SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by eburress

The question isn't about Lindbergh Field vs. other similar airports because that's a debate about who's the tallest vertically challenged person* in Dubuque and the question also isn't which airport is hurt by its location because all of the World's most economically "valuable" airports are far from their respective cities' downtowns. The question is what is Lindbergh Field's effect on San Diego...what is its the economic impact vs. the economic impact of a larger, world-class airport.

It might be convenient to us having the airport so close to downtown, but what's good for some people in the region isn't necessarily what's good for the region as a whole, and frankly it's that thinking (what's good for me vs. what's good for the whole) that has left SD with such a turd of an airport to begin with.


*Gotta be PC

I'm leaning more this way though.

[Bertrice]

Originally Posted by SDfan

I'm leaning more this way though.

If there was more industry here I'd agree but the only time the airport is busy is during holidays or maybe comic-con. Speaking from someone who spent my childhood in airports.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by Bertrice

If there was more industry here I'd agree but the only time the airport is busy is during holidays or maybe comic-con. Speaking from someone who spent my childhood in airports.

The only time the airport is busy is during holidays? Let's not make things up here.

The airport, particularly T1, has been chronically congested, and I'm not sure what your childhood has to do with this. There are numerous reasons why people fly. Business, health, leisure, military, sports, government,etc. There may not be that many Fortune 500 companies in SoCal these days, but there are still plenty of companies creating travel demand, in addition to the other sources I mentioned.

As others have said, there are a clash of interests here.

Forward looking people see the airport, and say gee-whiz, we would have more international flights if we had a runway that didn't require long-haul flights to be weight restricted. This would be good for the city AND citizens, by offering more destinations, and bringing in more foreign travelers. With a larger facility, there would also be more room to support more overnighting, and maintenance facilities for aircraft, creating more opportunities to become a focus city for more airlines, and cargo.

Instead, many people say gee, the airport can still get me back to Timbucktoo at Christmas, so it must be meeting all of our city's needs.

[Bertrice]

Originally Posted by spoonman

The only time the airport is busy is during holidays? That is nonsense.

The airport, particularly T1, has been chronically congested, and I'm not sure what your childhood has to do with this. There are numerous reasons why people fly. Business, health, leisure, military, sports, government,etc. There may not be that many Fortune 500 companies in SoCal these days, but there are still plenty of companies creating travel demand, in addition to the other sources I mentioned.

As others have said, there are a clash of interests here.

Forward looking people see the airport, and say gee-whiz, we would have more international flights if we had a runway that didn't require long-haul flights to be weight restricted. This would be good for the city AND citizens, by offering more destinations, and bringing in more foreign travelers.

Instead, many people say gee, the airport can still get me back to Timbucktoo at Christmas, so it must be meeting all of our city's needs.

I drove through it a couple days ago just to see the new terminal. I couldn't do that in newark or lax. Hell I could bike through it on thanksgiving. I flew out xmas and its was slow as 🞵🞵🞵🞵. Southwest terminal security line is crowded at times but that's on southwest.
"numerous reasons why people fly" no 🞵🞵🞵🞵 Sherlock or grimace

No new airport or NBA team so shut it down
move on
next issue

[Urbanize_It]

Originally Posted by SDfan

It's just not efficient, and SAN as it is now isn't sufficient.

As for efficient rail, ha! If you mean better amtrack/coaster service, then maybe you'll shave 15 minutes by double tracking the whole coastline.

Not sufficient? How so? SAN currently bears ALL traffic the market can bring. Including non-stops to Asia and and Europe. It will be a long time until SAN is at capacity.

No, I don't mean double tracking, alone at least. I am also not talking about high speed train. I am, however, talking about a true rail NETWORK that could handle express trains from SAN to LAX without having to go through DT LA. Maybe a pipe dream in this SoCal anti rail climate, but would be way better than an airport half way to Arizona.... THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD A TRAIN TO!?

