![]() |
Great construction updates!:tup:
Here are a couple more to add - Lofts at 707 http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...ment/gloft.jpg http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...3/lofts707.jpg Children's Museum http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...wfromFront.jpg http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...%203/chill.jpg |
^thanks for those
Children's Museum is coming along nicely:tup: |
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...a9/Grimace.jpg
This thread has been slow lately so I figured maybe I should post the Grimace again... |
BTW...I am really liking Aria:tup:
|
i like how sometimes, we cant stop posting...then others its just asleep
|
Edit...bad idea...lol
|
FYI.....
Published Monday, April 23, 2007, by the Sacramento Bee Column Big-city airports near limit By Dan Walters Bee Columnist California sorely neglected infrastructure investment decade after decade -- with congested highways, deteriorating and overcrowded schools, and overused parks among the consequences -- but the state's locally operated airports were a shining exception. With revenues generated from ever-increasing airline flights, local airport authorities busily added runways and terminals during the 1980s and 1990s. Traffic soared past 150 million passengers a year in the early 1990s and was nearing 180 million when the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks put a damper on Americans' willingness to fly. The dot-com meltdown contributed to the decline. Between 2001 and 2003, California air travel plummeted by nearly 20 million passengers a year. But as the economy recovered and travelers' fears lessened, it revived and by 2005 had rebounded to pre-2001 levels. Moreover, as the state's population and economy continue to grow, and as its position as the gateway to the Pacific Rim expands, every transportation planning agency expects that demand for air service also will expand. However, even as the state finally begins making multibillion-dollar investments in new highways and other critical infrastructure, its big-city airports face a looming crisis of capacity. Airport expansion plans have fallen by the wayside in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles and San Francisco, felled by local opposition, environmental restrictions and other factors. San Diego's dilemma typifies the situation. While its waterfront airport, Lindbergh Field, is convenient for travelers, a single runway and noise restrictions mean that Lindbergh is rapidly reaching the saturation point. The city has been seeking an alternative for at least 60 years and created a powerful government entity to resolve the dilemma. But when a new airport commission proposed an airport on Miramar Mesa, the site of a Marine Corps air base, it was rejected by the military and two-thirds of voters. That leaves San Diego where it has been for decades, with an airport that will soon reach its absolute capacity. Once-ambitious plans for expanding Los Angeles International have been scaled back to near-zero, due to local opposition, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants to concentrate international flights at LAX and depend on satellites, particularly Ontario International and an underused airport at Palmdale, to shoulder the domestic load. Ontario has added two new terminals in recent years, with plans for at least two more, and has become a major freight hub, while the city is trying to jump-start Palmdale by heavily subsidizing flights to and from San Francisco. Millions of local and federal funds have been pumped into the former Norton AFB near San Bernardino to convert it into a full-service airport, but its proximity to Ontario make its future iffy. Los Angeles' emphasis on Ontario and Palmdale indicate the direction that air travel is taking -- inland. With coastal airports already congested and unable to expand, inland facilities will handle an ever- greater share of the traffic. While LAX is still well shy of its pre- 2001 passenger load, for instance, Ontario is handling a half-million more passengers annually than it was in 2000. And while San Francisco International is 20 percent off its pre-2001 high and San Jose International is down 17 percent, Sacramento International is 25 percent higher and planning for much more. This diffusion of air travel, which mirrors trends in employment and population, has an interconnectivity problem, however. If, for instance, LAX concentrates on international service, how do international travelers, both incoming and outgoing, connect with domestic flights at Ontario or Palmdale? [BATN: high-speed rail] Reach Dan Walters at (916) 321-1195 or dwalters@sacbee.com |
i hope the next president can help us in obtaining Miramar for an airport:(
(somehow...) |
Project fo Public Spaces
PPS, a Non-Profit organization that helps communities create vibrant public spaces, recently published an article regarding libraries and their role in the 21st century. Here is the link:
http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/a...es_that_matter |
Quote:
|
The Airport Authority seemed more like a trial baloon for regional growth than a meaningful quest for a solution for airport expansion...
|
it has to be the most maddening thing ever. I think a desert airport with a really cool maglev transport to and from or a floating airport are the only real permanent solutions. Miramar is never gonna be freed. and lindbergh is a crappy area for an airport.
sd is screwed. |
Hmmm, a floating airport, like Osaka is a great idea. I lived in SD for 6 years and totally agree that the airport down there is inadequate and is one of the key things that is stunting the city's economic growth.
However, how would the city finance such a venture? I can imagine that type of construction would end up being in the multiples of billions of dollars. To top it off, I would imagine a huge amount of protests by environmentalists. That's what happened here in SF when they proposed adding an additional runway by filling in the bay. |
[QUOTE=roadwarrior;2794109]Hmmm, a floating airport, like Osaka is a great idea. I lived in SD for 6 years and totally agree that the airport down there is inadequate and is one of the key things that is stunting the city's economic growth.
I'd have to go back on the net and try to find the article, but I remember reading about the floating airport proposal and the costs as well as environmental issues were not as bad as one would think - As i recall, the cost savings would result from incorporating Lindbergh field into the plan and just have an additional runway floating, which could be comparable in cost to building an entirely new airport from the ground up in some other location. The main problem would be convincing a conservative city with conservative leaders that this is actually doable and not some "radical" idea. I am very confused about what exactly is going on now with the airport discussions - if anything. Since the vote last year, the only news I hear about regarding SDs airport are proposals to "improve" Lindbergh and it seems as though the discussion of a new airport has been completely shut-down or at least put on the back-burner. I am concerned that we are going to wait until we are FORCED to build a new airport due to Lindbergh reaching capacity, and if that happens we will probably end up with some poorly planned, quickly put together piece of sh** :( I have started, and others here might consider, writing to city officials, congressmen/women, airport officials and even opeds in newspapers asking what is being done about a future airport post-Miramar vote. Writing on here is a good way to vent but if we ever want to actually get something done these lame officials need to hear from the public and need to be held accountable for ignoring the issue that our current airport is not equipped to handle growth. I heard that the main reason the Miramar site was rejected was not because people want Lindbergh to remain, but rather because many people in affluent North County neighborhoods such as La Jolla were scared they would be in a flight path or hear airplane noise, so apparently there was a big counter-push by North County officials such as the county supervisor for that district to vote against it |
^dude, i agree, we should right letters...unfortunately politicians dont always care about what we say:(
you got a point there though...nice job |
I was surprised to find my civil engineering professors to be very optimistic about the idea of an offshore airport in San Diego. They brushed aside environmental concerns with the idea that the airport could be used as an artificial reef.
At any rate, I think push will come to shove when LAX maxes out. There is a legislatively-mandated passenger cap at LAX, which limits to 78 million the number of passengers going through the airport each year. LAX is currently about 13 million passengers away from that, and the LA basin really doesn't have any other options. Since (it is said) up to 30% of San Diego's air traffic demand is satisfied by LA-area airports, you can bet that our friends up north will turn their attention to San Diego's own airport problems sooner or later, and basically tell us to pound sand. Currently, our airport debate is dominated by the notion that our demand can be satisfied by airports such as LAX, especially if a high-speed rail system is built. Although it will be controversial, there are ways to penalize San Diego-area passengers for using LA's airports. Only then can we be sure that there will be movement on the issue. |
Quote:
Like the article above mentioned, LA will likely look inland as it tries to address its airport situation. I imagine this is what SD would be forced to do as well...if they ever get their heads out of their asses long enough to do anything at all. |
Quote:
|
^Regarding that, is the HSR strongly supported by the people in the state? I'm not really up to date on that stuff.
(But I strongly favor it!:tup:) |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.