Check out this web page for master plans for San Diego
Airport. Possible sites include where they are, the
desert abotut 100 miles east, North Island, March AFB.
Click on the interactive map its pretty cool. They are
looking to have two 12,000 ft runways 4-5,000 ft apart it looks like.

I think SAN is going to be the next big NEW airport developed in the US.

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

Quoting Irishpower (Thread starter): Possible sites include where they are, the desert abotut 100 miles east

Hmm...that would be one heck of a commute to work for me.

I hear you. Why would they even consider something so far. I think Miramar MCAS has a pretty good chance!!

The future of San Diego airport and the masterplan options have been discussed extensively on the site.

A quick search reveals: SAN Rolls Out Dual Runway Option... At Lindbergh (by Boeing7E7 Jun 21 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2182199 FAA To SAN - Grow/Build New Airport (by Boeing7E7 Jun 18 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2176878 Hypothetical: Logistics Of SAN At Miramar? (by Jmc1975 Oct 23 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2398534 SAN Airport Town Hall Meeting (by IRelayer Oct 21 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2395483 TIJ/SAN Joint '16 Olympic Bid: Talk Of New Airport (by EddieDude Oct 14 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2381366 New Floating SAN? (by StevenUhl777 Sep 24 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2345992 SAN Replacement Options Dwindling After Brac (by Lindy Field May 14 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2111781 SAN To Move Ahead With Short Term Solution (by Boeing7E7 May 6 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2096062

Quoting Irishpower (Reply 2): I hear you. Why would they even consider something so far. I think Miramar MCAS has a pretty good chance!!

Now we're talking! I'd be able to walk to work! Haha.

Here's something the website didn't mention: Would a new airport mean the closing down of the current airport or a supplement to the existing one?

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 5): Here's something the website didn't mention: Would a new airport mean the closing down of the current airport or a supplement to the existing one?

Pretty much any plan having to do with SAN would likely have Lindburgh Field turning into a GA hub.

North Island being the new airport site? It's not like Coronado Island/Bridge needs more traffic. MCAS Miramar is out there quite a bit, but there's a lot more available land out there. Would it necessarily take the airport out of the residential areas? It's been a while since I've been there...back when MCAS Miramar was NAS Miramar.

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 7): MCAS Miramar is out there quite a bit, but there's a lot more available land out there. Would it necessarily take the airport out of the residential areas? It's been a while since I've been there...back when MCAS Miramar was NAS Miramar.

Miramar is definately not what one would consider "out there". It is only 8nm north of SAN (which is right in downtown San Diego) and at the confluence of several highways. It also happens to lie in the middle of San Diego County, allowing easy access for both The City of San Diego and the fast growing North County.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 1): Hmm...that would be one heck of a commute to work for me.

Whats the difference, Southwest would refuse to move anyway. Just like they did at DAL, and that was only 8 miles.

haha what a joke, camp pendleton hahahahaa



yah right, like the marines would even think of shutting down camp pendleton, or giving up any space.



so cali is the NIMBY-ville.

I'd think it's time to follow the Japanese lead on this. A two runway airport made on an artificial island built at sea. The terminal could be shaped like a wing and a mile long and it could become a destination in itself...  

It'll never happen, for a municipality to blow that much money on a public works project that typically does not serve the underclass won't pass in California, that's assuming if they could even get pass the environmental impact surveys and frivolous lawsuits from "affected" parties.

Quoting Irishpower (Reply 2): I hear you. Why would they even consider something so far.

Because you have to consider every option in the site selection process.

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 5): Here's something the website didn't mention: Would a new airport mean the closing down of the current airport or a supplement to the existing one?

It depends if the new airport is a single or dual runway facility. A dual runway would result in closure.

Quoting Irev210 (Reply 10): haha what a joke, camp pendleton hahahahaa

Once again, when doing site selection you MUST consider every option for the examination to be valid.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 11): I'd think it's time to follow the Japanese lead on this. A two runway airport made on an artificial island built at sea. The terminal could be shaped like a wing and a mile long and it could become a destination in itself...

Japan has large open bays with relatively shallow water making such construction possible compared to the deep ocean off the coast of San Diego. The bay in San Diego is not large enough.