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by Bertrice

I drove through it a couple days ago just to see the new terminal. I couldn't do that in newark or lax. Hell I could bike through it on thanksgiving. I flew out xmas and its was slow as 🞵🞵🞵🞵. Southwest terminal security line is crowded at times but that's on southwest.
"numerous reasons why people fly" no 🞵🞵🞵🞵 Sherlock or grimace

No new airport or NBA team so shut it down
move on
next issue

Airports are cyclical in their levels of busyness. I have spent a lot of time at LAX, and have gone there many times to go to the Encounter. There are times that place is dead and slammed, due to scheduling and connections. "Riding a bike" through the throughway does not have anything to do with gate capacity, slotting, runway capacity, overnight capacity, weight restrictions, etc. Your personal anecdotes do not mean that a new airport is not necessary or wanted. I will say that the airport expansion has given the airport more years, but continued expansion will only delay the inevitable.

[Urbanize_It]

Originally Posted by eburress

Lindburg's location is convenient, but it's definitely not an "advantage." LAX, O'Hare, DFW, and Hartsfield are HUGE economic growth engines, and are not hurt in the least by the fact that they're not immediately adjacent to those cities' downtowns.

Speaking on the topic of economic growth, I just read that Fort Worth's alliance airport has had a $38.5 billion economic impact on Tarrant and Denton counties since 1990. Now that is an advantage.

Ok, now I am confused. Alliance airport IS and advantage, but SAN is NOT? You do realize that Alliance only exists because DFW (the huge hub) is not convienient to most of Tarrant County's population, right? You kind of helped prove my point.

LAX, DFW and O'Hare are huge economic engines because of their locations and timing to the market. They were built due to favorable locations in the air transportation network (geographic) AND were already huge employment centers. Not the other way around. I.e. I think it is magical thinking at best to suggest a huge hub airport built here,even if conveniently located, would lure businesses here. Again, look at DIA as an example. That was the plan, but it just didn't pan out...so the residents and avid skier ex-residents (me) suffer. I now ski in Utah and California almost exclusively. :-(

Just to make it clear, I am not against adding a huge airport out in the desert (if it is not a money drain), but it would be insane to retire Lindburgh. Just like all the examples you gave above, their old closer in airports are still being used and are vital to the local economy.

[eburress]

Originally Posted by SDfan

I agree to a point. I don't think a huge airport in the Imperial Valley would not be ideal either.

But I don't think San Diego is going to reach it's optimal economic potential by relying on Tijuana and LAX for it's air transport needs. It's just not efficient, and SAN as it is now isn't sufficient.

As for efficient rail, ha! If you mean better amtrack/coaster service, then maybe you'll shave 15 minutes by double tracking the whole coastline. If you mean high speed, you might as well be asking for an off shore airport - at least that's what I gather from most of the transportation planners I've talked to.

The debate is pretty much divided between whose interests do we want to serve? The communities preference for direct access to SAN, or the business/economic communities need for greater air transport growth?

That's a tough call. I'm not sure I have an answer just yet.

Agreed. An airport in the IE isn't a viable option and neither is a Lindbergh/TJ combo. What is an option though...the only option...is Miramar. It's plenty accessible to downtown and the rest of the region, especially once the trolley is extended north, and it has plenty of room to actually be an economic growth engine.

[eburress]

Originally Posted by Urbanize_It

Ok, now I am confused. Alliance airport IS and advantage, but SAN is NOT? You do realize that Alliance only exists because DFW (the huge hub) is not convienient to most of Tarrant County's population, right? You kind of helped prove my point.

LAX, DFW and O'Hare are huge economic engines because of their locations and timing to the market. They were built due to favorable locations in the air transportation network (geographic) AND were already huge employment centers. Not the other way around. I.e. I think it is magical thinking at best to suggest a huge hub airport built here,even if conveniently located, would lure businesses here. Again, look at DIA as an example. That was the plan, but it just didn't pan out...so the residents and avid skier ex-residents (me) suffer. I now ski in Utah and California almost exclusively. :-(

Just to make it clear, I am not against adding a huge airport out in the desert (if it is not a money drain), but it would be insane to retire Lindburgh. Just like all the examples you gave above, their old closer in airports are still being used and are vital to the local economy.

That's incorrect in almost every way.

