User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:54 pm

phllax wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
r2rho wrote:
According to Wikipedia, there is a new station being built close to where the proposed terminal will be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hope_ ... nk_station)

V/F


That station is on the Antelope Valley line. The existing station is on the Ventura line, and also is a stop for Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner.


So run a shuttle.

MIflyer12 wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
This should have been done 10 years ago. The fact that something this simple needs voter approval is pathetic.


Darn, isn't democracy and rule of law inconvenient. Dictatorships can build in much shorter timelines!

In 2000, Burbank voters approved a ballot initiative that requires voter approval of any discretionary agreement between the City and the Airport Authority regarding a replacement terminal.

http://burreplacementterminal.com/faq/


Safety should guide all of this, not uninformed voters. They aren't proposing additional capacity, just a safer facility.
Last edited by Boeing717200 on Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9272
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:05 pm

Boeing717200 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
This should have been done 10 years ago. The fact that something this simple needs voter approval is pathetic.


Darn, isn't democracy and rule of law inconvenient. Dictatorships can build in much shorter timelines!

In 2000, Burbank voters approved a ballot initiative that requires voter approval of any discretionary agreement between the City and the Airport Authority regarding a replacement terminal.

http://burreplacementterminal.com/faq/


Safety should guide all of this, not uninformed voters. They aren't proposing additional capacity, just a safer facility.


If we let the government waive laws because of "safety," then we no longer live in a free society with due process. That's a dangerous game to play.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:26 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Boeing717200 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Darn, isn't democracy and rule of law inconvenient. Dictatorships can build in much shorter timelines!

In 2000, Burbank voters approved a ballot initiative that requires voter approval of any discretionary agreement between the City and the Airport Authority regarding a replacement terminal.

http://burreplacementterminal.com/faq/


Safety should guide all of this, not uninformed voters. They aren't proposing additional capacity, just a safer facility.


If we let the government waive laws because of "safety," then we no longer live in a free society with due process. That's a dangerous game to play.


The proposed development is on airport property. If it passes environmental muster, then move on. What's dangerous is having a terminal building 250-feet from the centerline of a runway. People on this forum who are aviation buffs and fans don't even understand this. Such a decision should never be in the hands of a local voter, its absurd. Its like asking voters to decide how many fire exits a building needs or how tall a building in an approach path can be.

As I said, they aren't proposing additional capacity. There is nothing to vote on. Its an existing airport with 14 gates and they are proposing 14 gates. The dangerous precedent is asking voters to approve actions on existing facilities when the current facility compromises safety.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
barney captain
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:38 pm

Boeing717 gets it................ :)
Southeast Of Disorder
 
flyingcat
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:33 am

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:43 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Does this mean the new terminal will have jetways and the loss of they wonderful Southern California outdoor boarding?

Long Beach did a great job with new facility while still maintaining their small community feel.


LGB originally wanted jetways however the citizens were up in arms and considered such a design as a surreptitious plan to increase capacity to LAX levels.

Airstairs are quaint but a loading nightmare for the elderly and a huge liability when inevitably someone falls.
 
User avatar
ua900
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:14 am

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:48 pm

LAX can't take on BUR traffic, and BUR was there long before housing started to encroach right next to the airport. FedEx/UPS alone would overwhelm LAX, and no one wants more trucks from ONT to LAX either. If there was a time for government to speak up, it was when the buildings next to the airport went up, home to many of today's NIMBYs. Their construction activity removed opportunities to grow as both planes and passenger counts became bigger, their construction activity created safety hazards that persist to this day.

As for dangerous landings and takeoffs, consider that at LAX 25L you get awfully close to structures and large aircraft all the time, let alone the fact that crossing 25R and 24L is fairly common as well. Add to that the already bad traffic jams on the taxiways and imagine traffic increasing by another 30% or so. LAX congestion should be the only business case you need for keeping BUR, LGB and SNA open and running at as much capacity as possible.
2018: AMS | ARN | CDG | DEN | DFW | EWR | FRA | GUM | HAM | HKG | HNL | IAH | LAX | MIA | MUC | ORD | RSW | SAL | SFO | SIN | TLV | TXL | VIE | ZRH
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9272
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:52 pm

Boeing717200 wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Boeing717200 wrote:



Safety should guide all of this, not uninformed voters. They aren't proposing additional capacity, just a safer facility.


If we let the government waive laws because of "safety," then we no longer live in a free society with due process. That's a dangerous game to play.


