SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126473)

HurricaneHugo Feb 14, 2009 11:07 AM

"Keep SD a sleepy beach town."



uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh

PadreHomer Feb 14, 2009 5:41 PM

Unless we want San Diego to be a place where only retirees live, (and hey, maybe some of you who are retired do! :D)then we do need to support the businesses that the people who aren't retired yet work for. A real airport helps us do that.

mongoXZ Feb 14, 2009 7:27 PM

Again, WHY HAS BROWN FIELD BEEN OVERLOOKED???

I drove through the 905 on Friday afternoon to check out the area. For those of you who've never been that far south it's the southernmost freeway connecting the 805 and 5. A proposal to expand Brown Field's capacity as an industrial airport was shot down by NIMBY's a few years back.
http://www.cahighways.org/maps/905-safetealu.jpg

Sorry for the pic quality from my iPhone.

Looking north. Beyond the eucalyptus trees the Oceanview neighborhood is encroaching on the western edge of brown field
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3481/...8e645a31de.jpg

Brown field itself is probably twice as large than Lindbergh Field's footprint and can be expanded even more eastward. If the 905 is diverted south and ran along the international border, the airport can be expanded South. These are HUGE tracts of flat, undeveloped land with pockets of development in between (mostly small office/warehouses and gasoline/fastfood).

Looking north at Brown Field from the 905. Notice the San Miguel Mtns.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3351/...a513ee7d44.jpg

Looking East. Brown Field on the left side, small commercial lots on the right.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/...9fc22e5f9a.jpg

One of the small corners of gas stations and fast food looking South. This one looks new. ONE WORD: EMINENT DOMAIN!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3334/...f49870af9b.jpg

I took a right on some of the roads off the 905 East and in many cases you will see LARGE fields and canyons of NOTHINGNESS. There's definitely room here for an airport bigger than Lindbergh. This area is probably wider than Brown Field and maybe even longer.

Looking South
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/...688ccf028d.jpg

Looking South. A passenger jet is taking off from TJ's airport. The Mex-USA border is probably 2 miles from this point. Imagine how many east-west runways you can fit in that! And are landing/takeoff patterns really an issue? Can't we just run parallel to their airport? Or how about a truly international airport? The possibilities are there!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/...0d700848_b.jpg

Looking Southwest
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3302/...00c24af8bc.jpg

Another lot looking south from a different street. EMPTY SPACE!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/...59f394aa_b.jpg

Looking South. A Tijuana radio tower in the far distance.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/...87101cdf90.jpg

A canyon looking West. This empty space goes on for about 2 miles west until you hit the new San Ysidro Highschool and brand new residential development near 805/905 connector. NIMBY's from that area will be an issue.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/...e62d8259_b.jpg

mongoXZ Feb 14, 2009 8:34 PM

So am I delusional for even wondering why this site hasn't been taken more seriously? I mean, we've seen some pretty good sites like Miramar to the borderline ridiculous ones (paving over South San Diego Bay/ Floating Pacific airport). Why hasn't Brown field/905 corridor been mentioned more often? The open land is there. The freeway access is there. It's a very underutilized area mostly unknown to San Diegans. The NIMBY factor I imagine would be less of a problem than most sites. Maybe there's some kind of deal between the city and some developers to keep this area hush-hush to the public. Hmmmmm.

sofresh808 Feb 14, 2009 10:15 PM

^from reading online about Brown Field it seems its already too close to mountains for ideal take off operations. Having the Tijuana Airport in such close proximity would be too large of a safety concern as well. I don't see any chance for a floating airport passing California's stringent environmental laws also. Miramar will close someday, it might be 50 years from now, but that'll be the new airport imo.

mello Feb 15, 2009 6:14 AM

One thing you guys on the previous page who said "oh the airport at Lindberg is ok excepte for the height limits" or "the operations haven't been increasing but the passenger numbers are" are overlooking is the huge cash cow that is Cargo Operations. 90% of aircargo that San Diego businesses send out flys out of LAX or Ontario. Do you realize how much money we pump in to the LA regional economy every year because of our pathetic airport that can't handle fully loaded 747 and other heavy large cargo planes?

