1011 From United States, joined Feb 2001, 278 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4594 times:
Forget it. SAN is fine. The new airport authority keeps showing pictures of tons of planes backed up waiting for takeoff wanting to scare people into voting for a new airport. When were those pics taken? During a rwy 9 landing while taking off on 27. That happens only maybe 20 days of the yr. The real reason they want a new airport is so they can develop the land on the water that SAN sits on. Ya, build one in Imperial! I am sure everyone would love to drive 2hrs or pay 10 dollars each way to ride a speed train. I would rather drive up to SNA rather than do that.
Smokeyrosco From Ireland, joined Dec 2005, 1925 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4581 times:
Ha Ha, and to put it in perspective (for the Irish, or maybe Europeans), they could level DUB and rebuilt it with 2 runways for about 5 Billion Euro (or $6 Billion)
DCAYOW From United States, joined Nov 2003, 513 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4561 times:
Quoting 1011 (Reply 2): Forget it. SAN is fine. The new airport authority keeps showing pictures of tons of planes backed up waiting for takeoff wanting to scare people into voting for a new airport. When were those pics taken? During a rwy 9 landing while taking off on 27. That happens only maybe 20 days of the yr. The real reason they want a new airport is so they can develop the land on the water that SAN sits on. Ya, build one in Imperial! I am sure everyone would love to drive 2hrs or pay 10 dollars each way to ride a speed train. I would rather drive up to SNA rather than do that.
Think about this statement. The Airport Authority isn't saying today is a problem. They are saying tomorrow (30 years) there will be a problem not only in San Diego, but greater SoCal. The Airport Authority has no interest in land development on the water - IT DOESN'T EVEN OWN THE LAND IT SITS UPON. That land would revert back to the Port of San Diego (a different agency from the SDCRAA-Airport Authority).
Think about what San Diego was like 20 years ago. Have the freeways been improved YES. Has airport runway/taxiway infrastructure been improved NO! Could you imagine if today I-5 was only two lanes in each direction. Another runway needs to be added in San Diego, just as additional lanes have been added to the freeways over the years. Air traffic is no different than road traffic, infrastructure needs to be upgraded to keep up with increased activity.
I am sure the Airport Authority is keenly aware of the problems associated with the remote sites, which is why in all likelihood they will be removed or if added to the ballot- would be rejected by the voters. They know the lessons of Dorval.
Trvlr From United States, joined Feb 2000, 4417 posts, RR: 21 Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4550 times:
Read closer.
"This figure, presented by consultants Ricondo & Associates, covers an airport built at either Campo in southeast San Diego County, or on land in Imperial County, with a high-speed rail link and improved highway infrastructure."
Then:
"The actual cost of construction is put at $6.4 billion for Campo and $4.1 billion for Imperial.
This makes the cost of a new airport at, say, Miramar look very attractive.
Trvlr From United States, joined Feb 2000, 4417 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4526 times:
Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 3): Ha Ha, and to put it in perspective (for the Irish, or maybe Europeans), they could level DUB and rebuilt it with 2 runways for about 5 Billion Euro (or $6 Billion)
As they could a new airport in San Diego. The extra cost comes from access infrastructure, not airport construction itself.
Lehpron From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4414 times:
That's bullshit, the Imperial site was removed. Why are they making the theoretical costs known, there are many ignorant people out in the voting community that do so knee-jerkly. Speaking of which:
Quoting 1011 (Reply 2): Ya, build one in Imperial! I am sure everyone would love to drive 2hrs or pay 10 dollars each way to ride a speed train
They are not going to build it, that is the estimate HAD they! A few months ago, this site was removed as one of the potential sites because no one wants to go out there!
Quoting 1011 (Reply 2): The real reason they want a new airport is so they can develop the land on the water that SAN sits on.
I've lived here longer than you, I've never heard that. I'm only for the current Miramar site, personally, its convinient and close-by and most of the infrastructure is already there, no need to spend billions extra.
Quoting Trvlr (Reply 5): The actual cost of construction is put at $6.4 billion for Campo and $4.1 billion for Imperial.
This makes the cost of a new airport at, say, Miramar look very attractive.
BINGO, let's hope people can understand that.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Siromega From United States, joined Sep 2005, 649 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4386 times:
Indeed, they need to take over the base and use that instead of building one in the middle of nowhere. I wish they would have done that here in LV - had the US Govt give the County DOA enough land for an airport, and sold the rest of the land for development, and build a new base further out. Instead we get an airport 45 minutes out of town (non-peak travel time, rush hour could be 90 minutes or more).
F9fan From United States, joined Jan 2004, 447 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4330 times:
I wonder if they are aware that the price their quoting is over triple the price for DEN, and that was after all the UA change orders and the delays caused by the luggage system UA said they ABSOLUTELY HAD to have (and is now abandoning). What are they going to do? pave the runways in pure gold? Diamond studded sink handles in the restrooms? I find it very difficult they are going to spend that much cash on an airport.
PanAm747 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 3715 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4330 times:
Quote: Think about this statement. The Airport Authority isn't saying today is a problem. They are saying tomorrow (30 years) there will be a problem not only in San Diego, but greater SoCal.
I have tried to point out to residents here in San Diego that LAX is actually going to limit capacity at 75 million per year, despite projections that it could reach a demand of 120 million per year. You have a better chance of seeing Saddam Hussein return to power in Iraq than you do of seeing BUR, LGB, or SNA expand, and our delightful Lindbergh Field, though convenient and photogenic, simply cannot last forever.
I feel like Kassandra, from Greek mythology - blessed by the Gods with the power to see the future, but cursed that the knowledge would never be believed.