The proposed development is on airport property. If it passes environmental muster, then move on. What's dangerous is having a terminal building 250-feet from the centerline of a runway. People on this forum who are aviation buffs and fans don't even understand this. Such a decision should never be in the hands of a local voter, its absurd. Its like asking voters to decide how many fire exits a building needs or how tall a building in an approach path can be.

As I said, they aren't proposing additional capacity. There is nothing to vote on. Its an existing airport with 14 gates and they are proposing 14 gates. The dangerous precedent is asking voters to approve actions on existing facilities when the current facility compromises safety.


I am not disputing the risks of current terminal facility. As I said on the previous page, we shouldn't wait until people are dead to correct an obvious risk.

However, you cannot claim "SAFETY!" to ignore the law. The law says voters get to approve or reject a new terminal facility. So, there absolutely is something to vote on. It is not absurd that the government can only act within the powers delegated to it by the people. That's the founding principle of our government.

If the voters are not willing to approve the new terminal, then the airport will need to find another way to operate safely. Maybe that means ending commercial services and demolishing the current terminal with no replacement. It's not what I want, but democracy does not entitle us to the outcomes we prefer.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:59 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Boeing717200 wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:

If we let the government waive laws because of "safety," then we no longer live in a free society with due process. That's a dangerous game to play.


The proposed development is on airport property. If it passes environmental muster, then move on. What's dangerous is having a terminal building 250-feet from the centerline of a runway. People on this forum who are aviation buffs and fans don't even understand this. Such a decision should never be in the hands of a local voter, its absurd. Its like asking voters to decide how many fire exits a building needs or how tall a building in an approach path can be.

As I said, they aren't proposing additional capacity. There is nothing to vote on. Its an existing airport with 14 gates and they are proposing 14 gates. The dangerous precedent is asking voters to approve actions on existing facilities when the current facility compromises safety.


I am not disputing the risks of current terminal facility. As I said on the previous page, we shouldn't wait until people are dead to correct an obvious risk.

However, you cannot claim "SAFETY!" to ignore the law. The law says voters get to approve or reject a new terminal facility. So, there absolutely is something to vote on. It is not absurd that the government can only act within the powers delegated to it by the people. That's the founding principle of our government.

If the voters are not willing to approve the new terminal, then the airport will need to find another way to operate safely. Maybe that means ending commercial services and demolishing the current terminal with no replacement. It's not what I want, but democracy does not entitle us to the outcomes we prefer.


The airport is operated by a special district, not the City of Burbank. Local communities don't get to effectively close an airport because they don't like it. Deregulation ended that nonsense. An airport can build as many gates as they want within the confines of their footprint and runway capacity provided it meets the environmental requirements. The "voting" public has zero jurisdiction. There isn't even a grandfathered mandatory curfew. If they did half the airports in the country would be voted closed.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9272
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:52 pm

Boeing717200 wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Boeing717200 wrote:

The proposed development is on airport property. If it passes environmental muster, then move on. What's dangerous is having a terminal building 250-feet from the centerline of a runway. People on this forum who are aviation buffs and fans don't even understand this. Such a decision should never be in the hands of a local voter, its absurd. Its like asking voters to decide how many fire exits a building needs or how tall a building in an approach path can be.

As I said, they aren't proposing additional capacity. There is nothing to vote on. Its an existing airport with 14 gates and they are proposing 14 gates. The dangerous precedent is asking voters to approve actions on existing facilities when the current facility compromises safety.


I am not disputing the risks of current terminal facility. As I said on the previous page, we shouldn't wait until people are dead to correct an obvious risk.

However, you cannot claim "SAFETY!" to ignore the law. The law says voters get to approve or reject a new terminal facility. So, there absolutely is something to vote on. It is not absurd that the government can only act within the powers delegated to it by the people. That's the founding principle of our government.

If the voters are not willing to approve the new terminal, then the airport will need to find another way to operate safely. Maybe that means ending commercial services and demolishing the current terminal with no replacement. It's not what I want, but democracy does not entitle us to the outcomes we prefer.


The airport is operated by a special district, not the City of Burbank. Local communities don't get to effectively close an airport because they don't like it. Deregulation ended that nonsense. An airport can build as many gates as they want within the confines of their footprint and runway capacity provided it meets the environmental requirements. The "voting" public has zero jurisdiction. There isn't even a grandfathered mandatory curfew. If they did half the airports in the country would be voted closed.