San Diego County gives billions of dollars to the metro LA economy because of this and think of all the added truck traffic up the I-15 and 5 that could be eleminated if we could fly San Diego air cargo in and out of San Diego's airport. I've read extensive articles on the internet about this and I will try to dig them up.

staplesla Feb 15, 2009 6:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 4088645)
One thing you guys on the previous page who said "oh the airport at Lindberg is ok excepte for the height limits" or "the operations haven't been increasing but the passenger numbers are" are overlooking is the huge cash cow that is Cargo Operations. 90% of aircargo that San Diego businesses send out flys out of LAX or Ontario. Do you realize how much money we pump in to the LA regional economy every year because of our pathetic airport that can't handle fully loaded 747 and other heavy large cargo planes?

San Diego County gives billions of dollars to the metro LA economy because of this and think of all the added truck traffic up the I-15 and 5 that could be eleminated if we could fly San Diego air cargo in and out of San Diego's airport. I've read extensive articles on the internet about this and I will try to dig them up.

That's the reason why Fort Worth, TX built the Alliance Airport. DFW airport was bringing in so much cash from their cargo services that Fort Worth built Alliance which is a 100% cargo airport. The airport only has two large runways, but has now become a hub to 150 major companies, including FedEx. Last year Alliance brought in 28.5 $billion in revenues for Fort Worth.

Marina_Guy Feb 15, 2009 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 4088664)
That's the reason why Fort Worth, TX built the Alliance Airport. DFW airport was bringing in so much cash from their cargo services that Fort Worth built Alliance which is a 100% cargo airport. The airport only has two large runways, but has now become a hub to 150 major companies, including FedEx. Last year Alliance brought in 28.5 $billion in revenues for Fort Worth.

It is information like this that makes me continue to question the 'brainpower' of our city/county/port staff and leaders. The history of Brown Field is storied. But a cargo airport down there could have done wonders for the Tijuana/San Diego region. Think about all those trucks that move across the border everyday, when that stuff could be put on planes right there.

I personally don't think the airport needs to grow that much for passenger traffic, but cargo is the life blood of a regional economy and the more control you have in moving it, the better it is for the wage base.

mello Feb 15, 2009 5:28 PM

Exactly Marina guy the wages in this metro area are pathetic and such a huge percentage of jobs are low paying service sector positions. A great article about why we need a need a new airport that was six years old (can't find it on the net anymore) calculated that the SD metro area loses 6 billion dollars a year to the LA area because of all the cargo business we miss out on that LAX/Ontario gets. Now it is probably closer to 8/10 billion a year.

Simply incredible that we forego all of this opportunity to produce higher paying jobs. Also think about revenues that we miss by not having more international flights. I'm not expecting SD to be a hub like SFO or Denver but at least some international flights would open up if we had 2 10,000 to 12,000 foot runways and that would probably bring in another billion or so to the local economy per year atleast.

I think if we had a real airport we might see at least double to triple the amount of international destinations and passengers plus a ton more cargo putting daily operations at around 8 to 900 and total passengers to around 24 million per year. Does that sound about right to you guys?

Fusey Feb 15, 2009 6:57 PM

^ Flights to Mexico out of San Diego aren't that bad, unless I'm going to quieter places like Zuhia (in which case I'd have to transfer or fly out of TJ). But Lindbergh stinks going just about anywhere outside of North America.

Marina_Guy Feb 15, 2009 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 4089050)

I think if we had a real airport we might see at least double to triple the amount of international destinations and passengers plus a ton more cargo putting daily operations at around 8 to 900 and total passengers to around 24 million per year. Does that sound about right to you guys?

That is why it is even more incredible to see support to shutdown the marine cargo terminal to build a football stadium. At least, San Diego voters saw through that one.

bmfarley Feb 16, 2009 1:11 AM

I do not have a lot of strong thoughts on Lindbergh Field; however, I have some that I want to forward.

The Ballot Measure:

The measure taken to voters was not a referendum on kicking the military out of Miramar and the region. It was strictly about seeking an advisory vote from the public seeking an endorsement to allow local leaders to 'talk' with the DoD about a joint use facility at Miramar; using approximately 3,000 out of 23,000 total acres. The 'no' vote did not foreclose future possibilities.

The measure read:

"Should Airport Authority and government official’s work toward obtaining 3,000 acres at MCAS Miramar by 2020 for a commercial airport, providing certain conditions are met?"

A Yes vote meant :

"“YES” vote means that you would support the Airport Authority’s recommendation to work with other governmental officials to obtain a portion of MCAS Miramar as the site for future development of the San Diego International Airport, including all the conditions specified in the measure. "

That said it is my opinion that other possibilities exist that could be taken back to voters. For sake of conversation and ignoring certain aspects, such as cost and political will... one option could be the region building a new Miramar equivalent facility elsewhere in the region, at local cost, so that military maintains synergy with other local DoD facilities. Maybe it's in Ramona? And, Miramar is then converted to a commercial airport. Voters may support a measure that keeps the military here vs the perception of kciking them out.

Again, I remain relatively indifferent about Lindbergh Field or Miramar. I am more interested in the impact of the approved California High-Speed Rail project, and station and network implications to San Diego. For background purposes I note that California high-speed rail will have stations in Temecula/Murrieta, Escondido, University City, and Downtown San Diego. See image snapped from the CHSRA website….

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n.../HSR-SoCal.jpg

High-speed rail and Lindbergh Field capacity issues:

A high-speed rail station in San Diego with connections to the rest of the state, at least the major urban areas, will absorb a lot of current and future demand for in-state flights. This will be true regardless sof the final terminal station; downtown or Lindbergh Field. The ability high-speed rail to attract users away from flights is not unusual; it has been the case around the world where high-speed rail has been implemented.

The ability of high-speed rail to grab that market share is because it is time competitive with planes, it’s on the ground, it’s easier to access and use, and it’s cheaper. What is the portion of in-state flights coming in/out of Lindbergh? I suspect in the 30% to 50% range? High-speed rail has the potential to absorb much of that demand and free-up runway and terminal capacity and postpone the need to expand due to capacity constraints.

I am not suggesting high-speed rail replace or mitigate the need to expand or replace Lindbergh Field entirely; only that some future demand is mitigated and eventual capacity may be reached at a later date.

With respect to Lindbergh roadway circulation/traffic issues:

Noteworthy is that high-speed rail users travelling out of the region will not need to travel to Downtown or a Lindbergh Station b/c users can access the HSR network elsewhere, such as at Temecula/Murrieta, Escondido or University City. In fact, for a large part of county residents making such trips, a station downtown or at Lindbergh will be out of the way relative to other station locations. The opportunity of having other access points to the high-speed rail system will relieve some of the local roadway traffic congestion issues around Lindbergh Field. This will be true if a high-speed rail station were at Lindbergh Field or at Downtown Santa Fe Depot.

With respect to a high-speed rail station at Lindbergh Field:

As we know, Sanders/Peace included a station in the proposed super transit hub at Lindbergh Field. The intent would be to support their transit hub plan and perhaps generate development opportunities. Unfortunately, a Lindbergh Field station would preclude a downtown station. We would not have both.

However, there is very little synergy between high-speed rail and airplanes... relative to San Diego. As others have said, San Diego is a destination and not a hub. I believe that is true. I also believe that means there will be near zero people transferring between long distance HSR trains and airplanes. Why would people do that? They took a wrong turn somewhere?

Some local people accessing Lindbergh Field may do so via HSR if a station were there... after getting on trains in Temecula/Murrieta, Escondido or University City; however, should such rider demand to the airport trump other rider demand to downtown San Diego?

A station at Downtown Santa Fe Depot:

Commuters from Temecula/Murrieta, Escondido or University City will not be able to access downtown if there were no station downtown... and an alternative Lindbergh station would mean transferring to the Trolley to complete a trip. Unfortunately, transferring kills patronage. I suspect with downtown's planned resident population increasing from 30,000 to 90,000 and employment population increasing from 80,000 to 160,000 (with planned proportion of downtown transit trips being 25% of total) would have overwhelming greater HSR commuter demand than local users needing to access Lindbergh Field airplanes!

Of course, there are other benefits of a downtown station relative to one at Lindbergh Field; however, they are marginal. One is for tourists… isn’t it better to connect them with their final destination in downtown with a plethora of transit options rather them having the get into a rental car and having them aimlessly drive around town? And it’s nice the Trolley and a couple bus lines serve the Lindbergh transit hub; however, the level of service iwould be nominal relative to downtown.

Current Need:

In my opinion, planning efforts for high-speed rail need a jump start; a new regional focus should include implications of the location of a downtown station. At the least, if a station at Lindbergh is really desired, b/c of the implications, it's my opinion that the region should be sought to provide input. Such a decision should not be left for elected officials or a Blue Ribbon Committee. If any one group should play a role... it should be technocrats... people trained and informed on the issues. I would preclude SANDAG involvement because they are a highway organization.

PadreHomer Feb 17, 2009 12:39 AM

About 10 years ago there was a referendum to build a cargo airport with private money at Brown Field and it was obliterated by NIMBYs

SDCAL Feb 17, 2009 8:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 4089220)
^ Flights to Mexico out of San Diego aren't that bad, unless I'm going to quieter places like Zuhia (in which case I'd have to transfer or fly out of TJ). But Lindbergh stinks going just about anywhere outside of North America.

