Kansas City begins talk and studies for downtown ballpark

[Titty Meat]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/polit...177058541.html

The city of Kansas City is funding a study of at least four potential sites for a downtown baseball stadium for the Kansas City Royals, according to documents obtained by The Star.

A series of emails shows that Kansas City Manager Troy Schulte was involved in funding studies of four sites within the downtown loop that might be suitable for a baseball stadium.

Two of those sites, according to slides prepared by architecture firm HOK, are immediately adjacent to the Sprint Center, one to the north and one to the east.

Another site is East Village, several blocks of mostly undeveloped land and surface parking lots east of City Hall. A fourth site would involve several blocks of mostly surface parking lots beginning at the northwest corner of 8th and Main streets.

Others involved in the planning include Jon Copaken, principal with real estate development firm Copaken-Brooks, the Downtown Council of Kansas City, JE Dunn, The Cordish Co. and Tower Properties.

Schulte said the studies started after the Downtown Council approached City Hall about the feasibility of downtown baseball. Schulte added that he agreed to help fund a study to consider whether the four sites would work so that the city could plan ahead if the idea gained momentum.

“At this point it’s nothing more than hopes and dreams and discussions,” Schulte said.

A May 12 email from Copaken obtained by The Star suggested that conversations with the Royals and Jackson County have started.

“[T]he studies are underway, invoices are out, conversations from the County and the team are actually heading in the right way and we are sufficiently in the loop to know that real progress is being achieved,” Copaken wrote.

Kevin Uhlich, senior vice president of business operations for the Royals, said he had been contacted about downtown baseball stadium proposals earlier this year.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by DanT

To me, KCI is among the worst airports that I use, and I only use it when visiting my family, not for connecting flights. Given that KCI is not very popular for connecting flights, I would guess that most of the passengers who were eligible to rate it in the latest J.D. Power 2017 North American Airport Satisfaction Study used it purely for round trips. Even still, it only got rated in the "about average" tier, with a score of 742, close to the average rating 745 for its class ("Large Airports"). http://www.jdpower.com/press-release...sfaction-study

My primary airport is Sacramento International, a "Medium Airport", which received the highest overall average rating, a 810. But it's not just Sacramento's airport that is far better than KCI in my opinion, it's damn near every U.S. airport I've been through in the past few years. In large part this is because KCI's layout is ridiculous. Each terminal is already weak on amenities, because a huge amount of terminal space is devoted to facilities of zero use for waiting/connecting passengers (e.g. doors to the sidewalks, ticket agents, baggage claims), but a passenger who is in a secure zone is further confined to a small fraction of the miserable terminal, a fraction that is even more miserable. To leave the miserable secure zone requires paying the cost of an extra trip through security. I'm a TSA-Pre member and I still don't like having to do that, because it takes a few minutes, and there's no good reason for it. KCI is the only airport that I know of that has such an outdated and useless layout, except perhaps LaGuardia, a third-world dump.

So that's just one man's opinion, but it's from someone who is a complete Kansas City homer. KCI is a disaster that even Kansas Citians don't actually seem to like all that much given the mediocre ratings it gets from surveys. If you factor in what its ratings would be if it had significant connecting passenger traffic, it's a complete and total disaster. It's amazing to me that the folks in Kansas City would concede that their airport should not be a hub. It's in the middle of the continent, and KCI was always intended to be a hub. It just happened to end up with a daring design that ended up not paying off in the modern era of heavy passenger screening. Even if a Kansas Citian did not want or think that their airport could be a hub, I can't understand why they would think that they have a good airport. It's stuck in the early 1970's by a restrictive architecture, while other airports have gone way past it. Even older airports are way the hell nicer. I was at Washington National on Wednesday, and that place is far the hell more pleasant to wait for a flight than Monday. I admit that the comparison is fair, because I just became a United Club member and National has a Club, and so of course it's a lot more comfortable to wait in a club than in a regular waiting area, but even accounting for that, at National, you have way more amenities available to you compared to what's available at KCI.

Soo the ratings have us middle of the pack. You say it is amenities and checking back through security that makes it suck?

From what I have read, we are not far off point wise with our current layout. Getting through security still takes less time then going through any other airport overall.

We are not a hub, we never will be. Why **** over the citizens of kc so a private company can raise rates and make a killing? All for a few more amenities for layover travelers?

There is no need for the amount of security needed, one airport I saw on the news is getting rid of it.
Maybe petition the airlines to use the other sections of the airport more effectively instead of cramming into one? Hell, you can sell that as creating jobs.
Here is another idea, how about add a level to the airport? Then put everything you want there after checking in through security?