Your contempt of the public is noted. But really, what planet are you living on? The public doesn't have "jurisdiction" in a matters of public policy? Totally backwards.

At issue here is the land (parcel B-6) for the proposed terminal. The land is owned by the City of Burbank, not the airport authority. The public voted in 2000 that using the City-owned land for a replacement terminal would require voter approval. Simple as that. Burbank residents do not have the power to close the airport, impose curfews or whatever. But, they absolutely have the power to vote on the use of city land.

It's worth noting that there is an alternate site for the replacement terminal at the southwest corner of the field that doesn't require voter approval. I have to assume the B-6 site is preferred for some cost or access reasons or else they probably wouldn't mess with the vote. So there you have it. If you want to use land owned by Burbank residents, you don't get to say "they're stupid, safety is important, screw'em."
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 23971
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:09 pm

For the record, City of Burbank very much has authority over the airport.

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority is governed by a commission that appointed by their respective city council's.

In addition since 2/3 of the airport (incl entire terminal area) sits within the City of Burbank and since Burbank provides various city and support services to the airport, many airport related projects and issues come in front of the Burbank City Council for review.

Its also absolute nonsense to say residents have no input on land use issues in their cities. Whether its an airport terminal, a power station, office building, other large commercial or residential project residents very much can weigh in. Burbank is hardly the only city that defers to voters for decisions surrounding projects that clearly have impacts on its citizenry.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:05 am

LAXintl wrote:
For the record, City of Burbank very much has authority over the airport.

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority is governed by a commission that appointed by their respective city council's.

In addition since 2/3 of the airport (incl entire terminal area) sits within the City of Burbank and since Burbank provides various city and support services to the airport, many airport related projects and issues come in front of the Burbank City Council for review.

Its also absolute nonsense to say residents have no input on land use issues in their cities. Whether its an airport terminal, a power station, office building, other large commercial or residential project residents very much can weigh in. Burbank is hardly the only city that defers to voters for decisions surrounding projects that clearly have impacts on its citizenry.


This isn't a land use issue. The only problem is the Authority doesn't want to drag them into Federal Court. An airports capacity is driven by its runway throughput, anything used to curtail that is an artificial barrier to entry and violates interstate commerce. Only a curfew, which in this case is voluntary, can then be leveraged to curtail capacity. There is no capacity increase in this case, only a safety improvement. It doesn't require a vote, it only requires and master plan and and environmental review process. It's why if this silly vote fails they'll immediately proceed on building a terminal in the southwest corner of the airport without this voter nonsense. This is nothing more than a feel good action to make people feel all warm and fuzzy about it, and by extension a waste of time.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:10 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
Boeing717200 wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:

I am not disputing the risks of current terminal facility. As I said on the previous page, we shouldn't wait until people are dead to correct an obvious risk.

However, you cannot claim "SAFETY!" to ignore the law. The law says voters get to approve or reject a new terminal facility. So, there absolutely is something to vote on. It is not absurd that the government can only act within the powers delegated to it by the people. That's the founding principle of our government.

If the voters are not willing to approve the new terminal, then the airport will need to find another way to operate safely. Maybe that means ending commercial services and demolishing the current terminal with no replacement. It's not what I want, but democracy does not entitle us to the outcomes we prefer.


The airport is operated by a special district, not the City of Burbank. Local communities don't get to effectively close an airport because they don't like it. Deregulation ended that nonsense. An airport can build as many gates as they want within the confines of their footprint and runway capacity provided it meets the environmental requirements. The "voting" public has zero jurisdiction. There isn't even a grandfathered mandatory curfew. If they did half the airports in the country would be voted closed.


Your contempt of the public is noted. But really, what planet are you living on? The public doesn't have "jurisdiction" in a matters of public policy? Totally backwards.

At issue here is the land (parcel B-6) for the proposed terminal. The land is owned by the City of Burbank, not the airport authority. The public voted in 2000 that using the City-owned land for a replacement terminal would require voter approval. Simple as that. Burbank residents do not have the power to close the airport, impose curfews or whatever. But, they absolutely have the power to vote on the use of city land.

It's worth noting that there is an alternate site for the replacement terminal at the southwest corner of the field that doesn't require voter approval. I have to assume the B-6 site is preferred for some cost or access reasons or else they probably wouldn't mess with the vote. So there you have it. If you want to use land owned by Burbank residents, you don't get to say "they're stupid, safety is important, screw'em."


