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)

SDCAL Jul 6, 2017 6:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy619 (Post 7856191)
I can't imagine san diegans kicking out the Marines in favor of a new airport when we're throwing so much at the current one. There's really no need for a larger airport here, LAX is a few hours away, no other cities in America have two major hubs so close. Most our visitors coming from abroad are on long trips visiting all the CA cities not flying into and leaving from SAN. You can fly into SAN from almost any city in the US, and Tijuana internation airport supports 4+ million a year. The only thing the our airport is holding us back on is our downtown height limit, which isn't a big enough deal to move an airport.

Nobody is suggesting moving the airport solely for the building height. A lot of money has been put into the current airport (a mistake, in my opinion). Look at where it's all going: new parking structures, new terminals, new restaurants, new lounges. Notice what's missing? New runway space. Eventually that will catch up to the airport, unless technology outpaces growth, which doesn't seem likely. They keep building more places to park, ticket, and wait and eventually they will need more runway space if growth keeps up. This might not be for 20-30 years, but when you talk about the politics, planning, and construction of an airport it would take about that long to accomplish. My fear is this often backwards city will wait until the airport starts backing up and then hastily try to find a solution instead of doing it now when there's time to plan appropriately. There is also the issue of Miramar, and how viable it is to have it at that location as the metro area continues to grow. Base closures/moves happen and each time local communities whine about it, but it is what it is. It happened when they closed El Toro in OC, people were angry about it, but when there is rationale these decisions need to be made. I think if they were given like a 5-10 year warning period that it will be closed or relocated, the community would accept it much better than suddenly doing it which is what will be the case if we continue to kick the can down the road. The current airport will be moved at some point, and Miramar will also be relocated at some point. The questions is if it will be in our lifetimes.

The Flying Dutchman Jul 6, 2017 2:39 PM

Don't forget the very real proposition of sea level rise, which could affect all of coastal San Diego, including downtown and the airport.

spoonman Jul 6, 2017 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy619 (Post 7856191)
I can't imagine san diegans kicking out the Marines in favor of a new airport when we're throwing so much at the current one. There's really no need for a larger airport here, LAX is a few hours away, no other cities in America have two major hubs so close. Most our visitors coming from abroad are on long trips visiting all the CA cities not flying into and leaving from SAN. You can fly into SAN from almost any city in the US, and Tijuana internation airport supports 4+ million a year. The only thing the our airport is holding us back on is our downtown height limit, which isn't a big enough deal to move an airport.

This typifies the problem. Looking at today and not tomorrow. SAN is the busiest single runway airport in the US and the second busiest single runway airport in the world. Do you really think the single runway will continue to serve the airport and metro in another 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years?

Annual passenger traffic has doubled in the past 25 years and continues to grow at about 1/2 million passengers each year. The airport is on a tiny parcel of land that we are continually reconfiguring ($$) to make it efficient enough to keep up. Despite the addition of terminal space and parking, the airport will never have a second runway freeing up more slots and preventing/alleviating delays. Unless a true secondary airport or new airport is built, SAN will start running into major issues in the next 10-20 years. Coincidentally this is how long it takes to build and plan a new airport. Again, this is why you have to look past 2017.

Regarding hubs and other airports, why would we want to depend on LAX (who are having their own capacity issues with 80M PAX) for anything? There is no rail connection, traffic continues to get worse each year, and LAX is a mess. Tourists shouldn't have to drive from Miramar to DTSD/Beaches, but SD residents should have to drive to LAX ?? :shrug:

Boatguy619 Jul 6, 2017 10:36 PM

Anytime I fly international I usually have a connecting flight at LAX, I dont drive there. It's actually a nice flight cruising low over so cal for a half hour. But I get your point, it would be nice to have more direct flights from here. But at what cost to tax payers? How much of it is federally funded vs state vs local? I've checked all over the Internet for these answer and there doesn't seem to be a definite one. I did find however that the improvements currently happening at SAN are funded through Passenger Facility Charges that travelers pay when booking tickets. So the improvements we see isnt being paid for by us (unless you fly) I doubt PFC are enough to construct a new airport.