• Alliance airport is a 100% industrial airport and offers no consumer passenger service.
• Its advantage is its economic impact, which is enormous.
• It was built in the middle of nowhere, like DIA, and while it may have been "magical" thinking to expect it to lure businesses there, but that's precisely what has and continues to happen.
• No, it wasn't built because DFW was inconvenient to Tarrant County, and frankly no, DFW isn't inconvenient to anyone in the Metroplex, unless maybe you live East of Dallas or West of Fort Worth.

[Bertrice]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Airports are cyclical in their levels of busyness. I have spent a lot of time at LAX, and have gone there many times to go to the Encounter. There are times that place is dead and slammed, due to scheduling and connections. "Riding a bike" through the throughway does not have anything to do with gate capacity, slotting, runway capacity, overnight capacity, weight restrictions, etc. Your personal anecdotes do not mean that a new airport is not necessary or wanted. I will say that the airport expansion has given the airport more years, but continued expansion will only delay the inevitable.

Its on curfew, even with that limitation its still slow. Once downtown breaks 100k in population come talk to me.

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by Urbanize_It

Not sufficient? How so? SAN currently bears ALL traffic the market can bring. Including non-stops to Asia and and Europe. It will be a long time until SAN is at capacity.

No, I don't mean double tracking, alone at least. I am also not talking about high speed train. I am, however, talking about a true rail NETWORK that could handle express trains from SAN to LAX without having to go through DT LA. Maybe a pipe dream in this SoCal anti rail climate, but would be way better than an airport half way to Arizona.... THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD A TRAIN TO!?

I stand corrected. I should have said not sufficient for future and further needs. SAN includes one non-stop to Asia and one non-stop to Europe; hardly a plethora to say that it's sufficient for an aspiring global city. SAN bears all the traffic it can... for now.

That is unless San Diego wants to settle into a Santa Barbra and San Luis Obispo kind of existence. No dynamism, no growth. Just a town preserved in an aesthetic for the privileged few who want to keep it manicured for their our selfish preferences.

Lets hope the LOSSAN actually comes up with a solid plan for the socal rail system. But from what it seems, Sacramento will have HSR gobble up all of the attention, funds, and political capital that would have otherwise gone into more practical projects.

So, realistically, the day LAX gets a direct, express link to SAN is after HSR is completed through Riverside (umm, that's 2030+). Meanwhile SAN will only become more congested ... but hey! We got a bridge to TJ! *wipes hands* Problem solved.

[SDfan]

Originally Posted by Bertrice

No new airport or NBA team so shut it down
move on
next issue

What would you like to talk about?

[Urbanize_It]

Originally Posted by eburress

That's incorrect in almost every way.

• Alliance airport is a 100% industrial airport and offers no consumer passenger service.
• Its advantage is its economic impact, which is enormous.
• It was built in the middle of nowhere, like DIA, and while it may have been "magical" thinking to expect it to lure businesses there, but that's precisely what has and continues to happen.
• No, it wasn't built because DFW was inconvenient to Tarrant County, and frankly no, DFW isn't inconvenient to anyone in the Metroplex, unless maybe you live East of Dallas or West of Fort Worth.

I apologize for the completely incorrect assumptions that Alliance was a new passenger airport created to service the demand of western Tarrant County. I should have at least Googled the thing before I spouted off. Rookie mistake.

I also concede to your view that DFW is pretty convenient to most of the Metroplex. However, you also have to give me the fact that airports like Love Field, Midway, and Hobby are crucial amenities to the central business areas of those cities. I guess it is just my view that Lindbergh is an amenity that our tourism and central core would suffer greatly without.

I also agree that Miramar would be the perfect location for an airport to REPLACE Lindbergh, but from what I hear there is zero chance of that happening in our lifetimes. IMHO Without the possibility of Miramar our only option is making Lindbergh as efficient as possible while, utilizing and expanding the TJ airport, moving some smaller regional service to Palomar, and creating more efficient ground travel to our VERY established neighbors to the north.

