JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC

At lunch one day last week, former city councilman and now real estate development attorney Jerry Riffel recounted an interesting anecdote to me and another friend, Janet Redding, Riffel’s former council aide.

Riffel said that while waiting recently for a flight out of Kansas City International Airport, a man sitting next to him — someone from out of town — asked Riffel if he was from Kansas City. When Riffel said yes, the man commented, “This is kind of a quaint airport you’ve got here, isn’t it?”

Riffel responded, “I take it you don’t mean that in a complimentary way.”

“That’s right,” the traveler said.

I haven’t done any sample surveys, but I would think that’s how many people from elsewhere view KCI. Quaint.

Now, how many of us want as a key part of our metro fabric an airport that is considered dowdy? That does not make us attractive — not at all — to casual travelers, business flyers or convention planners.

Frankly, it’s just embarrassing. And it’s time to get on with building a new, single terminal. As I’ve said before, I want Kansas City to be first class in every way. We’ve got a tremendously successful downtown arena; in Power & Light, we’ve got an entertainment district that helped revive a long-decrepit downtown; and we’ve got a stunning performing arts center that may be the best in the country.

About the only remnant of our inferiority complex and our cowtown image — which plagued us into the early 1990s — is that damned airport.

I was up there a couple of weeks ago to catch a flight to Tampa, on the way to Havana, and I was stuck, as usual, with hundreds of people in one of the cramped waiting areas, where you get routed after going through security. Naturally, people had to use the restrooms, and people were lined up single file, waiting impatiently. Several people in line grimaced and exchanged looks that said, “This sucks.”

I felt the same way, but, having good political instincts, I said loudly several times, “Vote for the new airport! Vote for the revenue bonds.”

That lightened the mood. Several people laughed and nodded their heads in agreement.

If you asked that group how much of a priority they placed on the convenience of getting to and from their gates — the reason many people cite for wanting to keep KCI much as it is — I don’t think convenience would have rated very high.

**

After an aberrant digression toward renovation of one of KCI’s horseshoe-shaped terminals, we are talking once again about a new, single terminal. As far as I’m concerned, renovation went down the tubes with the Aviation Department’s analysis of the “Crawford plan,” which erroneously estimated that an existing terminal could be adequately expanded and renovated for about $336 million.

I could have gone for that if the cost estimate was viable, but the consultants dismissed the plan almost out of hand, saying the architects who put it together — at the request of Councilwoman Theresa Loar — grossly underestimated and didn’t understand what all had to be done.

At this point, I put a lot more trust in the patient, methodical approach Mayor Sly James has taken to try to nudge citizens toward the idea of radical change.

Two proposals for a single are on the table. One would cost an estimated $964 million, the other about $972 million. The Star’s Eric Adler last week wrote an in-depth story about those two proposals, as well as two other terminal-renovation proposals. But a special committee appointed by the mayor — and headed by highly regarded architect Robert Berkebile — concluded in 2014 that building a new terminal was the best way to go, and that’s the lead I believe we citizens should follow. Building a new terminal is the most practical and efficient way to have a single security checkpoint; to allow for incremental gate expansion; and to expand and reposition concessions and retail shops.

Take a look at the schematic drawings for the two new-terminal proposals.

Option 1 would raze now-closed Terminal A and start afresh. The new terminal would have 35 gates, with the ability to expand to the south along two concourses — east and west. Concessions would be concentrated near the entrance, past the central security point, and in the central section of the two northern concourses.

 

Option 1 is modeled on Indianapolis International Airport, which opened its new $1.1 billion facility in 2008. Here’s that layout.

 

 

 

Option 2 would raze Terminal B and start afresh. It would also have 35 gates, with expansion possible to the south on one of two concourses. Like Option 1, arriving passengers would be picked up on the lower level, while outgoing passengers would enter on the upper level. In both Option 1 and 2, baggage claim would be on the lower level, as it is at most modern airports.

I would vote for either option, but my preference is Option 1, simply because I like the idea of concourses running at right angles to the terminal trunk. In addition, Adler said the gate areas “would be shaped like antlers.” After all the trouble of getting a new airport, I would hate to hear it referred to as “the antler airport.” 

**

Perhaps the biggest single challenge to consigning the existing terminals to the wrecking ball is clearing up the misapprehension that the hundreds of millions of dollars that would go for construction of a new terminal could be better spent on basic needs, like road and bridge repairs, park improvements and demolishing abandoned houses. The fact is, the Aviation Department is one of two city “enterprise departments,” along with the Water Department, that pay their own way with revenue generated from their operations.

If voters approved the issuance of airport revenue bonds, they would be retired with money generated exclusively from airport-related operations. The biggest of those would be airline gate leases, a percentage of concession revenues and a relatively small increase in airfares. The revenue could not be used for any purpose other than building and operating a new terminal. And by the same token, no money from the city’s general operating fund — financed by such things as earnings, sales and property taxes — could go toward expenses related to the new terminal.

Yes, $1 billion is a big number, an intimidating number. But Indianapolis and many other big U.S. cities have been able to bite that much off in recent years and give their metro areas new, attractive, more efficient airports. We can, too. The issue probably will be on an election ballot early next year. I can’t see this going on the general-election ballot in November. Proponents probably would prefer a special election, when a voter-education campaign would not have to compete with the presidential election.

It will take a well-financed, really good campaign. As my friend Anita Gorman used to say when she campaigned for proposals as president of the Kansas City Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners, “If we explain to the voters what we are doing and how it will benefit them and the city, they will be with us.”

More than once, I thought Anita was off her rocker, but I don’t think she ever put forward a parks proposal that went down to defeat. I’m betting that in the end, with a well-run campaign, a majority of Kansas City voters will see the light on KCI.