My educated guess is that a single runway facility will be proposed for East Miramar. Voters will pass it in November of 2006 (as they have twice in the past only to be blocked by a law pushed through by Duke Cunningham who is probably going to end up in Jail). In the course of the ten (10) years it will take before a ground breaking, the F-18's at Miramar will move to Yuma or Twenty Nine Palms as planned to make room for the V-22 Ospry tilt-rotor. Miramar neighbors will have greater objections to the incredibly noisey Ospry and they too will move, assuming the military doesn't shutter the program all together making Miramar a surplus facility. The end result will be a two runway facility (be it 20 or 30 years from now) on East Miramar which creates enough of a buffer that no one is living within the 65 CNEL area when it opens. The existing Miramar airfield will become airport compatible industrial complexes and the concerns about noise in La Jolla will not be the concern they once were due to Stage IV noise level requirements and the location of the airport nearly 3 miles further East than where Miramar sits today. Montgomery Field would also be shuttered due to poor management by the City of San Diego, it's decreased usefulness of this poor management and the benefits of not having that facility open in terms of airspace capacity (a different agency than the one running Lindbergh and pursuing the new airport location) and that operation will shift to Lindbergh that will never close due to it's historical significance. As many of the 150 waivers at the present SAN will be eliminated that can be leaving behind a GA facility with a roughly 4,600' runway.

[Edited 2005-12-30 14:33:48]

San Diego will never get a new airport. That's my opinion. I lived there for almost 10 years beginning in the late 80's and the airport was always high-topic discussion. I figure after all this time, if they haven't done anything about it then they never will. Besides, I know a lot of people who live there and they seem to have gotten used to the idea of commuting up to LAX. Personally, I think it's insane and if I still lived there I couldn't do what I currently do given the choice of airports.

Anyway, North Island NAS will never work because the Navy will never give up that piece of property. And the Coronado Island NIMBYs will never let it happen.

MCAS Miramar will never happen because the Marines will not give up that piece of property. And the Golden Triangle and Miramar NIMBYs will never let it happen.

San Diego had its chance to expand the airport and make it at least usable by standard norms with the addition of either a 2nd runway or, at a minimum, extension of the existing one when the Navy moved its training base from the north end of the airport back in the early 90's. What did the city do? They turned that huge piece of real estate into (IIRC) a police training camp. Really smart move.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13): San Diego will never get a new airport.

Want to place a wager on that?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13): San Diego had its chance to expand the airport and make it at least usable by standard norms with the addition of either a 2nd runway or, at a minimum, extension of the existing one when the Navy moved its training base from the north end of the airport back in the early 90's. What did the city do? They turned that huge piece of real estate into (IIRC) a police training camp. Really smart move.

A runway extension into terrain does nothing for you to create additional capacity. Two, the Open V requires MCRD which was never available and would only create a 20% capacity increase that does not address the roadway access issue.


As for Miramar, they only need to give up about 3,000 of the 16,000 acres they don't use East of the 15.

[Edited 2005-12-30 14:43:20]

Isn't TIJ already San Diego's "NEW" Airport??
Wouldn't be cheaper and muchfaster to strike a "Basle-Mulhouse-Freiburg Airport" kind of deal over the use of TIJ airport with the Mexicans and get it over with??

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14): Want to place a wager on that?

Sure, I'll place a wager! But there has to be a time limit on it. Specifically, the bet will be that the airport gets built (or doesn't) within my natural lifetime. Since I appear to be a little younger than you, the advantage goes to you. And an extension of the current runway doesn't count, but I'll let you have an additional runway on the existing property as a "new" airport. Again, the advantage is to you.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14): A runway extension into terrain does nothing for you to create additional capacity.

A runway extension "into terrain" would be better than nothing at all since, at a minimum, it would allow take-offs at capacity when the winds required use of Runway 9.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16): A runway extension "into terrain" would be better than nothing at all since, at a minimum, it would allow take-offs at capacity when the winds required use of Runway 9.

That design was used to explain the complications associated with keeping SAN where it is. The runway extension included dropping terrain in Loma Portal between Rosecrans and Nimitz and removal of historical buildings on NTC (it's a bad picture you posted, Rosecrans is only 2,500' from the runway end and that design shows a 4,000' extension). Cost of land aquisition for that and moving the Historical Buildings... $18-20 Billion. That's before you move any dirt or do terrain removal. So, no that's not a viable solution, nor was it intended to be, but it got the point across to the public.