Bottom line, the change would make a private company rich, prices would skyrocket, ease of getting in and out would increase.

But hey, we have more amenities.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

The airport's supposed advantage of being convenient will be negated when you're down to maybe three flights a day per airline to maybe 4 to 5 different hub cities.

Good luck if your final destination isn't Atlanta, Chicago, Denver or Dallas.

That is just downright false though. KC has enough flyers consistently that it will never happen. There is a reason all the backers are not promising anything. No airline has said if you put in a new airport we will hub for the next 20 to 30 years because they do fine in kc already.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by DanT

To me, KCI is among the worst airports that I use, and I only use it when visiting my family, not for connecting flights. Given that KCI is not very popular for connecting flights, I would guess that most of the passengers who were eligible to rate it in the latest J.D. Power 2017 North American Airport Satisfaction Study used it purely for round trips. Even still, it only got rated in the "about average" tier, with a score of 742, close to the average rating 745 for its class ("Large Airports"). http://www.jdpower.com/press-release...sfaction-study

My primary airport is Sacramento International, a "Medium Airport", which received the highest overall average rating, a 810. But it's not just Sacramento's airport that is far better than KCI in my opinion, it's damn near every U.S. airport I've been through in the past few years. In large part this is because KCI's layout is ridiculous. Each terminal is already weak on amenities, because a huge amount of terminal space is devoted to facilities of zero use for waiting/connecting passengers (e.g. doors to the sidewalks, ticket agents, baggage claims), but a passenger who is in a secure zone is further confined to a small fraction of the miserable terminal, a fraction that is even more miserable. To leave the miserable secure zone requires paying the cost of an extra trip through security. I'm a TSA-Pre member and I still don't like having to do that, because it takes a few minutes, and there's no good reason for it. KCI is the only airport that I know of that has such an outdated and useless layout, except perhaps LaGuardia, a third-world dump.

So that's just one man's opinion, but it's from someone who is a complete Kansas City homer. KCI is a disaster that even Kansas Citians don't actually seem to like all that much given the mediocre ratings it gets from surveys. If you factor in what its ratings would be if it had significant connecting passenger traffic, it's a complete and total disaster. It's amazing to me that the folks in Kansas City would concede that their airport should not be a hub. It's in the middle of the continent, and KCI was always intended to be a hub. It just happened to end up with a daring design that ended up not paying off in the modern era of heavy passenger screening. Even if a Kansas Citian did not want or think that their airport could be a hub, I can't understand why they would think that they have a good airport. It's stuck in the early 1970's by a restrictive architecture, while other airports have gone way past it. Even older airports are way the hell nicer. I was at Washington National on Wednesday, and that place is far the hell more pleasant to wait for a flight than Monday. I admit that the comparison is fair, because I just became a United Club member and National has a Club, and so of course it's a lot more comfortable to wait in a club than in a regular waiting area, but even accounting for that, at National, you have way more amenities available to you compared to what's available at KCI.

We're not going to be a hub even if we build the single terminal airport. And since it's not a hub, and it's not going to be a hug, it's perfect. If I don't get a ride to the airport I can park 250 feet from my gate, that's AWESOME!

In Sacramento have you ever driven onto the airport grounds 45 minutes before push-back and made the flight? If you haven't, you should understand why we love our airport.

I'll agree that the airport was design for pre-9/11 movement, but **** it, it's awesome even cramped.

Hubs are for homos! Ha!

[DanT]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

We're not going to be a hub even if we build the single terminal airport. And since it's not a hub, and it's not going to be a hug, it's perfect. If I don't get a ride to the airport I can park 250 feet from my gate, that's AWESOME!

In Sacramento have you ever driven onto the airport grounds 45 minutes before push-back and made the flight? If you haven't, you should understand why we love our airport.

I'll agree that the airport was design for pre-9/11 movement, but **** it, it's awesome even cramped.

Hubs are for homos! Ha!

As a matter of fact, I have driven onto the airport grounds 45 minutes before push-back and made the flight. The garage I normally use at Sacramento's airport is across the street from both terminals, and I have a fast trip from my car to the United counter, where I typically check a bag, through TSA-Pre, and on to my gate. I used to time my arrivals pretty close to departures, but as I've grown older, I tend to give myself more time, which at the airports I use regularly is time pleasantly spent. Last time I parked at SMF was Sunday. My parking spot was in row 1E, pretty much right across the street from Terminal A, and my plane was at the far end of the terminal, which you can see from this map is not very far at all ( http://sacramento.aero/smf/about/maps ), not much further than from KCI's United counter to its United gates.

