FATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5938 posts, RR: 27 Posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3390 times:
The FAA has sent the Burbank Airport a letter saying it will not require a new terminal to be built at BUR. The FAA had been a supporter of attempts to build a new terminal for safety reasons since the current building is only 300 feet from active runways.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4608 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3367 times:
What a mess. People in Burbank continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Yeah, a convenient airport that saves millions of people hours of driving time to LAX (and saves the LA area some air pollution) is just such a horrible thing. I'd like to know when most people living in Burbank today moved there. It was probably long after BUR was built.
Folks in the LA area seem utterly determined to keep their air transportation system gridlocked--be it BUR, LAX, LGB, or SNA. They shouldn't complain when they spend more time in traffic than in the air. At least ONT was able to get its new terminals built.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
Tom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3356 times:
I miss a lot of things about SoCal, since I moved to MSY in 1987, my family being the obvious primary one.
Two things I don't miss: the NIMBY's (although we have a few here), and the bureaucrats. Those two are main reasons way things don't get accomplished in SoCal. I've said this in this forum many times: I participated on BUR's Part 150 Technical Advisory Committee for two years before I moved here, which involved studying the new terminal. The biggest headache were the NIMBY's.
Apparently, the FAA doesn't believe a new terminal will ever happen (which I happen to agree with), which is why they want their grant monies back. Of course, since BUR has already bought up some property, the FAA will never get all of it back.
Also, yes, ONT did get their new terminal completed, but it was over 10+ years late.
Finally, if you want to study the primary example of the NIMBY's, environmentalists, and politicians fighting each other over a project, look no further than the I-210 (Foothill Frewway) extension thru Laverne, Claremont, Upland, Cucamonga, etc. That thing was due back in the 70's, and I believe it opens this month.
Tom in NO (at MSY)
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
Jabpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3336 times:
I am a 34 year BUR resident and am absolutely disgusted by the residents of this city. I of course wanted a new terminal built on the former Lockheed property but am one of the very few who think the airport is a good thing! Of course alot of Burbank residents USE the airport but don't want to see an improvement!? Some of my neighbors have also lived here since the DC9 and 727 dominated the airport, along with numerous daily flights of Lockheed aircraft out of BUR but complain about the today's Stage 3 departures. The NIMBY's in this area have won. The Lockheed B-6 property is going to be sold and it appears we are stuck with a 60+ year old terminal. On a positive note...it is definately one of the most nostalgic airport terminals still in use.
FATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5938 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3292 times:
It's so bad in Southern California these days that Bakersfield (90 miles north of Burbank) is now being broached as one answer to the airport mess. BFL is nearing a start on a new terminal and concourse on the south side of the runways, which would provide easier access to 99. With LA's northern sprawl crossing the Grapevine toward Bakersfield and now this, it should increase that talk.
Palmdale is getting more complicated as a future option since the Air Force is discussing shutting down the Plant 42 runways. Unless LA can retain control of the runways, Palmdale would be useless.
"Los Angeles eyes Air Force Plant 42 airfield takeover" http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg23768.html
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3284 times:
Plant 42 will never become a serious alternate, IMO. They've been talking about using the Antelope Valley as an alternate for decades -- heck, at one time they were talking about building an entire airport from scratch in Lancaster, a few miles north of Plant 42.
And you might just be better off still doing so, if you were going to think you could drag folks out 60+ miles to an airport!
1) there's no real infrastructure at PMD right now. Okay, you've got two runways, but they aren't parallel. So you'd have one useful runway and have to build the rest.
2) with the variance in the winds you'd need to strongly building full sets of parallel runways on two different angles.
3) Palmdale is getting more built up by the day; give it 10 years and you'll be hitting the same issues again (not that Lancaster would be much better)
And an Antelope Valley site will have more conflicting departure issues, since you cannot bring traffic in from the east on the north side of the airport due to R-2501 (Edwards AFB).
The true answer is, we have to live with the fact that society as a whole is getting larger and more problematic. Stage IV will hopefully help with some of the NIMBYism; I think it's time to start pushing it.