Alan in Clairemont Jul 6, 2017 11:55 PM

I love this thread...I think we are stuck with SAN / Lindbergh. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Terminal 1 expansion. A lot of work going to be done there....but one runway it is...

1) The Marines main jet base on the West Coast is Miramar...IF they closed a base it would probably be MCAS Yuma and move everything there to Miramar and Pendleton.

2) Note the Marines have invested a TON of money in Miramar, so another reason they aren't going anywhere. I grew up in Scripps Ranch and was in the Marines for 6 years. That base is completely different and much larger from when the Navy had it.

3) Miramar vote failed because the NIMBY's in the Scripps Ranch, Rancho Penasquitos, Mira Mesa, La Jolla all have money to burn to go against initiatives that would possibly adversely affect their home prices (nothing will stop that juggernaut in actuality). So they blew that opportunity (and it was ripe for the picking at the time). I don't recall if that was non-binding or not. I voted for it.

4) Brown Field is a no go unless you do A LOT of earthmoving with the mountains to the East (FAA restrictions currently). You also have a lot of money to go against it in the East Lake communities. That said, there is major work planned for civil aviation at Brown Field.

5) Floating airport.....LOL, although to their credit, no one mentioned that in this thread...

The Flying Dutchman Jul 7, 2017 1:08 AM

I predict nothing will get done, SAN will remain but increase in cost to travelers, while TIJ airport becomes more and more popular.

spoonman Jul 7, 2017 1:24 AM

Doing nothing is in San Diego's DNA. On that I'm sure we can all agree.

SDCAL Jul 7, 2017 1:48 AM

Deleted duplicate

SDCAL Jul 7, 2017 1:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan in Clairemont (Post 7857234)
1) The Marines main jet base on the West Coast is Miramar...IF they closed a base it would probably be MCAS Yuma and move everything there to Miramar and Pendleton.

It's not going anywhere anytime soon, but it will eventually. I've lived in SD for 20 years now and there's always the same argument that Miramar is a sacred cow and won't go anywhere.

But, the argument has been getting weaker and less aggressive.

20 years ago people would attack you and say you're "anti-American" if you even hinted at closing or moving Miramar. Today, people seem less fervent about it and more logical and they say things like, "it probably would be better for the city but I doubt it will happen," and then give reasons like yours.

The reason I think you're wrong is because of the increasing housing shortage.

In the last 5 years or so a "housing crisis" has become huge headlines in the news. San Diego keeps growing and we are running out of anywhere to build single family homes much less homes in general.

Even if the airport doesn't move at some point (a couple decades from now) the viability of keeping Miramar in its current location needs to be re-examined. Suggesting closing Yuma - located in a much smaller city with lots of space - and moving it to Miramar in the middle of a large city with a housing crisis will not fly. People are not as blindly loyal to these bases as they were 30 years ago. It would make way more sense to move Miramar to Yuma not the other way around. Or, combine Miramar with Pendleton, but that would probably bring resistance from cranky south oc NYMBYs.

HurricaneHugo Jul 7, 2017 5:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 7857330)
Doing nothing is in San Diego's DNA. On that I'm sure we can all agree.

The city prides itself in having less options than most cities its size.

HurricaneHugo Jul 7, 2017 5:42 AM

Also people say the airport location is "convenient" but Miramar would be almost dead center of the population of the County.

And you save 30 mins or so due to the downtown location...but you pay for that with a 3-5 hour layover...

IMBY Jul 7, 2017 6:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7843699)
I agree. This is easily the nicest tower built in San Diego in years...maybe ever. I'm struggling to think of another more unique, elegant building. They did a great job on it.