Southern California will realize in 20 years that shortsidedness has led to their airports being slot controlled and the "Southwest Effect" will be meaningless. Then I can do the "Told-You-So!!!!!" dance.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Boeing7E7 From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4066 times:
Quoting 1011 (Reply 2): Forget it. SAN is fine. The new airport authority keeps showing pictures of tons of planes backed up waiting for takeoff wanting to scare people into voting for a new airport. When were those pics taken? During a rwy 9 landing while taking off on 27. That happens only maybe 20 days of the yr. The real reason they want a new airport is so they can develop the land on the water that SAN sits on. Ya, build one in Imperial! I am sure everyone would love to drive 2hrs or pay 10 dollars each way to ride a speed train. I would rather drive up to SNA rather than do that.
Don't know much about peak hour demand and gate to runway ratios do ya?
Single Runway - 58 gates
Current gates - 45
2010 Gates 55
2015 Gates 58
Ooops!
Futhermore, lets say the airlines opt to run 767 size aircraft all day to meet demand with larger aircraft vs. operations. Heavies = greater separation = lower runway throughput - less efficient. Then of course, there's the issue of passengers. Even the weakest number given represents a 40% increase in passengers, and this is a figure given by a nay sayer. Just how do you propose to handle that level of vehicle traffic? Parking? This on an airport out of land, in need of a larger terminal for Southwest and one that is out of gate expansion opportunity due to the runway/gate ratio. Oh yeah, and there's that damn curfew limiting SAN to a 17 hour day. Then of course, there's the terrain that limits aircraft performance and payload capability for what would be a vibrant level of International service given the million people or so that go to LAX every year that would otherwise be flying non-stop.
Keep Lindbergh... Go ahead. I hope you like La Guardia.
Quoting F9fan (Reply 9): I wonder if they are aware that the price their quoting is over triple the price for DEN, and that was after all the UA change orders and the delays caused by the luggage system UA said they ABSOLUTELY HAD to have (and is now abandoning). What are they going to do? pave the runways in pure gold? Diamond studded sink handles in the restrooms? I find it very difficult they are going to spend that much cash on an airport.
Denver would be about $10-12 billion today with an opening in 2020. A runway would be budgeted at about $1 billion today (earthwork and off the chart concerete prices), terminals/ramps/jetbridges are about $25 million a gate. Two runways and 70 or so gates for SAN in 2020 = $3.75 to $4 Billion. The price suggested is about right. The City/County/State is then on the hook for access from the highways. The further away they are from the site, the higher the cost. My hunch is off ramps for Miramar are a pin prick at about $250 million, compare that to Maglev at $15 - 25 Billion. Add about $100 million a year, each year that the airport isn't built beyond the 2020 point for inflation.
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 10): Then I can do the "Told-You-So!!!!!" dance.
I'll fly out and join you in 10 quick years when the reality begins to set in (that is if I can afford to fly into San Diego - or able to find a seat). Where we doin' the dance???? Miramar front gate?
Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 11): What can possible be done to that itty-bitty little piece of land that would cost $17 billion???
Nothing. It's not for that itty-bitty piece of land.
AirbusfanYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2002, 1337 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3986 times:
Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 4): I am sure the Airport Authority is keenly aware of the problems associated with the remote sites, which is why in all likelihood they will be removed or if added to the ballot- would be rejected by the voters. They know the lessons of Dorval.
YUL - Dorval is very close to Montreal. I think you meant YMX i.e. Mirabel.
2travel2know From Panama, joined Apr 2005, 2663 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
People in San Diego like to forget there's an airport south of the border called TIJ?
Everytime I read topics about SAN, the option of doing something at TIJ (maybe extending taxiways to cross the border and build a U.S. Airport Terminal there) is quickly turned down.
In the dream scenario of something like that ever happening, are we talking about a $100million investment vs. $17 billion for a new San Diego Airport?
I've been to San Diego, but I have no clue how far is TIJ airport from the U.S. - Mexican border and what's on the U.S. side nearest to that airport.
Boeing7E7 From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3862 times:
Quoting JAL (Reply 14): That's a lot of money for an airport for a city the size of San Diego.
Which is why the airport won't be built in the Desert or the Mountains.
Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 15): I've been to San Diego, but I have no clue how far is TIJ airport from the U.S. - Mexican border and what's on the U.S. side nearest to that airport.
Use TJ's runway, make it longer (if not replace it). Place a runway between the North and South Runways on Test Site "D" (pages 6,10,11,12, and 15 below) and place terminals for both countries down the middle of the runways. Build a shared international terminal for long haul. Neutral airfield.
PanAm747 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 3715 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3811 times:
Quote: I've been to San Diego, but I have no clue how far is TIJ airport from the U.S. - Mexican border and what's on the U.S. side nearest to that airport.
TIJ is right on the line. After you cross the border into Mexico, it is a guaranteed $10 taxi ride to TIJ.
Getting back is the problem - you either have to go through San Ysidro port of entry or Otay Mesa, both taking quite a while.
Since Mexico is now the greatest threat to American security (at least according to some hysterical politicians hoping to kiss the derrieres of conservative voters), a joint use airport has been ruled out. Any sort of "shared" facility with Mexico is out of the question.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Boeing7E7 From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3783 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 17): Since Mexico is now the greatest threat to American security (at least according to some hysterical politicians hoping to kiss the derrieres of conservative voters), a joint use airport has been ruled out. Any sort of "shared" facility with Mexico is out of the question.
Some irony:
Cross border - Threat to security
Miramar - Threat to security
Some reality:
Economic growth in San Diego = Higher Cost of Living = complications for the military to justify it's extensive existence in San Diego... Hamper that economic growth and the military benfits. Interesting... No?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2215 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Dec 2005, 1925 posts, 
From , joined today!, posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2002, 1337 posts, 
From Panama, joined Apr 2005, 2663 posts,