Linbergh has no flights that go outside of North America, you must transfer

Lindbergh Field is a complete and utter MOCKERY of an airport, but San Diego will never change

We are destined to remain the worlds largest cowtown-

SDCAL Feb 17, 2009 8:58 AM

Lindergh's sprawling international network, ala Wikipedia :
 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Route_Map.png[I

staplesla Feb 17, 2009 8:25 PM

SD Int' Airport - Make your voice heard.
 
It is great to collaborate and debate ideas through the forum. However we must make our voices heard to those who will ultimately make the decisions regarding the future of the SD Int'l Airport. Here are the email addresses if you wish to shoot and email to our "leaders."

SD City Council
sherrilightner@sandiego.gov
kevinfaulconer@sandiego.gov
toddgloria@sandiego.gov
anthonyyoung@sandiego.gov
carldemaio@sandiego.gov
donnafrye@sandiego.gov
martiemerald@sandiego.gov
benhueso@sandiego.gov

SD Mayor's Office
JerrySanders@sandiego.gov

Airport Authority Board Members
abersin@san.org
bboland@san.org
jdesmond@san.org
rfinnila@san.org
jpanknin@san.org
tsmisek@san.org
bwatkins@san.org
tyoung@san.org
czettel@san.org
tbowens@san.org

dl3000 Feb 18, 2009 12:24 AM

Back in the day they were gonna build a cargo airport at Brown to relieve Lindbergh and segregate operations which would have been really convenient. The huge problem is that Otay Mountain is smack in the middle of the approach path. To get around this they had planned to run landing and take off from the west. This doesn't go well with weather conditions and wind coverage, so they decided there was no point. The beauty of Tijuana's airport is that its approach path is directly south of Otay Mountain so it has no problem with clearance.

Now the problem with Lindbergh's runway regardless of what they do landside with gates and approaches, the runway is friggin short. They can only use something like 4/5 of it for landing, which rules out any instrument (ILS) landings from the east which is the favored landing direction. That means when its foggy or just bad visibility, planes can't land on autopilot because the situation at Lindbergh's approach from the east doesnt fit FAA criteria for the dimensions of the airfield and such. You can do instrument landings from the west since it has better clearance (i.e. the buildings arent so high) but the wind is at your tail, which is very bad for landing, so there are major weight limitations on the planes. So in a place with perfect runway direction and excellent weather, operation capacity is severely hindered. Miramar is just about it. Thats my 2 cents

kpexpress Feb 18, 2009 3:57 AM

Autopilot landings? I am glad that it doesn't snow here, my heart goes out to all people effected by the Buffalo accident.

HurricaneHugo Feb 18, 2009 4:24 AM

i knew about autopilot flying the airplane, didn't know about landing the damn thing...O_o

dl3000 Feb 18, 2009 8:53 AM

Heres some clarification. Basically, say its zero visibility and its foggy, or even low clouds, pilots can't see anything except for like when they are a hundred feet in the air, there is a system called the instrument landing system, which is a series of antennae that transmit the location of the runway and the angle of approach the plane should be taking. This is under instrument flight rules. (Theres visual flight rules when its nice weather, pilots can see what they're doing so they don't need guidance). Often it just means theres this gauge on the pilot's display that they have to keep centered and they will make it to the runway, but some planes can process the info themselves and let the autopilot take care of it. ILS requires good clearance since there is a lot of trust in the instruments and nothing really to check it, so smooth approaches are favored, which is why runway 9 (west approach) can have ILS, but runway 27, obviously the runway of choice (its almost always how Lindbergh runs) has too steep of an approach for ILS since there are so many obstructions among other reasons, so it kills the capacity when the weather is bad since the wind almost always comes from the west, and the hills are too steep in the east to really make Santa Anas felt on runway 9.

Also about the height limit, I dont know all the regulations for San Diego, but there is this imaginary ceiling that surrounds all runways that buildings cant go above obviously. The slope of it gets steeper the farther away you are, and I think Downtown is clear of 500', but the fact that planes can't really turn north in an emergency because of mission hills, they have to loop and do whatever over the bay, and downtown is sort of surrounded by the loop that the plane has to do to realign. Now this has less basis in fact than just an educated guess but I'm thinking thats why.

My airport design class came in handy haha. There actually was a group assigned to pretend they were solving the San Diego airport problem (I got Portland). You don't want to know what they had in mind.

For more info... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.