It seems to be that with a better terminal, KCI would revert to being more of a hub. In 2000, 18% of its passenger were connecting passengers. That's when Vanguard had a hub there. After 9/11, connecting traffic plummeted to about 5%. That's largely because the entire aviation industry knows that KCI's layout is not well-suited for the post 9/11 security screening process, and connecting passengers dread the latest version of KCI.

Also, I do not see any basis for thinking that air fares would skyrocket or that the citizens of KC would be screwed for taxes. Other airports--including Sacramento and Indianapolis, both of which are among the best in passenger satisfaction--have made major terminal improvements recently, without significantly increasing ticket costs per passenger. That's because the ticket prices don't track with per-passenger costs very closely and per-passenger costs are fairly modest, anyway.

You can see relevant numbers to back these claims from the following story, which includes a link to a PowerPoint slide from some aviation consultants that was presented to city officials. http://www.kansascity.com/news/polit...e62063222.html

Even if a renovated airport did nothing to improve overall revenues for airlines and vendors, a flat-out impossibility given that folks need to eat and drink and don't mind shopping either, if the shopping is good, a billion dollar outlay for an improved terminal would have an annual debt service of, let's say, $100 million or so. (The consultants for KC are thinking it would be $86 million, given their particulars. Here in Sacramento, we have a similar debt service for our new billion dollar terminal.) With 5 million enplaning passengers at $4.50 passenger facility charge per passenger (which is already what is charged), you're looking at $22.5 million of the debt service being taken care of, from that. So the other $80 million or so would be spread out over the 5 million enplanements, which would be $16 per ticket, with the silly assumption that there would be no increased cost recovery from arriving passengers and no other way for the businesses using the airport to recover the additional costs. That's the absolute top figure that you could be screwed out of, and that's making ridiculous assumptions that aren't connected to how ticket prices are actually set and that assume that KCI with a new terminal would not be getting any more passengers on which to offload costs. $16 per ticket is not a skyrocketing increase. More likely, the increase would be much lower than $10 per ticket. The consultants are thinking that most of the debt service would be covered by more revenue elsewhere at the airport. Even if you claimed that the consultants were totally out of their minds, you'd have a hard time explaining how their numbers are off by very much.

You can tell that Kansas Citians are being a bit crazy about the whole debate, because on one hand some people are complaining that their taxes would pay for it, while on the other hand some people are crying that a private company would get all the profits. How could it be both ways? Any government idiotic enough to forego the airport business sure as heck would at least force the private interests to bear the risk, if only not to be the stupidest ****in' politicians in the history of America.

But, y'all Kansas Citians that still live there are the ones who have to decide what to do. I don't live there anymore, and I don't have any reason to pretend that the shitty airport we have as the front door to the rest of the world is anything other than a ****in' embarrassment. In fact, I'm kinda proud of the fact that my hometown has an airport almost as shitty as LaGuardia, because New Yorkers already know they live in a great city and they don't try to keep up with the rest of the country. Kansas Citians tend to have the same inferiority complexes as citizens of most other medium cities, so it's kind of refreshing that when it comes to airports, Kansas Citians are proud of their buttcrack airport.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by DanT

As a matter of fact, I have driven onto the airport grounds 45 minutes before push-back and made the flight. The garage I normally use at Sacramento's airport is across the street from both terminals, and I have a fast trip from my car to the United counter, where I typically check a bag, through TSA-Pre, and on to my gate. I used to time my arrivals pretty close to departures, but as I've grown older, I tend to give myself more time, which at the airports I use regularly is time pleasantly spent.

It seems to be that with a better terminal, KCI would revert to being more of a hub. In 2000, 18% of its passenger were connecting passengers. That's when Vanguard had a hub there. After 9/11, connecting traffic plummeted to about 5%. That's largely because the entire aviation industry knows that KCI's layout is not well-suited for the post 9/11 security screening process, and connecting passengers dread the latest version of KCI.

Also, I do not see any basis for thinking that air fares would skyrocket or that the citizens of KC would be screwed for taxes. Other airports--including Sacramento and Indianapolis, both of which are among the best in passenger satisfaction, have made major terminal improvements recently, without significantly increasing ticket costs per passenger. That's because the ticket prices don't track with per-passenger costs very closely and per-passenger costs are fairly modest, anyway.

