybe hit up a few touristy places also.

[rrampage]

Originally Posted by sub

At this point, they just need to work with what they have in terms of freeways.
One thing they’re doing is covering up the south loop which will fill that particular gap.
Perhaps some strategically placed pedestrian bridges would help as well.
If they’re putting a baseball stadium downtown, then it would be wise to keep all freeways in place, as in don’t remove the north loop like has been suggested. If they do remove and redevelop that, then they’d better get it right.
One thing that’s refreshing about KC is the ease of getting around in a car.
Mass transit needs to improve with a more comprehensive and cohesive bus system.
I also envision a streetcar/light rail system similar to what Salt Lake City has that would connect the airport to downtown and spread out to denser areas from there and maybe hit up a few touristy places also.

Light rail from downtown to the airport would nice, no doubt. I kind of doubt they'll expand very much on light rail in that metro area for some reason.

[KC_Retiree]

Originally Posted by sub

At this point, they just need to work with what they have in terms of freeways.

One thing that’s refreshing about KC is the ease of getting around in a car.
Mass transit needs to improve with a more comprehensive and cohesive bus system.
I also envision a streetcar/light rail system similar to what Salt Lake City has that would connect the airport to downtown and spread out to denser areas from there and maybe hit up a few touristy places also.

The ease of getting around with a car is great. And it's not so great. Not so great because it helps fuel sprawl, keeps people from moving into the city and is bad for density. If commutes are easy, people just keep moving further and further out which is why KC has so few gentrifying urban neighborhoods.

I think the north loop can close down and KC's urban highway could still handle a downtown baseball stadium. With ease. The new downtown stadium would still be significantly better served by highways than Kaufman stadium is today. We might need to revamp some of the exits and entrance ramps around East Village but the highway infrastructure is there in abundance.

[rrampage]

Originally Posted by KC_Retiree

The ease of getting around with a car is great. And it's not so great. Not so great because it helps fuel sprawl, keeps people from moving into the city and is bad for density. If commutes are easy, people just keep moving further and further out which is why KC has so few gentrifying urban neighborhoods.

I think the north loop can close down and KC's urban highway could still handle a downtown baseball stadium. With ease. The new downtown stadium would still be significantly better served by highways than Kaufman stadium is today. We might need to revamp some of the exits and entrance ramps around East Village but the highway infrastructure is there in abundance.

Low density isn't bad if you have public transit in place to counterbalance it. Low density means less overall pollution and advantages for cyclists and pedestrians (with public transit in place). So the car part and any lack of public transit are the big negatives there. And, of course, you don't want the sprawl to cover too much distance or it becomes a serious challenge for public transit.

Unfortunately, we still have a lot of people who keep moving further out from the city center. This definitely complicates matters (as do the local politics).