How can you ever go wrong, architecturally, with curves to the building!!! This arose since my last trip down there, couple years ago, and given what a sucker I am for curved buildings with glass, I look forward to it on my trip down there next month. Then off to Tijuana for dental work, Angeles Hospital for a consultation, overnight in Rosarito, and catch a museum or 2 in Balboa Park before my flight back the next day.

aerogt3 Jul 7, 2017 7:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 7856662)
This typifies the problem. Looking at today and not tomorrow. SAN is the busiest single runway airport in the US and the second busiest single runway airport in the world. Do you really think the single runway will continue to serve the airport and metro in another 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years?

It's actually the third busiest runway in the world, but passenger count is what matters, and you can't say SAN is super busy or limited when it's carrying < half the number of passengers of other single runway airports....

London Gatwick is single runway with 43M pax compared to SAN's 20M, and Mumbai has 45M. So SAN can increase passenger traffic. Those tiny GA planes carrying 2 people could be 787s holding 400. Same for airlines moving from 320s to larger aircraft. Same for those 25 daily flights to LA. And it will happen, when the demand is there.

SAN can serve more passengers, probably for many more years' demand. Pretty sure someone looked at that before dropping a billion dollars into improvements :haha:

What you are getting at is a bit like a transit agency saying they need entirely new subway lines because they cannot run more frequent trains on existing lines (but each train is 4 cars long when it could be 10...)

SDCAL Jul 7, 2017 3:44 PM

^ I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison comparing SAN to LGW and BOM.

Those airports have a longer runway and can handle bigger aircraft. They also have more room to maneuver planes and aren't as constrained as SAN. They are also 24 hour operations and don't have the curfew issue SAN does. Looking at the growth of SAN over the last few years, if it stayed roughly the same we would be approaching the passenger traffic of around 35-40m in 30 years and are in no way shape or form able to run the type of 24 hour, larger plane operation GTW and BOM do at that site. Maybe they did a cost analysis and the billion dollars will pay for itself in 2 or 3 decades but eventually it will have to move. I think the argument is that if the city was run better it would have been proactively done BEFORE it's needed, you know so it's seamless; this city tends to wait until ill effects are already imminent and being experienced before they act. And that's exactly what they'll do with the airport.

mello Jul 8, 2017 1:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7857853)
^ I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison comparing SAN to LGW and BOM.
Those airports have a longer runway and can handle bigger aircraft.

The bolded section is wrong I have evidence with my own eyes (posted this a few pages back), in the fall I witnessed from the roof of the new rental car facility the BA 747 take off reverse on a strong Santa Ana event. The jet was lifting off near terminal 1 (Not West of T1) with PLENTY of room to spare and cleared steep Bankers Hill by a large margin. Next up a heavy Fed Ex cargo jet same thing pulled up no prob and soars above BH with ease :cheers:

Now what you wrote about space to maneuver around the runway, taxiway, and terminal gates could be an issue but runway length is definitely not an issue as far as capacity goes at SAN.

SDCAL Jul 8, 2017 2:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 7858524)
The bolded section is wrong I have evidence with my own eyes (posted this a few pages back), in the fall I witnessed from the roof of the new rental car facility the BA 747 take off reverse on a strong Santa Ana event. The jet was lifting off near terminal 1 (Not West of T1) with PLENTY of room to spare and cleared steep Bankers Hill by a large margin. Next up a heavy Fed Ex cargo jet same thing pulled up no prob and soars above BH with ease :cheers:

Now what you wrote about space to maneuver around the runway, taxiway, and terminal gates could be an issue but runway length is definitely not an issue as far as capacity goes at SAN.

I've been to Mumbai, and they have 24 hour operations with large long haul flights taking off 24 hours a day to London, Frankfurt, Dubai, Tokyo, Bangkok, etc, etc. (including Air India and United direct from Newark on 777s). They also have 787 Dreamliner BA airlines. My point is I don't think SAN is equipped to handle large volume large aircraft like that with the combination of factors including the short runway. I'm well aware of the BA service at SAN, but I've also heard previous attempts at overseas service from San Diego required less fuel and had certain weight restrictions for either take off or landing, perhaps someone can confirm if that's still the case. SAN would likely never need the type of high volume long haul traffic Mumbai has (it was another poster making the comparison, I was pointing out why it's not a good one) and that makes for an even bigger problem in the future with frequency as we approach 30m in the coming decades if our model is smaller, shorter flights that need to be more frequent as passenger volume increases.

chris08876 Jul 8, 2017 12:36 PM

Development MAP
 
Not sure if this was posted in the past, but its a neat development map for SD.