As far as the elimination of head to head, it still does nothing for the capacity issue, that is already factored into the equations in the study due to GPS enhancements that will improve minimums to 27. A single runway can support 60 gates, but without a full length North taxiway there isn't enough land for 60 gates and the required roadway access improvments. There's a lot more to this than just plopping down a new runway and calling it a day.

Here's the actual layout not the paper's interpretation (San Diego International Airport Site on the right):

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

[Edited 2005-12-30 15:25:03]

I'm with RedFlyer on this. It'll never, EVER happen. Or at least not for at least another 20-30 years. The penny pinchers, the short sighted out of control development all topped off with a thick coat of NIMBYism will ensure this. the existing facility is too small and hemmed in to pin much hope on. March is too far away (would be better served as an alternative to LAX and ONT anyway), building out in the desert to the east somwhere off I-8 won't work: too far. Just what we need: an LAX type of facility with nonstop flights to Romania and Thailand available to the good folks in the wonderfully cosmopolitan cities of Brawley, Imperial, and Salton City.

Get real.

The only way SD can ever hope to get a new airport in a reasonable time frame (12 years or less) would be to take dictatorial action (backed by police and military force if necessary) and use ED for a 50 square mile area somewhere in North County, level the whole area and build the damn thing, and cramming down the throat of the county.

And we know that won't happen.

Where's Mayor Daley? We could actually use the SOB for that over here.

[Edited 2005-12-30 16:18:20]

Quoting Dc10s4ever (Reply 9): Whats the difference, Southwest would refuse to move anyway. Just like they did at DAL, and that was only 8 miles.

Yeah, they'd be so stupid for refusing to move from SAN to a desert 100 miles away.

Give me a break, Dc10s4ever.


  




2H4

Quoting Irev210 (Reply 10): yah right, like the marines would even think of shutting down camp pendleton, or giving up any space.

How does a 2.5 mile runway next to the freeway shut down the whole camp? I can think of a ton of advantages for this location. For one, the Marines would now have access to a 12,000 ft runway for troop movement instead of having to go to Miramar or Riverside. But more importantly is the fact there are no NIMBY's! (unless NIMBY now stands for "Not in the Marines Back Yard") and an overwater departure, the only viable option to offer this feature. The location has over 6 million airport starved people within a 50 mile radius.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 18): The only way SD can ever hope to get a new airport in a reasonable time frame (12 years or less) would be to take dictatorial action (backed by police and military force if necessary) and use ED for a 50 square mile area somewhere in North County, level the whole area and build the damn thing, and cramming down the throat of the county.

You (and Red) really have no concept of the issue at hand. There is no expectation it would open for at least 20 years, 15-17 before ground is even broken. That is the standard time frame for litigation, environmental mitigation and construction. The Authority could simply move ahead with a project, the vote is just a courtesy. The entire site selection process is simply a proving process that states the site put forward is the most viable of all the potential opportunities that exist in the region to solve the airport capacity issue.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12): the F-18's at Miramar will move to Yuma or Twenty Nine Palms as planned to make room for the V-22 Ospry tilt-rotor.

I've mentioned this idea in other threads, I think the City should swap SAN with the Marines for Miramar. If the Marines are using primarily Helos and V-22s they can use SAN with little impact to the surrounding area by vectoring (if that's the right term) in and out of SAN via San Diego Bay. It also has the chance to realize cost savings through combining the management and maintenance functions of the MCRD and even possibly North Island.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 21): You (and Red) really have no concept of the issue at hand. There is no expectation it would open for at least 20 years, 15-17 before ground is even broken. That is the standard time frame for litigation, environmental mitigation and construction.

I like to think I do have some concept of the issue at hand, primarily because I lived there for almost decade and took an active interest in the issue. Almost a decade since I left the area the issue has still not advanced one bit. Therefore, for the almost 20 years I've been following the matter there has been little or no progress on securing a suitable replacement for SAN.

