Rising waters - A wall around SFO

lindy field · Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:53 pm

Hi all,

I thought this was noteworthy. A report appeared in yesterday's Santa Cruz Sentinel (strangely not in the San Francisco Chronicle, as far as I can tell), that SFO
officials are now moving forward with a plan to build a new, higher seawall all the way around SFO (including the landside) that is intended to protect the airport from
anticipated sea level rise through 2085. Construction is set to begin in 2025. See the article here:
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2019/10/10/sfo-plans-to-surround-airport-with-10-mile-wall-to-protect-against-rising-bay-waters-2/

OAK is also planning to increase the height of its surrounding dikes next year. I'm curious about what other low-lying airports, such as SAN, are doing to plan for rising sea levels, and if, in situations in which airports cannot be easily relocated or expanded, if seawalls are the only/best solution.

Thanks and regards,

Edward

BravoOne · Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:55 pm

I can can see it now. An aircraft lands short in the bay and compromises the wall in the process. Next the entire airport is under one foot of water. What could go wrong? Ditto for a terrorist attack.

This not as far fetched as one might imagine. Back in the late seventies the run off into the Great Salt Lake was so great that they installed pumps in the lake at great expense so as to keep the rising waters from overflowing onto the airport amongst other things. About the time they got this set up, the waters receded, never again to get that high. I think they actually removed the pumps later on.

FredrikHAD · Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:08 pm

BravoOne, have you ever been to the Netherlands? Those walls will handle any aircraft craching into them. Surely the walls at SFO will be constructed with this in mind.

C525C · Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:28 pm

BravoOne wrote:
I can can see it now. An aircraft lands short in the bay and compromises the wall in the process. Next the entire airport is under one foot of water. What could go wrong? Ditto for a terrorist attack.

This not as far fetched as one might imagine. Back in the late seventies the run off into the Great Salt Lake was so great that they installed pumps in the lake at great expense so as to keep the rising waters from overflowing onto the airport amongst other things. About the time they got this set up, the waters receded, never again to get that high. I think they actually removed the pumps later on.

Wrong decade. The pumps were installed in the late 1980's after the '83 flood. Pumps went operational in 1987 and were mothballed by 1989.

litz · Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:51 pm

I'd say Asiana proved that when it's airplane vs wall, the wall clearly wins every single time.

BravoOne · Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:53 pm

FredrikHAD wrote:
BravoOne, have you ever been to the Netherlands? Those walls will handle any aircraft craching into them. Surely the walls at SFO will be constructed with this in mind.

I'm Dutch and and have been there many times but I have never examined the walls.

Maverick623 · Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:53 pm

Interestingly, PHX of all places had issues with flooding up until the late 80s. The airport is right on the north bank of the Salt River, which in that area was more of a braided stream. During heavy rains and floods, the south (current center) runway was overrun for the first 1500 feet or so.

This was fixed when the river was channelized with walls and the east third of the runway raised on infill in the late 80s/early 90s.

mga707 · Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:52 pm

Maverick623 wrote:
Interestingly, PHX of all places had issues with flooding up until the late 80s. The airport is right on the north bank of the Salt River, which in that area was more of a braided stream. During heavy rains and floods, the south (current center) runway was overrun for the first 1500 feet or so.

This was fixed when the river was channelized with walls and the east third of the runway raised on infill in the late 80s/early 90s.

Quite true. The historic flood of October 1983 impacted the airport, along with taking out the I-10 bridge and over the Gila River (which the Salt runs into) and causing massive damage. By the time of the somewhat less damaging January 1993 flooding I believe the Salt had been channelized and the airport was not flooded.

mga707 · Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:54 pm

litz wrote:
I'd say Asiana proved that when it's airplane vs wall, the wall clearly wins every single time.

Beat me to it, was going to say that they're just giving Asiana a bigger target...

ChasChandler · Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:23 pm

For those of you not from the US, whenever our government tells you the cost of something, you can expect to double or triple it. The way I'm lookin at this is the couple of billion dollars spent on this wall is money pissed right down the drain.,

frmrCapCadet · Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:21 pm

litz wrote:
I'd say Asiana proved that when it's airplane vs wall, the wall clearly wins every single time.