:star: MAP: http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/development-map/

Quote:

Yellow balloon = entitlement or funding incomplete / construction not started; Red balloon = under construction; Blue balloon = construction completed; Green square = new park / plaza
There's a list below the map indicating developments in current stages; u/c, u/c complete, parks (new) and proposed. Also, if you click on the blib, a rendering and brief description comes up.

Maybe the thread starter or a mod can add to the front page as a resource.

aerogt3 Jul 10, 2017 7:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7857853)
^ I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison comparing SAN to LGW and BOM.

Those airports have a longer runway and can handle bigger aircraft. They also have more room to maneuver planes and aren't as constrained as SAN. They are also 24 hour operations and don't have the curfew issue SAN does.

Runway length is not an issue. Maybe 20 years ago it was, but airlines can run 400+ pax flights out of SAN on several modern aircraft - 777s, 787s, 350s, etc, and even some older ones (767, 330, 340.) SAN can accommodate any aircraft except the A380, which honestly no airline would fly there even if they could.

24 operations: Gatwick has restrictions on operation from 23:00 until 6:00, much like SAN. According to Gatwick's website, they had 280,000 aircraft movements in 2016. Only 14,000 of those (5%) depart/arrive between 23:00 and 6:00. I can't find exact data, but my personal experience with Gatwick is that those night flights are often cargo. I just looked at overnight traffic for the last two days, and even during busy summer season, there were.... zero passenger departures during those hours. I can see only one landing from yesterday from Cuba at 5:15, which would be allowed at SAN as well. The fact is, if we assume half of all movements are landings (they better be :haha:), then at minimum, 97.5% of Gatwick's passengers fly during normal SAN operating hours.

SAN can grow to Gatwick levels of pax on a single runway, which represents 2-3 decades of projected use, simply by replacing 30 seat aircraft with 300 seat aircraft. And that will happen, when demand is there. And that's without considering other factors. High speed rail and autonomous ground transport will probably decrease airport utilization, and new air traffic control systems will increase the frequency of aircraft movements, increasing the number of aircraft that each runway can handle:

Quote:

Originally Posted by https://www.wired.com/2007/10/faa/
The FAA's Laura Brown says ADS-B will help reduce congestion in several ways. "Because it will provide such precise information about where planes are located, we think we'll be able to operate them closer to one another in some parts of the air space," she says. "Which means more capacity." Brown adds that the system will allow controllers to handle more aircraft, which means fewer handoffs from controller to controller. "Ultimately, the system is more effective if you are able to limit the amount of communication back and forth."

Combining all of these factors, its easy to see why the billion dollars investment in SAN was made: the location will have adequate capacity well into the future.

The Flying Dutchman Jul 10, 2017 7:12 PM

Theoretically, HSR will service SAN decades from now, which should help alleviate future demand. I'd be curious to see stats on trips to and from SAN, and how much of traffic is "local" (in-state). SAN may transition to more international flights as we are already seeing while HSR picks up the slack for travelers heading to various parts of the state. Someone here said once that airlines prefer longer trips as they are more profitable. My 2c.

The Flying Dutchman Jul 10, 2017 7:21 PM

Oh and, Park/11th/Market at the former site of Quartyard (which is moving a few blocks east next to Alpha Square) has already begun demolition. This is the new UCSD outpost, if you'll recall. Apologies if someone already posted this.

https://www.trbimg.com/img-584efdaa/...ntown-20161208

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...208-story.html


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:45 AM.

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