But I will say you your timeframe is actually correct. It would take a good 20 years to have the airport finished and running. But that's assuming they select a site RIGHT NOW. However, you're assumption is wrong because you ASSUME that the litigation will be won by the proponents of whatever site is finally chosen. The plaintiffs (enviromentalists, NIMBYs, etc.) could in fact prevail, which would push the entire project back to where it is now.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 22): I've mentioned this idea in other threads, I think the City should swap SAN with the Marines for Miramar.

If the Marines decide to go through the trouble of relocating they will NOT make such a short-sighted move to the downtown of a major metropolitan area. Can you imagine the raucus that would occur the first time one of their aircraft goes down into a densely populated area on short final or immediately after departure?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23): I like to think I do have some concept of the issue at hand, primarily because I lived there for almost decade and took an active interest in the issue. Almost a decade since I left the area the issue has still not advanced one bit. Therefore, for the almost 20 years I've been following the matter there has been little or no progress on securing a suitable replacement for SAN.

No, you don't have any concept of the issue at hand. A study such as this has never been properly done on the issue. The work being done to sort out potential sites even eclipses that of the work done on IAD, DEN and DFW. I don't care how long you lived there, your claim that the issue hasn't moved shows your ignorance on the matter at hand.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23): If the Marines decide to go through the trouble of relocating they will NOT make such a short-sighted move to the downtown of a major metropolitan area. Can you imagine the raucus that would occur the first time one of their aircraft goes down into a densely populated area on short final or immediately after departure?

Or a business adjacent Miramar.... Please, use a valid argument.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23): But that's assuming they select a site RIGHT NOW. However, you're assumption is wrong because you ASSUME that the litigation will be won by the proponents of whatever site is finally chosen. The plaintiffs (enviromentalists, NIMBYs, etc.) could in fact prevail, which would push the entire project back to where it is now.

The vote is in November and the recomendation becomes a ballot measure in 5 months. The substantiation of the need for the new facility, coupled with the work being done right now only leaves behind environmental litigation and East Miramar avoids NIMBY suits. It's already an active fixed wing fighter facility with substantially greater noise levels than a commerical airport would ever produce, or did you miss that part?

[Edited 2005-12-30 19:48:56]

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23): I like to think I do have some concept of the issue at hand, primarily because I lived there for almost decade and took an active interest in the issue. Almost a decade since I left the area the issue has still not advanced one bit. Therefore, for the almost 20 years I've been following the matter there has been little or no progress on securing a suitable replacement for SAN.

Despite what anyone can see on the surface of the issue, in fact that the debate and moreover the nature of the region itself have changed considerably over the past 10 years. Granted, much of the airport-related changes have occurred "behind the scenes", so to speak, such as the creation of the Airport Authority (an institution which I believe will wield considerable power in the coming year). Additionally, San Diego's economy and demographics continue to evolve, and need to be supported by a better facility now more than ever. Duke Cunningham's resignation will also have an effect, at least in the short-term.

While shortsighted political leaders and rampant NIMBYism continue to exist in San Diego, the stars are coming into a more auspicious alignment for a resolution to the issue. There will no doubt be a confrontation of some sort soon. 2006 is going to be an interesting year.

Aaron G.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 24): A study such as this has never been properly done on the issue.

Exactly why the issue has not advanced in almost 20 years.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 24): The work being done to sort out potential sites even eclipses that of the work done on IAD, DEN and DFW.

Very valid point you make. And I would expect such work to eclipse IAD, DEN and DFW since those airports were built far outside of populated areas (when they were originally built). However, those airports were also built long before enviromentalist and NIMBY legal tactics, as well as environmental laws, matured to where they are now. And have you ever wondered why, among other reasons, DEN was placed so far outside of Denver proper? Other than a few farmers, it wasn't going to attract a hornet's nest of enviro-NIMBY lawsuits (although it did attract its share).

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 24): I don't care how long you lived there, your claim that the issue hasn't moved shows your ignorance on the matter at hand.

First of all, there's no need to hurl personal insults. You can disagree without being uncivil. And a healthy debate is always good for everyone.

Second, when I said the issue hasn't moved in almost 20 years, I meant very specifically that they are no closer to picking a suitable site for a replacement for SAN. Now, I realize the county and city may have conducted a number of more studies and looked at a number of additional alternatives. And certainly they've spent a few million dollars more doing all that. But after all this time, I ask you: have they selected a solution? Are they close to selecting a solution? Will we see a solution in our lifetimes? (I took you up on your bet, by the way, in a previous post but you never replied.) Indeed, since I'm so "ignorant", please enlighten me: what kind of purported "movement" has been made on the issue? Please tell me as I'm genuinely interested in knowing how far San Diego has come in alleviating their airport issue. And I don't associate "movement" with effort. Movement, by any standard, means "progress".

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 24): The vote is in November and the recomendation becomes a ballot measure in 5 months.

By the way, I seem to recall there was also a ballot measure/initiative put to the voters on the airport issue back in the early - mid-90's. So I don't consider any kind of "vote" to reflect anything of substantive movement.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 24): It's already an active fixed wing fighter facility with substantially greater noise levels than a commerical airport would ever produce, or did you miss that part?

As an aviation buff and one who used to hang around Miramar quite often, I know that military aircraft produce a lot more noise. But, in the public's mind (read NIMBY), they equate considerably more and round-the-clock traffic that commercial operations will bring with "more noise". And to a degree, that perception is correct.

One other aspect of military ops: military planes perform better than commercial planes. In short, they can climb a lot faster - and away from populated areas - than commercial aircraft, meaning their noise impact is of a much shorter duration. Same with V/STOL aircraft, which can climb directly over the airport and consequently limit the noise impact to surrounding areas. Or did you miss that part?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 26): However, those airports were also built long before enviromentalist and NIMBY legal tactics, as well as environmental laws, matured to where they are now.

Which is precisely why SAN has retained the services of the finest attorneys and consultants in the field. The list also included those attorney's and consultants who "opposed" and defeated the El Toro Airport plan in Orange County.

Nice backtrack on the rest of it.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 24): The vote is in November and the recomendation becomes a ballot measure in 5 months. The substantiation of the need for the new facility, coupled with the work being done right now only leaves behind environmental litigation and East Miramar avoids NIMBY suits.

Last I heard, the mayor of Santee would vehemently oppose an East Miramar location.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 28): Nice backtrack on the rest of it.

No back-tracking. Just making sure you understood where I was coming from.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 28): Which is precisely why SAN has retained the services of the finest attorneys and consultants in the field.

Uh-huh. And I'm sure for that reason the Sierra Club, among others, is just going to roll over and let the city/county have its way.

Now who's the ignorant one?

Anyway, I hope you are correct and the city gets its long-awaited airport. I don't think it will, not in our lifetime. But, hey, people once claimed that that a pig would never fly.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 29): Last I heard, the mayor of Santee would vehemently oppose an East Miramar location.

Who cares. The 65 CNEL is over a dump. He would have no case. Besides, the Airport Authority has a bigger war chest. Let him/her sue. Or anyone else for that matter.

You have to prove damages to prevent construction. You can't prove damages will be incured by building a quieter facility than the one that exists. Orange County lost because single family homes were in the 65 and 75 CNEL. Not the case with either Miramar location.

[Edited 2005-12-30 20:35:14]

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 27): By the way, I seem to recall there was also a ballot measure/initiative put to the voters on the airport issue back in the early - mid-90's. So I don't consider any kind of "vote" to reflect anything of substantive movement.

By an agency not authorized to move the airport in the first place with no study performed to support the choice.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 30): Uh-huh. And I'm sure for that reason the Sierra Club, among others, is just going to roll over and let the city/county have its way.

The Sierra Club favors the airport moving away from the water and to a location with less environmental impact such as Miramar.

[Edited 2005-12-30 20:47:11]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 32): The Sierra Club favors the airport moving away from the water and to a location with less environmental impact such as Miramar.

Really? Now that is news to me (I'm not being facetious). Is the Sierra Club really in favor of Miramar or were you very deliberate in your choice of words by saying "such as Miramar"?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 33): Really? Now that is news to me (I'm not being facetious). Is the Sierra Club really in favor of Miramar or were you very deliberate in your choice of words by saying "such as Miramar"?

You'd be surprised the Sierra Clubs opinions on the matter. There is a joker proposing a floating airport that the Environmental groups are having a cow over. They do support Miramar and other existing facilities because the impact is already in place. They have already publicly opposed the two remote sites the Desert.

[Edited 2005-12-30 20:45:00]

A hundred miles out in the desert is way too far unless, Lindburgh stays open.
Especially with So. Cal Traffic! Back in the late 60's plans and land were in place to build a super jet port to replace MIA and that was only 50 miles away!
Of course environmental issues squashed this project but, folks were none to receptive to making that schlep out into the glades/Big Cypress swamp.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 32): Do you really want to try and continue the debate with someone involved in the issue by spouting your opinion based on the past?

You know, if you're involved in the issue then I really don't think we'll see the airport built in our lifetime. With an insulting disposition such as yours, you're going to piss-off so many people they will really put the matter out to pasture.

You should really act in a more civil manner, especially when all someone has done is provide an alternative viewpoint. And unlike you, without the gratuitious insults.

I realize you may have a lot of time and effort wrapped up in the airport initiative but listening to others' viewpoint will only make you better. Hurling insults or posting surly responses will not grow your male reproductive organ, nor will it address any feelings of emasculation or sense of inferiority that you may harbor.

Quoting Zippyjet (Reply 35): A hundred miles out in the desert is way too far unless, Lindburgh stays open.

That's not going to happen. It's a $10 billion + investement just to get there, then you have to build the airport. You can't justify that kind of cost. Denver was about $5 Billion and people had fits.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36): You know, if you're involved in the issue then I really don't think we'll see the airport built in our lifetime. With an insulting disposition such as yours, you're going to piss-off so many people they will really put the matter out to pasture. You should really act in a more civil manner, especially when all someone has done is provide an alternative viewpoint. And unlike you, without the gratuitious insults.

The information is readily available from the airport's website and a simple google search can be informative as well. Taking time to actually read up on the matter rather than just tossing out an insulting "you can't get it done because you haven't before" uneducated opinion on the matter would certainly improve the probability of a more cordial response.

[Edited 2005-12-30 21:17:45]

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 26): Very valid point you make. And I would expect such work to eclipse IAD, DEN and DFW since those airports were built far outside of populated areas (when they were originally built). However, those airports were also built long before enviromentalist and NIMBY legal tactics, as well as environmental laws, matured to where they are now.

And with Dulles, the MWAA bought enough land at the start to make sure that there would be room for expansion once the expected suburban sprawl moves in. Which it did around Dulles.

I have to wonder what the study group was smoking to have even considered a site in Mexico. The second most ridiculous site proposal of all was the North Island site. Even if you could get the Navy to leave (doubtful), the Coronado residents would litigate the hell out of that plan. They should just suck it up and build the new airport - assuming they are serious - far enough east of the city to avoid existing population centers.

Liked the interactive map, though.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39): I have to wonder what the study group was smoking to have even considered a site in Mexico.

Because it was studied before. All sites that were previously evaluated have been re-evaluated and discarded as appropriate.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39): Even if you could get the Navy to leave (doubtful), the Coronado residents would litigate the hell out of that plan.

Spot on. They already had their fit and North Island is too critical to supporting Aircraft Carriers anyway.

[Edited 2005-12-30 20:59:24]

I sure hope they pick a location that isn't too far from the city center. The desert location is 104 miles away from downtown San Diego, thats way too far!

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): Because it was studied before. All sites that were previously evaluated have been re-evaluated and discarded as appropriate.

Okay, I'll rephrase my question. I wonder what the guys in the original study were smoking when they considered a site in Mexico. Can we say corruption, problems with law enforcement, and lack of jurisdiction loud enough?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 38): rather than just tossing out an insulting "you can't get it done because you haven't before"

Surely, you're not quoting me because I dare you to point out where I said that.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 38): uneducated opinion on the matter would certainly improve the probability of a more cordial response from myself

Perhaps my opinion is "uneducated" in your simple mind where opposing opinions reflect ignorance. But if that's the case, you've got bigger fish to fry since Joe Q. Public is usually a lot more ignorant than I am, especially when it comes to matters related to aviation. And in that regard, you may want to consider picking another star to hang your hat on because your disposition does the airport authority no service.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 34): You'd be surprised the Sierra Clubs opinions on the matter.

Would you kindly point to a source that would corroborate that? Not that I'm doubting you; however, I seem to recall the Sierra Club being concerned about turning Miramar into the new airport. And that concern was expressed within the past year or two in the press. So unless they've changed their tune I'm not sure they're as supportive of Miramar as you claim they are. But I could be wrong (ignorant and uneducated people like me sometimes are, you know).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13): San Diego had its chance to expand the airport and make it at least usable by standard norms with the addition of either a 2nd runway or, at a minimum, extension of the existing one when the Navy moved its training base from the north end of the airport back in the early 90's. What did the city do? They turned that huge piece of real estate into (IIRC) a police training camp. Really smart move.

RedFlyer you state you lived here but obviously you have no idea what is going on. When the Navy left NTC (Naval Training Facility) they did not turn it into a police training camp. It's a 250 acre master redevelopment that my company is in control of. To date we have built 340+ new homes, 380,000 square feet of new office, 750+ new military housing units, 300,000+ square feet of community arts & culture facilities. On top of that we are building a 48 acre park, additional 400,000 square feet of retail and more.

Read about it and get yourself educated before professing to "know what you are talking about"

http://www.libertystation.com

Mark Radelow
Retail Project Manager
McMillin Commercial
Liberty Station Master Redeveloper

[Edited 2005-12-30 21:57:10]

Dear Mark Radelow:

Quoting Radelow (Reply 44): When the Navy left NTC (Naval Training Facility) they did not turn it into a police training camp.

If you read my original post where I mentioned that, I stated "IIRC", which means "If I recall correctly". In other words, a caveat. However, if you knew anything about the history of NTC, you'd know that when the Navy pulled out in the early 90's, and before your company took control of it as part of a master redevelopment plan, they (the Navy) entered into an interim agreement with the city and which would allow the city to use it temporarily in order to keep the property maintained. To that end, the city leased out sections of its interim property to various parties: "including film companies, nonprofit organizations, City departments [emphasis added], and small businesses.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/san-diego-ntc.htm

Those city departments included law enforcement. Mind you, it was no small part of the property as the law enforcement use included, IIRC (If I recall correctly), defensive/aggressor driving courses for law enforcement officials.

Quoting Radelow (Reply 44): It's a 250 acre master redevelopment that my company is in control of. To date we have built 340+ new homes, 380,000 square feet of new office, 750+ new military housing units, 300,000+ square feet of community arts & culture facilities. On top of that we are building a 48 acre park, additional 400,000 square feet of retail and more.

Yes, I'm very familiar with the site. However, when I mentioned the law enforcement training that occured there in my previous posts, I was expressing exasperation with the city of San Diego and why they didn't strike while the iron was hot and expand the airport when they had the chance but, instead, wasted valuable time, which ultimately resulted in commercial development occuring on the land. (Yes, I know all about the tax benefits of turning the land into commercial real estate.)

Quoting Radelow (Reply 44): Read about it and get yourself educated before professing to "know what you are talking about"

I know you're not quoting me because I never said that. But since we're on the topic, do yourself - and your employer - a favor and educate yourself about the past use of properties that you manage. And think twice next time before posting on behalf of your employer insulting comments about others which reveal, among other things, your own lack of knowledge. I'm sure Larry Dean and others wouldn't appreciate the light their retail project manager casts their business in.

Regards,

RedFlyer

There is still 25 acres of the former NTC that is used as a Public Safety Institute where fire departments and other public safety groups do training.

Is that second runway at Lindbergh serious? Aren't there a lot of homes off of Rosecrans? I really like SAN where it is now, but it seems Miramar is the most reasonable solution. March would be only feasable I think if they linked it with a TGV bullet train to Downtown San Diego that ran like every 10 minutes.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 11): I'd think it's time to follow the Japanese lead on this. A two runway airport made on an artificial island built at sea. The terminal could be shaped like a wing and a mile long and it could become a destination in itself... Smile

Are there any airports artificially ever built out in ocean?

Quoting San2snow76 (Reply 46): There is still 25 acres of the former NTC that is used as a Public Safety Institute where fire departments and other public safety groups do training.

Better tell that to Mr. Mark Radelow of McMillan Commercial (see above). I don't think he's aware of what is in and around the property he manages.