You can see relevant numbers to back these claims from the following story, which includes a link to a PowerPoint slide from some aviation consultants that was presented to city officials. http://www.kansascity.com/news/polit...e62063222.html

Even if a renovated airport did nothing to improve overall revenues for airlines and vendors, a flat-out impossibility given that folks need to eat and drink and don't mind shopping either, if the shopping is good, a billion dollar outlay for an improved terminal would have an annual debt service of, let's say, $100 million or so. (The consultants for KC are thinking it would be $86 million, given their particulars. Here in Sacramento, we have a similar debt service for our new billion dollar terminal.) With 5 million enplaning passengers at $4.50 passenger facility charge per passenger (which is already what is charged), you're looking at $22.5 million of the debt service being taken care of, from that. So the other $80 million or so would be spread out over the 5 million enplanements, which is $16 per ticket, with the silly assumption that there would be no increased cost for arriving passengers. That's the absolute top figure that you could be screwed out of, and that's making ridiculous assumptions that aren't connected to how ticket prices are actually set and that assume that KCI with a new terminal would not be getting any more passengers on which to offload costs. $16 per ticket is not a ****ing skyrocketing increase. More likely, the increase would be much lower than $10 per ticket. The consultants are thinking it would be less than $5, with the rest of the debt service covered by more revenue elsewhere at the airport. Even if you claimed that the consultants were totally out of their minds, you'd have a hard time explaining how their numbers are off by very much.

You can tell that Kansas Citians are being a bit crazy about the whole debate, because on one hand some people are complaining that their taxes would pay for it, while on the other hand some people are crying that a private company would get all the profits. How could it be both ways? Any government idiotic enough to forego the airport business sure as heck would at least force the private interests to bear the risk, if only not to be the stupidest ****in' politicians in the history of America.

But, y'all Kansas Citians that still live there are the ones who have to decide what to do. I don't live there anymore, and I don't have any reason to pretend that the shitty airport we have as the front door to the rest of the world is anything other than a ****in' embarrassment. In fact, I'm kinda proud of the fact that my hometown has an airport almost as shitty as LaGuardia, because New Yorkers already know they live in a great city and they don't try to keep up with the rest of the country. Kansas Citians tend to have the same inferiority complexes as citizens of most other medium cities, so it's kind of refreshing that when it comes to airports, Kansas Citians are proud of their buttcrack airport.

Those other places won't be owned by a private business.
Did you happen to listen to commercials for it. They loved the fact that this would be the first privately owned airport and citizens would not have to spend money.

They can have analyst give you any reports or speculations on minimal cost increase and I will call bullshit. The company will make all their money back in 3 years minimum. They will also set up a provision the city funds any shortfalls. You said yourself, 95% of the traffic is local through the airport so we will pay all the increase from here on out. Everyone is throwing pressure and money to sell this plan. If it was good as everyone is saying the city would just pay for it themselves. Trust me our politicians are dumb enough for this. They have constantly made bad deals for the city that have never paid out.

They have talked about adding a paid toll road on i70. Owned by a private company. But all maintenance done by modot.
Look at redlight cameras here. Promised money stream to pd here as the pd would get a percentage back. What happened, they had to be reviewed by an officer, when fought in court every ticket was dropped. The pd were spending more on overtime than profit coming in.
Power and light has lost the city a ton of lost money. Currently only generating a 3rd of promised tax generation per last report.

We get hit with bad deals all the time here from our leaders. This smells like a bad deal.

I am not against upgrading the airport, like I said add a level and get rid of the TSA. But I and most of the city is set to vote no against a privately owned and ran airport from what I am hearing.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by SAUTO

5-10 or 50?
I'm taking the guy's opinion who does it 50 times a year

Yeah...cuz you know, the whole process of flying changes all the time? You fly 3 times a year. You know what airports suck. You know what airports suck? Chicago O-Hare ****ing sucks. LaGuardia ****ing sucks. LAX ****ing sucks.

KCI/MCI whatever you want to call it, it a breeze. Sure it's ugly. But I'm flying on a ****ing plane. I fly direct to LA, Vegas, and Dallas all the time. You can fly to LAX and back for $80 dollars. EIGHTY.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Scooter Libby

KC has little man's syndrome. It thinks it's a big city (it's not) yet we pay more in taxes than a place like Dallas and have very little to show for.

Nobody in Kansas City thinks we are a big city comparable to Atlanta, Dallas, Houston etc. And they don't want to be. But We are a Top 30 metro area, with 3 pro franchises.