Land is owned by whom?

http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank-le ... story.html
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:00 am

Thanks for the various clarfications as I am not aware of the compicated local politics. So it seems BUR has both hands tied behind its back regarding what it can do...

However, seeing how they are not adding any capacity, and going out of their way to do so, I see little case for a public vote, regardless of who owns the land. Democracy is not necessarily about having the (uninformed) public vote about every single issue. The public also elects representatives who they deem qualified to decide on their behalf.
 
CMHMarc787
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:09 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:03 pm

I just caught this during a random Google search for any updated information regarding BUR's attempt at building a new terminal.

http://www.dailynews.com/business/20151023/deal-prepares-the-way-for-new-terminal-at-bob-hope-airport-in-burbank

While I always liked boarding planes via stairs rather than jetways, I personally think that method is past its prime and novelty-ness.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 23971
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:10 pm

And Burbank voted 69-31% on Measure B for allowing no more than a 14-gate, 355,000 square foot replacement terminal in exchange for governance changes that provide City of Burbank voters super majority voice over airport
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
barney captain
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:58 pm

LAXintl wrote:
And Burbank voted 69-31% on Measure B for allowing no more than a 14-gate, 355,000 square foot replacement terminal in exchange for governance changes that provide City of Burbank voters super majority voice over airport


Fantastic news.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
alasizon
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:39 am

LAXintl wrote:
And Burbank voted 69-31% on Measure B for allowing no more than a 14-gate, 355,000 square foot replacement terminal in exchange for governance changes that provide City of Burbank voters super majority voice over airport


This is great news and I can't wait to see what the finalized product will look like.
Manager on Duty & Tower Planner
 
mtnwest1979
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:23 am

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:07 am

Too bad it'll probably be about ten more years until it opens lol. Assuming usual red tape BS and whatnot.
Riddle: Which lasts longer, a start-up airline or a start-up football league?
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:16 am

Any update on timeline for replacement?
mercure f-wtcc
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1535
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:25 am

I flew in and out of BUR on Alaska MD - 80. We boarded from the stairs in back of the aircraft. Now that was fun. It's a nice little airport. They should expand BUR.
Why endure the nightmare and congestion of LAX when BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA is so much easier to fly in and out of. Same with OAK & SJC when it comes to SFO.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 23971
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:53 am

Well the timeline does not call for new terminal till 2023-2025 timeframe.

At the earliest they dont plan to break ground till 2020. There is lots of environmental work still do to, garner approval from FAA proposed revised airfield layout, determine and allocate funding. All this off course requires hiring vendors, putting work out for bid etc.

Long journey still to ahead, barring any lawsuits. Already some Burbank residents have already threatened suit saying issue was rushed onto the November ballot and, instead, should have been placed on the April municipal election ballot. In addition some claim the materials supplied by airport and city were not neutral in nature and measure was written in deceiving language. So lets see...
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:37 am

So much for democracy when Burbank votes themselves Super Majority status over Glendale and Pasadena. Rules for thee but not for me!
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
travelin man
Posts: 3237
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:22 pm

Meh... I live in Glendale but am not upset by Burbank's new "super majority" rule. Burbank is by far the most impacted from a noise/traffic/pollution perspective. Glendale and Pasadena benefit from the airport but are not impacted by any of the negatives.
 
CMHMarc787
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:09 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:57 pm

travelin man wrote:
Meh... I live in Glendale but am not upset by Burbank's new "super majority" rule. Burbank is by far the most impacted from a noise/traffic/pollution perspective. Glendale and Pasadena benefit from the airport but are not impacted by any of the negatives.


In fact, neither Glendale, nor Pasadena, feel any impact from noise generated by BUR as planes never fly over their cities (unless they are several thousand feet above the cities...which, even then, is rare).
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Burbank replacement terminal in the hands of the voters

Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:14 am

I live in Glendale but am not upset by Burbank's new "super majority" rule. Burbank is by far the most impacted from a noise/traffic/pollution perspective. Glendale and Pasadena benefit from the airport but are not impacted by any of the negatives.

But this fakes the vote. BUR does not only serve Burbank, but much more than that. Why should only Burbank decide? The benefits to many must be weighed against the inconveniences to a few. With this system, you are effectively saying that one inconvenience counts more than a dozen advantages.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos