Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo
1 is probably too expensive. 4 is probably too hard to do right.
What is the difference between SPAWAR and ITC?
I don't see it being much different besides needing less track for ITC
|
SPAWAR
Pros:
More space, enough for a transit hub comparable to LA union station
Better connections to an E/W transit line (still hypothetical at this point)
Enough extra land that a potential P3 could cover most/all of the cost
Cons:
Will need to negotiate with the Navy to acquire land
Will need to negotiate with a private developer for P3
Will need to negotiate with Marines for ROW on option 2
All of the above have very different goals which only tangentially relate to a transit hub, balancing them will be difficult
SD will need to make numerous land use changes and other infrastructure investments to really take advantage of SPAWAR's additional capacity.
ITC
Pros:
No major land acquisition issues
Close enough that the FAA might let airport help pay
Likely less expensive option overall
Cons:
Smaller land area, will be difficult to in fit new transit lines beyond what already exists
Proximity to airport will limit building heights, reducing value of potential P3
No extra land, also reducing value of potential P3
Possibility of taxpayers footing a larger portion of the final bill than SPAWAR
In short SPAWAR has the potential for a larger, more capable facility at less cost to the taxpayers, but we don't know really what we're getting right now or if we even want to make the infrastructure investments necessary to use that capacity. With the ITC you know exactly what you're getting and how much value it will bring, but that firmly defined concept brings less benefit than SPAWAR might bring if everything goes well.