We compare to St Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee. And I'd say definitely the best out of those.

[HonestChieffan]

The Airport is great. No need to change it.
Downtown is marginal. Everything they do to make it cool sucks.
Stadium downtown is total ignorant.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by DanT

As a matter of fact, I have driven onto the airport grounds 45 minutes before push-back and made the flight. The garage I normally use at Sacramento's airport is across the street from both terminals, and I have a fast trip from my car to the United counter, where I typically check a bag, through TSA-Pre, and on to my gate. I used to time my arrivals pretty close to departures, but as I've grown older, I tend to give myself more time, which at the airports I use regularly is time pleasantly spent. Last time I parked at SMF was Sunday. My parking spot was in row 1E, pretty much right across the street from Terminal A, and my plane was at the far end of the terminal, which you can see from this map is not very far at all ( http://sacramento.aero/smf/about/maps ), not much further than from KCI's United counter to its United gates.

It seems to be that with a better terminal, KCI would revert to being more of a hub. In 2000, 18% of its passenger were connecting passengers. That's when Vanguard had a hub there. After 9/11, connecting traffic plummeted to about 5%. That's largely because the entire aviation industry knows that KCI's layout is not well-suited for the post 9/11 security screening process, and connecting passengers dread the latest version of KCI.

Also, I do not see any basis for thinking that air fares would skyrocket or that the citizens of KC would be screwed for taxes. Other airports--including Sacramento and Indianapolis, both of which are among the best in passenger satisfaction--have made major terminal improvements recently, without significantly increasing ticket costs per passenger. That's because the ticket prices don't track with per-passenger costs very closely and per-passenger costs are fairly modest, anyway.

You can see relevant numbers to back these claims from the following story, which includes a link to a PowerPoint slide from some aviation consultants that was presented to city officials. http://www.kansascity.com/news/polit...e62063222.html

Even if a renovated airport did nothing to improve overall revenues for airlines and vendors, a flat-out impossibility given that folks need to eat and drink and don't mind shopping either, if the shopping is good, a billion dollar outlay for an improved terminal would have an annual debt service of, let's say, $100 million or so. (The consultants for KC are thinking it would be $86 million, given their particulars. Here in Sacramento, we have a similar debt service for our new billion dollar terminal.) With 5 million enplaning passengers at $4.50 passenger facility charge per passenger (which is already what is charged), you're looking at $22.5 million of the debt service being taken care of, from that. So the other $80 million or so would be spread out over the 5 million enplanements, which would be $16 per ticket, with the silly assumption that there would be no increased cost recovery from arriving passengers and no other way for the businesses using the airport to recover the additional costs. That's the absolute top figure that you could be screwed out of, and that's making ridiculous assumptions that aren't connected to how ticket prices are actually set and that assume that KCI with a new terminal would not be getting any more passengers on which to offload costs. $16 per ticket is not a skyrocketing increase. More likely, the increase would be much lower than $10 per ticket. The consultants are thinking that most of the debt service would be covered by more revenue elsewhere at the airport. Even if you claimed that the consultants were totally out of their minds, you'd have a hard time explaining how their numbers are off by very much.

You can tell that Kansas Citians are being a bit crazy about the whole debate, because on one hand some people are complaining that their taxes would pay for it, while on the other hand some people are crying that a private company would get all the profits. How could it be both ways? Any government idiotic enough to forego the airport business sure as heck would at least force the private interests to bear the risk, if only not to be the stupidest ****in' politicians in the history of America.

But, y'all Kansas Citians that still live there are the ones who have to decide what to do. I don't live there anymore, and I don't have any reason to pretend that the shitty airport we have as the front door to the rest of the world is anything other than a ****in' embarrassment. In fact, I'm kinda proud of the fact that my hometown has an airport almost as shitty as LaGuardia, because New Yorkers already know they live in a great city and they don't try to keep up with the rest of the country. Kansas Citians tend to have the same inferiority complexes as citizens of most other medium cities, so it's kind of refreshing that when it comes to airports, Kansas Citians are proud of their buttcrack airport.

Sounds like you have a vested interest in the airport deal, more than just the occasional KC visitor. I, for one, won't vote for a chrome and glass building unless they tell me how my ability to part 250 feet from my gate won't change. As for shopping, **** that, we're not a hub.

I fear the plan will result in ORD'esque TSA Shrek lines of hell. It's not worth the chance.

Not, couple the vote with a guarantee the we will become a hub, maybe I'll rethink, but we know that'll never happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk