Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SAN Releases Airport Site Analysis  
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Cost: $6 Billion. About right given inflation - Denver today would be between $8 and 10B, and by 2020/2025 $15-17B. North Island Cheapest, Pendleton most expensive.

Location: Miramar best for San Diego's needs, Pendleton best for Southern California needs (i.e. San Diego and Orange County - could be a better option connecting SNA and SAN to the site with Maglev or High Speed Rail - especially given LAX, LGB and SNA capacity shortfalls in 20 years).

Layout: Pendleton site is right adjacent the land border where combat training does not take place - 3 miles south of the existing airfield. Miramar has four - yes four - runways. Pendleton has two runways and is expandable to four (close parallels - LAX). North Island has an "X" configuration with SAN remaining open.

Access: North Island is a tunnel with a dedicated transportation system - you check in at Lindbergh, Miramar from a relocated I-15, Pendleton new roadways from the I-5 with access to the airport only.

Passengers: All would be able to accomodate 30 million, with expansion opportunity to 45 million.

Weather impacts: North island is a bust in comparison to Pendleton and Miramar due to intersecting runways.

Here's a link to summary information, I read a good portion of it and the detail analysis is not there. Given DEN's documents on a single site, there's probably "several" volumes of information on this. Denver had two volumes on one site, this study has 7 sites.

http://www.san.org/authority/assp/index.asp

Noise:

Note the outcome of no Military operations (commercial only) at Miramar on Page 2:

http://www.san.org/documents/assp/de...ASSP_Summary_Comparison_Matrix.pdf

Under this scenario, there would be no new housing units or
population adversely impacted by aircraft noise. In fact, there
would be a net improvement to 5,309 housing units and a
population of 6,240.


[Edited 2006-05-16 17:59:58]

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1519 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

I found this information very interesting. My only question is...Does SAN plan to build an entirely new airport and shutdown KSAN, or are they going to keep KSAN open and build an alternate airport?

The NAS site would be an interesting setup, but probably not practical. MCAS Miramar looks like the solid favorite after reading some of the linked info.



Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3061 times:

The Miramar site is a joke. An old joke that has been replayed over and over again. It will never happen there, it is politically impossible. Also I would point that NO new modern airport has been built with the US in the MIDDLE of a city! you put airports at the perimeter and let industry build out to it.

Anyway, in SAN this is a huge issue. IF they are saying Miramar then here is another waste of tax payer dollars to produce a recommendation that will go nowhere. The Camp Pendleton site, now that is a different story.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4112 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3061 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
The NAS site would be an interesting setup, but probably not practical. MCAS Mirimar looks like the solid favorite after reading some of the linked info.

This has been my feeling for a long time that the City of San Diego and the US Navy should just make a trade, Mirimar for Lindbergh. That would be a win-win for the people of San Diego County and the US Navy. MCAS Lindbergh will be right next to the Boot Camp Recruit Depot and Mirimar could be expanded to accommodate the traffic SAN expects in the years ahead. SNA should have been moved to El Toro and the present site shut down and sold, but that's an argument with too many arrogant homeowners abusing the CEQA code so I won't go there!.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3057 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
I found this information very interesting. My only question is...Does SAN plan to build an entirely new airport and shutdown KSAN, or are they going to keep KSAN open and build an alternate airport?

The FAA makes that determination. There was some heated debate about Stapleton becoming what Jeffco is today because it had the infrastructure in place to be a major GA facility and it's location to the city center. Lindbergh has some substantial terrain issues that can be overcome by GA aircraft vs. commercial - different glideslopes and landing/take-off distance requirements. If built today, it would have about a 6,000' runway for proper climb rates and safety areas. I think there could be some significant historical reasons to keep it a GA airport with some additional environmental and capacity justification that would reduce GA demand at a new facility. If you look at what's going on in Berlin, they're closing one airport to offset environmental mitigation for the new major airport. Brown Field in San Diego because of its terrain issues and piss poor care by the City (who owns the airport separate from Lindbergh) would be ripe for closure. Global environmental policy applies to commercial airports on top of National requirements, so there may need to be some trade-off like this.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 2):
The Miramar site is a joke. An old joke that has been replayed over and over again. It will never happen there, it is politically impossible. Also I would point that NO new modern airport has been built with the US in the MIDDLE of a city! you put airports at the perimeter and let industry build out to it.

Looks to me like Miramar the most economically and environmentally viable site. Especially when you consider the noise impact improves if you exchange fighters for commerical flights. Pendleton creates the "LA encroaching on San Diego" scenario. That has never played well in San Diego. It's that great void between San Diego and Smell A that San Diegan's don't ever want to go away. What may be politically impossible today, changes over time as Lindbergh runs out of capacity.

[Edited 2006-05-16 20:45:55]

User currently offlineSJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3008 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
Looks to me like Miramar the most economically and environmentally viable site.

Of course you are right. I'm going to stay out of it this time though and let the locals fight it out. Let the Miramar Fights begin!!  banghead   banghead   banghead 


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 5):
Of course you are right. I'm going to stay out of it this time though and let the locals fight it out. Let the Miramar Fights begin!!

LOL... No doubt. I did my "local" commenting 15 years ago when Miramar could have been had and would be an airport (or close to being one) today. That and being a native makes the issue a hot bed for me. In some way's I say screw you. You elected short sighted beholden to the military politicans, you made your bed, now sleep in it. In other ways, I look at it as a transformation of thought on what is and isn't beneficial economically to San Diego. The answer is somehwere between the needs for air service, and what I view as poor utilization of existing military facilities. (Someone should write a book when all is said and done) I want to be alive when a new a new airport opens in San Diego. Maybe my kids will see it... Or their kids... At some point a break will be reached on the issue and a solution will be there. It looks to me like this study is pretty damn definative, so there won't be any more money spent on studies, just updates to the inevitable - Miramar or a multi airport system of SAN/Pendleton/SNA.

I see a few options potnetially happening:

1. All Miramar.
2. Single runway Miramar for network, Lindbergh short haul with reduced runway length (proximity and Lindbergh technical shortfalls makes it valid vs a Desert Site).
3. Single runway pendleton start up in 20 years, but expandable.
4. International Pendleton - High speed connection to SAN and SNA with substantial limits on Lindbergh to prevent congestion and make the neighbors happy forcing Pendlton use.

[Edited 2006-05-16 22:09:57]

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2966 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
the noise impact improves if you exchange fighters for commerical flights.

For some areas the noise impact improves (to the east which I am assuming will be the approach side) while the west will have a much greater impact due to the longer, slower climb and roll out required for passenger jets. the current military departure routes cut very short and head north toward the space between Torrey Pines and Cardiff. I of course know that engine-wise the commercial planes will be WAY quieter than anything military. And if people are thinking this will be the "next great west coast international airport" after LAX and SFO then there will be a significant increase in T/O's. Also realize that the airport will still be time limited to operate between 6:30am and 11:30pm just like SAN.

The "politically dead" part comes from the fact you have about a quarter million highly organized, motivated voters that will not want the airport near them. While only about 100,000 care about moving it away from where it is now. The battle and legal challenges will be endless (just like the search for a new location has been).

It will be interesting to see how this flys with the public.

Tug

[Edited 2006-05-16 22:21:56]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2966 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 2):

Why is Miramar a joke? Elaborate please.

|| Random-Thought-Generator || **Turned-On**

I travel to San Diego at least once a month..(drive)...and it never ceases to amaze me how Lindbergh is shoe-horned into the middle of the city.

The dearth of flat land in the region...(lack of)
Any site would require a lot of earth-moving....probably a big chunk of any project.

How HARD would it be for the military to consolidate within the region?
Does the military REALLY need as much land as they have in greater San Diego?

Precedent seeking: What other major American city has as much land dedicated to military/government concerns as does San Diego?
The only comparable area I can think of would be Norfolk/Newport News/Hampton Roads Virginia.....

Could a spur from the North County passenger rail service be extended to Miramar? Reason for this thinking is the traffic I've endured on the 5 from Oceanside to the 5/805 split.
But now that I think about it, that would also require a heavy investment in rolling stock, as to make any rapid transit to the airport feasible would require frequent trips....every 10 minutes at the least.
Never mind!

Pendleton is just too far.
How is Oceanside going to react to being made the airport for San Diego? Does Oceanside/Carlsbad align more with Orange County or San Diego?

Wouldn't North Island still have terrain issues?
How long would this tunnel be connecting to Lindbergh be? In time to travel.

|| Random-Thought-Generator || **Turned-Off**



Delete this User
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 8):
Why is Miramar a joke? Elaborate please.

If you see my previous post (though it may not have been up when you wrote yours) the reason it is a joke is voters and votes. And like I said, we'll see what the public has to say.

I still contend that it is unwise to place a new airport in the middle of the city. And yes, I know that there aren't really any area's available to put one.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 7):
For some areas the noise impact improves (to the east which I am assuming will be the approach side) while the west will have a much greater impact due to the longer, slower climb and roll out required for passenger jets. the current military departure routes cut very short and head north toward the space between Torrey Pines and Cardiff. I of course know that engine-wise the commercial planes will be WAY quieter than anything military. And if people are thinking this will be the "next great west coast international airport" after LAX and SFO then there will be a significant increase in T/O's. Also realize that the airport will still be time limited to operate between 6:30am and 11:30pm just like SAN.

You should read the report, it shows the noise contour. No one is affected by commercial operations to the East or West due to distance. They are impacted by military operations to the North and South. Might also want to review Stage IV noise standards, the noise is on the arrival end which would be used 97% of the time due to IFR capability from the East, unlike at Lindbergh today. The only time they'd land from the West is during Santa Ana conditions which create an inversion virtually eliminating airport noise. The 787 alone has a 60% noise footprint reduction over the 777. Speaks volumes for 20 years from now.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 7):
The "politically dead" part comes from the fact you have about a quarter million highly organized, motivated voters that will not want the airport near them. While only about 100,000 care about moving it away from where it is now. The battle and legal challenges will be endless (just like the search for a new location has been).

It's been voted on before, and passed only to be undermined by a politician. This before a significant population shift, proper identification of the Lindbergh problem, and full analysis of the region of viable alternatives - something never done before.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 8):
Could a spur from the North County passenger rail service be extended to Miramar? Reason for this thinking is the traffic I've endured on the 5 from Oceanside to the 5/805 split.

Rail is already in place to Miramars front door. This was a huge point 15 years ago in selecting Miramar.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 8):
Precedent seeking: What other major American city has as much land dedicated to military/government concerns as does San Diego?

None. The military has about 40% of the land in San Diego County. About 200,000 acres.

[Edited 2006-05-16 22:44:17]

User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2931 times:

One more thing.

Why stick with the intersecting runways at North Island?

How much separation is there on the existing 13/31s?
If there is enough, does it not make more sense to extend 13L/31R?

Or, construct another to the east, shut down 13L/31R,...and completely close the 18/36s. What use does 18L/36R serve anyway?
Or, have three parallel, 13L-C-R/31L-C-R.



Delete this User
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 11):
Why stick with the intersecting runways at North Island?

Wind coverage. We had this problem looking at ORD - it was prefered to align them with MDW to reduce interference. The FAA requires 95% wind coverage. So now ORD looks like DFW sideways. The upside is the 5-7% operational interference is offset by about a 60% capacity gain at ORD. East West was also the most economically viable option, even at $17 Billion.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
You should read the report

Now the argumentative side of me says that the commission, study, and report was done with one goal in mind and nothing would be done to undermine that goal. Of course that not a very fair thing to say so I won't. Only conspiracy nuts would say such a thing.

The funny thing is that I do agree that Miramar IS the best site! It is just impractical now and probably will never happen. It is up to the voters and the fight against will be HUGE. Also note that those "low noise contours" will be near La Jolla and Del Mar, lots of money there to fund a fight.

I honestly think if we want a new airport for the area/region the Camp Pendleton location IS viable. Politically and operationally.

Do understand that I not trying be too argumentative. Just stating what I THINK are the realities here. I am waiting to be yelled at now.

Tug

[Edited 2006-05-16 22:57:41]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineWarmNuts From United States of America, joined May 2006, 110 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 2):
The Miramar site is a joke... It will never happen there, it is politically impossible. Also I would point that NO new modern airport has been built with the US in the MIDDLE of a city! you put airports at the perimeter and let industry build out to it.

With all due respect, would you please care to qualify that remark? Miramar has been identified as the most feasible solution by steering committees internal and external to the SDRAT (at least as per the msot recent studies and analysis).

While there are numerous reasons one may cite to argue for Miramar remaining in military hands (after all, if it was such a simple issue, it would have been resolved long ago...), to say "never" seems awfully shortsighted and overly simplistic.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 7):
For some areas the noise impact improves (to the east which I am assuming will be the approach side) while the west will have a much greater impact due to the longer, slower climb and roll out required for passenger jets. the current military departure routes cut very short and head north toward the space between Torrey Pines and Cardiff. I of course know that engine-wise the commercial planes will be WAY quieter than anything military.

It won't just improve to the east. BTW, the east is the least populated area surrounding Miramar. Do you have any data to substantiate your assertion that the net noise polution would be greater with the projected commercial traffic in 5,10, or 15 years (taking into account new noise reduction technologies) than it is now with the current level of military traffic?

BTW, current military flight paths routinely bring Hornets over our neck of the woods -- +/- 6-8 miles NNE -- directly overhead. I'll take the significantly quiter commercial a/c anyday, which would most likely be routed further east in their approach anyway.

As both an "area resident" of Miramar and a resident of North County, I know for a fact I am not alone when I say we would be more than happy to see Miramar become the site of our new airport, for a multitude of reasons. I wouldn't be too quick to speak on behalf of all us North County residents, please...  Smile

On the flip side, the idea of a keeping our beloved SAN and taking a dedicated tunnel rail transport to the new SAN sattelite terminal on North Island makes me, well...


 drool   bouncy   drool   bouncy   drool   bouncy   drool   bouncy   drool 

I'd happily drive the extra miles for that experience, seven days a week, practicality be damned...  Smile


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):
Now the argumentative side of me says that the commission, study, and report was done with one goal in mind and nothing would be done to undermine that goal. Of course that not a very fair thing to say so I won't. Only conspiracy nuts would say such a thing.

And the sensible side should tell you that it has to stand up in court and would thus be a foolish move to not have the study be objective - this is after all taking place in California.  

[Edited 2006-05-16 22:59:26]

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2895 times:

Quoting WarmNuts (Reply 14):
On the flip side, the idea of a keeping our beloved SAN and taking a dedicated tunnel rail transport to the new SAN sattelite terminal on North Island makes me, well...

drool bouncy drool bouncy drool bouncy drool bouncy drool

I'd happily drive the extra miles for that experience, seven days a week, practicality be damned...


I'll defintiely "ME TOO!" that!

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
And the sensible side should tell you that it has to stand up in court and would thus be a foolish move to not have the study be objective - this is after all taking place in California.

And the sensible side of me agrees! But think of the court battles and road blocks to come if they do go for Miramar (from the government and military as well as the motivated public.) I really just would like the airport issues finished and that won't happen until a new airport site is possible.

Tug

[Edited 2006-05-16 23:05:41]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 16):
I'll defintiely "ME TOO!" that!

Need a place for the carriers. Never the less, imagine close parallel north/south runways with Lindbergh as Ticket counters, parking and a tunnel access. That would be slick. Then again, Coronado peeps would come completely unglued. Truth is, with that layout people could sit on the beach and watch planes take off and land about a 1/2 mile out and the planes wouldn't fly over homes at all. The cross wind becomes an issue with Lindberghs runway being open. The study doesn't say anything about Lindberghs runway being closed.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 16):
I really just would like the airport issues finished and that won't happen until a new airport site is possible.

No doubt man. No doubt.

[Edited 2006-05-16 23:07:13]

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 17):
The study doesn't say anything about Lindberghs runway being closed.

I remember seeing something saying that the departure path would turn over the bay/airport and merge with SAN. It was in the newspaper a couple of months ago.

And you are right about the Coronado people, "Unglued" is putting it mildly.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2793 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 18):
And you are right about the Coronado people, "Unglued" is putting it mildly

What is the extent of Navy flight operations at the moment?
Any of those loud turboprops going in and out of there?
Fighters?
AF Cargo haulers?

The one PDF I was reading was over 70 pages...needless to say, didn't get it all in.....but I was looking for traffic predictions.

How much is San Diego expected to grow in annual boardings? Currently?

San Diego, like San Jose to the north have reached population plateaus...so I must question some of the more extravagant parts of the recommendations...like anything over 3 runways might be overkill. (SJC is virtually flat...PDX and IND are growing faster than SAN...

I don't want to get off into a landuse tangent...but considering this little nugget, which blows my mind BTW,

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
The military has about 40% of the land in San Diego County. About 200,000 acres.

What little land there is left to develop, because of its scarcity, is going to be priced well beyond the range of the average family....unless the bottom of the market falls out.
My point is, Planning a "Uber-Airport" is all well and good, but it needs to be utilized to its greatest potential. If San Diego (and I am going to just throw out a number here) expects to see an increase of 20 million passengers in the next 25 years....where are these passengers going to come from?

How many passengers bypass Lindbergh and go straight to LAX for greater choice in destinations and airlines?

The Pendleton site makes me uneasy, just because it is too far. Makes me think of Montreal in a way....but that is only if Lindbergh was left open, hell, we could have another DFW/DAL debacle on our hands in 25 years....that is what I see the Pendleton site becoming.
How long has it taken Dulles to catch on? Same thing.

It is imperative to put this new airport as close to central San Diego as possible, the population has been spoiled by having a nice convenient downtown airport for too long...it will be like moving heaven and earth to change their habits.....it ain't going to happen overnight.

Promise, my last question.....
Does San Diego forfeit any airline service at the moment?
What I am getting at is, let's just pretend its 2020, the new San Diego airport is open, would we say, see an airline with a California-centric network being able to thrive whereas currently that type of airline is out of the question? I am thinking of an airline that serves with high-frequency service places like: Monterey, Fresno, Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, Yuma, Medford, San Luis Obispo or Modesto.......

Alright...chew on that gentlemen.



Delete this User
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 19):
What is the extent of Navy flight operations at the moment?
Any of those loud turboprops going in and out of there?
Fighters?
AF Cargo haulers?

About zip. Mostly Helo training.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 19):
How much is San Diego expected to grow in annual boardings? Currently?

From:

http://www.san.org/authority/assp/faq.asp

Passenger traffic at the airport is forecast to grow from 17.5 million passengers in 2005 to between 27.1 million and 32.7 million annual passengers in 2030. At approximately 24 million annual passengers, airport facilities will begin to constrain the rate of passenger growth.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 19):
but that is only if Lindbergh was left open, hell, we could have another DFW/DAL debacle on our hands in 25 years....

The difference is that a single agency would operate both airports, thus being able to control use. Hopefully not breaking any new legal ground.  

Quoting Stirling (Reply 19):
How long has it taken Dulles to catch on? Same thing.

Sort of. The main driver would be the fact that both Orange County and Lindbergh would be total toast in terms of capacity at that point. If both had similar gate and passenger limitations, it would drive service to the new airport. Shrink SANs runway too. Key to sucess is a high speed link, which I don't see in the proposals, but a Maglev/High Speed Rail route is already planned regionally in the same time frame though that area.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 19):
Does San Diego forfeit any airline service at the moment?

An A330-200 and 767-300/400 cannot go full range, nor can the 787 which would make International options viable vs 747/777 service. Something like 1200 a day fly to LAX to connect to International Flights, and nearly the same drive. It makes it hard to guage. Pendlton woukd be closer to the heavy Asain population in Orange County which would be an interesting dynamic - drive time Pendleton is probably closer than LAX. As LAX becomes more constrained, there is the spillage opportunity to capture - airlines would rather add SAN/Pendleton for different capture than duplicate service at ONT - Miramar woudl be optimum for service spillage - not unlike Frankfurt/Munich/Cologne - FRA the king pin, MUC/CGN with service to key markets, but not a flood of them. Domestically, there's service, but they are also in a gate crunch right now that's limiting new service. I know a few years ago JetBlue wanted to make SAN a focus city.

The curfew and terrain is just killing SAN. New technology will probably net about 8-10% more capacity, no curfew ads another 1-2%. A long enough runway without terrain probably unloads half the commuter flights in a swap for International.

[Edited 2006-05-17 07:02:20]

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Hey I just realized that the report is calling for joint use for Miramar, not just a commercial/civilian airport.

That means the worst of both worlds for the surrounding communities: The same military jet noise and operations AND the addition of passenger jets and the business to support the airport. While there is "no direct effect" (which I have to review but I believe means that the noise level is below 65db) on the surrounding communities for noise there is ADDED noise.

Won't that make the people happy.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20):
Passenger traffic at the airport is forecast to grow from 17.5 million passengers in 2005 to between 27.1 million and 32.7 million annual passengers in 2030.

I think that might be a tad optimistic.
One more favor  Smile What does the trend look like since de-regulation?

As I mentioned in my prior post, San Diego is reaching capacity, and then when factored in that the Feds control 40% of the region's real estate....unless a lot of that is put back into the public domain, I don't see the correlation. (yet) Unless, growth is going to go East.....into the desert and mountains, and I don't really see that happening.....

Don't read me wrong, I am not arguing against a new airport for San Diego, since one has been needed for over 40 years, for other reasons besides capacity, my concern lay in the projected passenger numbers might aggrandize more airport (and capital expense) than what is actually needed.

But then this pops up:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20):
Pendlton woukd be closer to the heavy Asain population in Orange County which would be an interesting dynamic - drive time Pendleton is probably closer than LAX

Could the new SAN airport be a backdoor answer to some of the LA congestion issues?

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the runway alignment at Pendleton would not impact SNA operations?

But I agree, to make this work, an intermodal consensus must be brought to the table in the preliminary stages....Especially if Pendleton were to become the selected location.....An airport that distance from the San Diego CBD, without rapid transit, could become the proverbial white elephant, especially if Lindbergh remains open, regardless if a regional airport authority is created....

The more I think about it, an unrestricted airport between LA and San Diego makes perfect sense....It would not be a stretch to think OC would use it, but what about the rest of SoCal?



Delete this User
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

This article was posted over in another thread.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060517/news_1n17miramar.html

Quote:
Directly contradicting senior Pentagon officials' views, a new report analyzing the region's future airport options states that joint use of Miramar Marine Corps Air Station can be accomplished with no “unacceptable interference” to the military mission of the base, defense readiness or civilian passenger safety.



Quote:
Three board members oppose all of the military options, saying they accept the idea that “no means no.”

[quote]The views of the other six range from noncommittal to that of executive board member William Lynch, who said, “We have no place else to go . . . for this region except to Miramar.

So far, what we have is 9-3 in favor of Miramar.....but if G.I. Joe says "NO", is there recourse? What power has the authority to tell the Navy to "Go pound sand!"?

Quote:
A joint operation at Miramar, with a two-runway civilian airport to replace Lindbergh Field, would require the Marines to move some of their training and facilities to other parts of the 23,000-acre base, yesterday's report said.

23,000 Acres!?

Does the DoD have enough room?

I will say it again, Federal land use needs to consolidate in the San Diego region. There is no need for the nation's Pacific defense burden to be shouldered solely by the residents of San Diego County.



Delete this User
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

I have to correct myself, there will be a direct effect from the noise.
From the San Diego Union Tribune (local newspaper):

"Col. Michael Brooker, director of aviation policy for Marine Corps Installations West said ....joint use of Miramar violates criteria used to screen out other airport options.

Some 10,765 residential units and 18,471 people are projected to fall within a zone of excessive noise if commercial aircraft and fighter jets both use Miramar - an increase of 6,481 and 15,559, respectively, over current conditions. "

As I had noted earlier, joint ops will cause more noise. And I will say again that if Lindbergh has limited hours because of its noise and location near residents then any Miramar Airport will also not be a 24 hour operation.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
25 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : Something like 5% in 2004 and 7% increase last year. Total pax have doubled in the last 20 years. Since early 70's, gates have gone from 18 to 45. Op
26 Stirling : Does that have enough teeth? What I mean...limiting the max gross to 150K, leaves A LOT on the table...I would think something more strict....lopping
27 Post contains images Boeing7E7 : The "great quake".....
28 PSA727 : I can't believe they would even put North Island as an option. Too much infrastructure work would need to be done for the public to access this. But m
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Update On New San Diego Airport Site Selection posted Fri Oct 3 2003 19:03:21 by North County
San Diego Airport Panel Aims To Pick Site June 5 posted Fri May 5 2006 19:37:27 by KarlB737
Movie About San Francisco Airport posted Tue Oct 24 2006 18:29:08 by Mrcomet
Pol's Try To Pull The Plug On SAN New Airport posted Fri Sep 8 2006 21:20:29 by Boeing7E7
San Bernardino Airport Runway Can Accomodate A380 posted Tue Dec 6 2005 22:11:35 by KarlB737
SAN Releases Survey Data And Traffic Figures posted Fri Feb 18 2005 06:37:58 by Boeing7E7
San Diego Airport Authority Sues Port District posted Fri Nov 21 2003 15:11:34 by BoingGoingGone
Airport Site Maps On The Net posted Mon Oct 27 2003 17:17:20 by N6801
Driver Crashes Through San Diego Airport Fence posted Thu Oct 16 2003 14:53:44 by Luv2fly
San Diego Airport's New Terminal? posted Thu Aug 14 2003 19:09:42 by Hockey55dude