Roughly speaking it is a matter of mass versus mass. The wall prevails - overwhelming more mass.

AirFiero · Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:27 pm

ChasChandler wrote:
For those of you not from the US, whenever our government tells you the cost of something, you can expect to double or triple it. The way I'm lookin at this is the couple of billion dollars spent on this wall is money pissed right down the drain.,

Especially since sea level rise is only a couple of millimeters per year, and has slowed not increased.

petertenthije · Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:37 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Especially since sea level rise is only a couple of millimeters per year, and has slowed not increased.

Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

patrickjp93 · Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:41 pm

mga707 wrote:
litz wrote:
I'd say Asiana proved that when it's airplane vs wall, the wall clearly wins every single time.

Beat me to it, was going to say that they're just giving Asiana a bigger target...

Time to try with an A380 :mrgreen:

patrickjp93 · Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:45 pm

petertenthije wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Especially since sea level rise is only a couple of millimeters per year, and has slowed not increased.

Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

Well then, rather than investing in walls which have to be replaced every 50 years or so at ridiculous expense, why not just go with desalination plants to siphon out sea water? Lord knows people love their sea salt. And the water can be pumped up to the reservoirs or go to the desserts where we can set up some drip irrigation forests like Israel did. People, seriously, this isn't that hard, and just like the U.S. border, a wall is hardly the intelligent solution with the data we have.

September11 · Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:45 pm

About time. This has been discussed for years!

strfyr51 · Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:54 pm

There's already a sea wall at the east end of RWY 19 and the south end of RWY-28 If the Bay increased it would take out most of south Airport Road and a bunch of Hotels down there much less flood the east-west runways.

petertenthije · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:05 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Well then, rather than investing in walls which have to be replaced every 50 years or so at ridiculous expense, why not just go with desalination plants to siphon out sea water?

Did you really just suggest to siphon out 3 mm (possibly more) of ocean water every year? Have you got any clue how much water that is?

The ocean's surface is 361.9 million square KM. (1)
That's 361,900,000,000,000 square meter
If you take out a MM you end up with 361,900,000,000 Cu-M.
The combined global desalination output is 86.550.000 Cu-M per day (2)
That's approximately 31.590.750.000 Cu-M per year.
For every MM of decrease, the total global desalination output would need to increase by 10.
So for 3 mm you are looking at a 30 to 35 times increase.

Keeping in mind that desalination also requires tremendous levels of energy. So not only are you paying for the desalination, you are also paying for power plants as well as running costs and upkeep for both the desalination and power plants. You'll also need to make bassins to store the water. And because water evaporates it will end up in the ocean regardless.

Flood defences will be cheaper for sure.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
(2) https://iwa-network.org/desalination-pa ... nt-future/

SheikhDjibouti · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:07 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Well then, rather than investing in walls which have to be replaced every 50 years or so at ridiculous expense, why not just go with desalination plants to siphon out sea water? Lord knows people love their sea salt. And the water can be pumped up to the reservoirs or go to the desserts where we can set up some drip irrigation forests like Israel did. People, seriously, this isn't that hard,

Good one. For a minute there I thought you were actually serious. :rotfl:

strfyr51 · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:13 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Especially since sea level rise is only a couple of millimeters per year, and has slowed not increased.

Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

Well then, rather than investing in walls which have to be replaced every 50 years or so at ridiculous expense, why not just go with desalination plants to siphon out sea water? Lord knows people love their sea salt. And the water can be pumped up to the reservoirs or go to the desserts where we can set up some drip irrigation forests like Israel did. People, seriously, this isn't that hard, and just like the U.S. border, a wall is hardly the intelligent solution with the data we have.

If the environmentalists opposed parking LOT for some lousy Snail Darter Lizard when United wanted to build one? And Opposed offsetting Runway 28R out into the Bay for environmental reasons YET to be explained? What gives you the impression they'd go for this? Offsetting the Runways would have eliminated the restrictions for Parallel Landings in less than VFR weather and Bay Fog. I see the only solution is to MOVE SFO to near Travis AFB near Fairfield.

patrickjp93 · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:26 am

petertenthije wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Well then, rather than investing in walls which have to be replaced every 50 years or so at ridiculous expense, why not just go with desalination plants to siphon out sea water?
Did you really just suggest to siphon out 3 mm (possibly more) of ocean water every year? Have you got any clue how much water that is?

The ocean's surface is 361.9 million square KM. (1)
That's 361,900,000,000,000 square meter
If you take out a MM you end up with 361,900,000,000 Cu-M.
The combined global desalination output is 86.550.000 Cu-M per day (2)
That's approximately 31.590.750.000 Cu-M per year.
For every MM of decrease, the total global desalination output would need to increase by 10.
So for 3 mm you are looking at a 30 to 35 times increase.

Keeping in mind that desalination also requires tremendous levels of energy. So not only are you paying for the desalination, you are also paying for power plants as well as running costs and upkeep for both the desalination and power plants. You'll also need to make bassins to store the water. And because water evaporates it will end up in the ocean regardless.

Flood defences will be cheaper for sure.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
(2) https://iwa-network.org/desalination-pa ... nt-future/

Don't cite wikipedia for God's sake. These days it's a known source of error.

Yes, a 10X growth in capacity is far from unprecedented. That's less than 1 desalination plant per ocean-coastal country.

SheikhDjibouti · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:36 am

petertenthije wrote:
The ocean's surface is 361.9 million square KM. (1)
That's 361,900,000,000,000 square meter
If you take out a MM you end up with 361,900,000,000 Cu-M.
The combined global desalination output is 86.550.000 Cu-M per day (2)
That's approximately 31.590.750.000 Cu-M per year.
For every MM of decrease, the total global desalination output would need to increase by 10.

Straight off, I said to myself "that last number doesn't smell right".
In fact, I took it with a pinch of salt.

But you are only out by a factor of 10, so meh.
Try "global desalination output would need to increase by 100"

Seriously! Check your numbers. :yes:

So for 3 mm you are looking at a 300 to 350 times increase.

That would require another 30,000 desalination plants of the size of Ras Al-Khair (the largest in the world)

The good news is that the program would create jobs for 105 million permanent employees. :bigthumbsup:

patrickjp93 wrote:
Don't cite wikipedia for God's sake. These days it's a known source of error.

There ya go again, cracking me up. :rotfl:

Babyshark · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:38 am

What is the height the sea level is supposed to be anyways?

USAirKid · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:45 am

strfyr51 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

Well then, rather than investing in walls which have to be replaced every 50 years or so at ridiculous expense, why not just go with desalination plants to siphon out sea water? Lord knows people love their sea salt. And the water can be pumped up to the reservoirs or go to the desserts where we can set up some drip irrigation forests like Israel did. People, seriously, this isn't that hard, and just like the U.S. border, a wall is hardly the intelligent solution with the data we have.

If the environmentalists opposed parking LOT for some lousy Snail Darter Lizard when United wanted to build one? And Opposed offsetting Runway 28R out into the Bay for environmental reasons YET to be explained? What gives you the impression they'd go for this? Offsetting the Runways would have eliminated the restrictions for Parallel Landings in less than VFR weather and Bay Fog. I see the only solution is to MOVE SFO to near Travis AFB near Fairfield.

RTFA! The article in question covers that environmentalists are okay with building a seawall around the existing SFO footprint.

USAirKid · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:47 am

ChasChandler wrote:
For those of you not from the US, whenever our government tells you the cost of something, you can expect to double or triple it. The way I'm lookin at this is the couple of billion dollars spent on this wall is money pissed right down the drain.,

Governments can and do deliver projects on time and on budget, we just don't hear about it when they do. Sound Transit is a good example of an agency that has met, and continues to meet its budgets and schedules.

That being said companies aren't good at this either, they have cost overruns all the time, its just not necessarily as public as it is for a government project.

ltbewr · Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:49 am

I suspect many airports near tidal waters, like here in the NYC area of JFK, LGA & EWR, will have to put up major dike structures as seas rise and in storms cause major flooding and disruption of them.

Babyshark · Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:07 am

ltbewr wrote:
I suspect many airports near tidal waters, like here in the NYC area of JFK, LGA & EWR, will have to put up major dike structures as seas rise and in storms cause major flooding and disruption of them.

Or they could do nothing and be just fine

Alnicocunife · Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:29 am

Why not just build a lock under the Golden Gate Bridge to control the water? It is only about 1 mile wide and should use the same technique as some areas in the Netherlands.I believe there is enough water running into the bay from multiple directions so as not to get stale. Bonus might be to have a huge fresh water "lake" to assist with water issues in California.

acavpics · Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:19 am

Well then, lets just keep our fingers crossed that another OZ214 doesn't happen.

DL717 · Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:10 am

Babyshark wrote:
What is the height the sea level is supposed to be anyways?

Sea Level.

At least SFO will be prepared for 2200 when it will possibly matter. Then again, the concrete will have come apart by then.

seb146 · Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:56 am

One of the questions the OP has is airports in danger of flooding. What about MKC and MSY? MKC is right on the Missouri River so they have had to deal with flooding, I think, and MSY is below sea level, IIRC. YVR, JNU, SIT, KTN, OTH are all right on the ocean, too.

SkyVoice · Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:25 am

Hmm, maybe now is the time to study the idea of bringing back seaplanes!

AirFiero · Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:43 pm

petertenthije wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Especially since sea level rise is only a couple of millimeters per year, and has slowed not increased.

Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

The sea level trend starts BEFORE any possible anthropogenic contribution was possible, the trend line is steady, and the latest trend is flattening. There is no sea level threat.

Extreme weather is NOT on the increase, by any measure. For example, number of hurricanes, hurricane strength and world wide cyclonic energy (called ACE, or Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is NOT increasing and is in fact slightly decreasing.

Link, published papers linked there, note the first graph) https://policlimate.com/tropical/

B757Forever · Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:05 pm

Alnicocunife wrote:
Why not just build a lock under the Golden Gate Bridge to control the water? It is only about 1 mile wide and should use the same technique as some areas in the Netherlands.I believe there is enough water running into the bay from multiple directions so as not to get stale. Bonus might be to have a huge fresh water "lake" to assist with water issues in California.

The dutch were the first to do this.

seb146 · Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:00 pm

AirFiero wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Especially since sea level rise is only a couple of millimeters per year, and has slowed not increased.

Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

The sea level trend starts BEFORE any possible anthropogenic contribution was possible, the trend line is steady, and the latest trend is flattening. There is no sea level threat.

Extreme weather is NOT on the increase, by any measure. For example, number of hurricanes, hurricane strength and world wide cyclonic energy (called ACE, or Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is NOT increasing and is in fact slightly decreasing.

Link, published papers linked there, note the first graph) https://policlimate.com/tropical/

Note the second and fourth graphs that show major hurricanes are on the rise and both global and Northern Hemisphere cyclone energy are on the rise.

The page also only accounts for tropical storms since the 1970s and not since records have been kept. I think those graphs would show an increase in storm strength. We are currently seeing storms increasing in strength. Because the strong storms have happened in the past 20 years, it is hard to see a trend. Go look at NOAA charts and graphs.

meecrob · Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:03 pm

AirFiero wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Especially since sea level rise is only a couple of millimeters per year, and has slowed not increased.

Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

The sea level trend starts BEFORE any possible anthropogenic contribution was possible, the trend line is steady, and the latest trend is flattening. There is no sea level threat.

Extreme weather is NOT on the increase, by any measure. For example, number of hurricanes, hurricane strength and world wide cyclonic energy (called ACE, or Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is NOT increasing and is in fact slightly decreasing.

Link, published papers linked there, note the first graph) https://policlimate.com/tropical/

The same first graph that shows an increase in "Major Hurricanes (>96kt wind)"? The last graph on the page you linked to literally shows an increase in global ACE...the exact opposite of what you stated in your reply. You can't look at only the information that supports your point and ignore the rest.

EDIT: Evidently seb146 can type faster than me.

Tugger · Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:36 pm

Babyshark wrote:
What is the height the sea level is supposed to be anyways?

Apparently they just need to add 3mm a year!

I suggest doing in ten year's worth for each increase, so a 3cm wall every10 years should do it. :laughing:

Tugg

seb146 · Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:31 am

Tugger wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
What is the height the sea level is supposed to be anyways?

Apparently they just need to add 3mm a year!

I suggest doing in ten year's worth for each increase, so a 3cm wall every10 years should do it.

Tugg

So, Denver can no longer claim to be the Mile High City? I got my picture taken on the steps of the Colorado State House with a group of excited Danish tourists. Now it is all a lie?

This would sound hilarious with my sarcastic tone........

AirFiero · Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:59 pm

seb146 wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

The sea level trend starts BEFORE any possible anthropogenic contribution was possible, the trend line is steady, and the latest trend is flattening. There is no sea level threat.

Extreme weather is NOT on the increase, by any measure. For example, number of hurricanes, hurricane strength and world wide cyclonic energy (called ACE, or Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is NOT increasing and is in fact slightly decreasing.

Link, published papers linked there, note the first graph) https://policlimate.com/tropical/

Note the second and fourth graphs that show major hurricanes are on the rise and both global and Northern Hemisphere cyclone energy are on the rise.

The page also only accounts for tropical storms since the 1970s and not since records have been kept. I think those graphs would show an increase in storm strength. We are currently seeing storms increasing in strength. Because the strong storms have happened in the past 20 years, it is hard to see a trend. Go look at NOAA charts and graphs.

No, they are not on the rise. That is NOAA data.

AirFiero · Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:00 pm

meecrob wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
Sea level is still rising. If you look at the last 20 years the increase is stable. If you look at the past 140 years the increase goes slightly up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yes, you are right that the increase is only a few MM per year. But the average increase is not the problem here. You should not look at the regular sea level, but at the highest possible sea level. These are typically caused by weather (storm/rain/hurricanes/...). Extreme weather is on the increase and flood defences need to be capable of handling them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/extr ... ing-2016-3

The sea level trend starts BEFORE any possible anthropogenic contribution was possible, the trend line is steady, and the latest trend is flattening. There is no sea level threat.

Extreme weather is NOT on the increase, by any measure. For example, number of hurricanes, hurricane strength and world wide cyclonic energy (called ACE, or Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is NOT increasing and is in fact slightly decreasing.

Link, published papers linked there, note the first graph) https://policlimate.com/tropical/

The same first graph that shows an increase in "Major Hurricanes (>96kt wind)"? The last graph on the page you linked to literally shows an increase in global ACE...the exact opposite of what you stated in your reply. You can't look at only the information that supports your point and ignore the rest.

EDIT: Evidently seb146 can type faster than me.

Wrong. The trend line is right on the graph, and it is downward.

petertenthije · Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:05 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Wrong. The trend line is right on the graph, and it is downward.

There are two trend lines.

The >=64 knots trend is down.
The >=96 knots trend is up.

The latter one is the one you should pay attention to. Those storms cause the major damages. The former are less significant storms.

meecrob · Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:10 pm

AirFiero: I hope you are just trolling, because if these are the opinions you formed after extensive research, we are in for a shit show if you are indicative of the broader climate hoaxer thought process.

seb146 · Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:44 am

And what about Maho Beach at SXM?

frmrCapCadet · Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:27 pm

USAirKid wrote:
ChasChandler wrote:
For those of you not from the US, whenever our government tells you the cost of something, you can expect to double or triple it. The way I'm lookin at this is the couple of billion dollars spent on this wall is money pissed right down the drain.,

Governments can and do deliver projects on time and on budget, we just don't hear about it when they do. Sound Transit is a good example of an agency that has met, and continues to meet its budgets and schedules.

That being said companies aren't good at this either, they have cost overruns all the time, its just not necessarily as public as it is for a government project.

And we could add that Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Lockheed (F36 anyone) are illustrations of capitalism's efficiency, probity, and exemplars of avoiding expensive (dare I say it) Edsels.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net