[Urbanize_It]

Originally Posted by SDfan

I stand corrected. I should have said not sufficient for future and further needs. SAN includes one non-stop to Asia and one non-stop to Europe; hardly a plethora to say that it's sufficient for an aspiring global city. SAN bears all the traffic it can... for now.

That is unless San Diego wants to settle into a Santa Barbra and San Luis Obispo kind of existence. No dynamism, no growth. Just a town preserved in an aesthetic for the privileged few who want to keep it manicured for their our selfish preferences.

Lets hope the LOSSAN actually comes up with a solid plan for the socal rail system. But from what it seems, Sacramento will have HSR gobble up all of the attention, funds, and political capital that would have otherwise gone into more practical projects.

So, realistically, the day LAX gets a direct, express link to SAN is after HSR is completed through Riverside (umm, that's 2030+). Meanwhile SAN will only become more congested ... but hey! We got a bridge to TJ! *wipes hands* Problem solved.

Agree to disagree on this one. The only reason for the limited international flights is limited demand. It is proven the flights can exist and that the runway deficiency argument is a fallacy. 100% If there were more demand there would be more international service. Period. With improved airliner efficiency (like the Dreamliner), moving of puddle jumper regional services to Palomar and major international services (south/centeral America and beyond) through TJ Lindbergh has a loooooong way to go before being maxed out.

Again, I don’t think this will happen, but completely agree that is a danger in this city under some of the current policy decisions. That said, still a way better existence than becoming LA#2!

Completely agree!

I concede that my “hope” for a real and super efficient rail network throughout Socal is a very long way off. Probably not in my lifetime. This would be an example of MY “magical thinking”.

[Urbanize_It]

This is an article about the Sempra HQ being approved, but it also discusses Ballpark Village and its construction timeline being moved UP 1 year. “Due for completion in mid-2017…” Let’s hope so!

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/20/sempra-jmi-ballpark-designs-civicsd/

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by Urbanize_It

Agree to disagree on this one. The only reason for the limited international flights is limited demand. It is proven the flights can exist and that the runway deficiency argument is a fallacy. 100% If there were more demand there would be more international service. Period. With improved airliner efficiency (like the Dreamliner), moving of puddle jumper regional services to Palomar and major international services (south/centeral America and beyond) through TJ Lindbergh has a loooooong way to go before being maxed out.

Again, I don’t think this will happen, but completely agree that is a danger in this city under some of the current policy decisions. That said, still a way better existence than becoming LA#2!

Completely agree!

I concede that my “hope” for a real and super efficient rail network throughout Socal is a very long way off. Probably not in my lifetime. This would be an example of MY “magical thinking”.

I will give you the fact that we would not presently have DOZENS of international flights with a longer runway, however the runway does have a real impact. The short runway (and terrain which can't easily be cleared with a short runway) means that long haul airliners are weight restricted at takeoff. This causes the airlines to not be able to take as much air cargo, significantly reducing the profitability of a flight. A flight could be full (load factor), but the plane could be losing money (yield). Until the dreamliner came about, long haul service to Tokyo (farther than London) was not possible from a profitability standpoint due to severe weight restrictions. It remains to be seen if the dreamliner will solve all our woes for long haul routes once every airline has a dreamliner or equivalent aircraft type.

[tyleraf]

In my opinion a new airport would only benefit the area and prepare for future growth. This is an interesting article on San Diego increasing it resiliency. It'd be interesting to see how they would use the grants if we won them. http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/20/rockefeller-resiliency-grant-fulton/ It's also exciting to hear about the expediting of BV East Village is definitely going to be exciting to watch grow over the next few years.

[eburress]

Originally Posted by Urbanize_It

I apologize for the completely incorrect assumptions that Alliance was a new passenger airport created to service the demand of western Tarrant County. I should have at least Googled the thing before I spouted off. Rookie mistake.

I also concede to your view that DFW is pretty convenient to most of the Metroplex. However, you also have to give me the fact that airports like Love Field, Midway, and Hobby are crucial amenities to the central business areas of those cities. I guess it is just my view that Lindbergh is an amenity that our tourism and central core would suffer greatly without.

I also agree that Miramar would be the perfect location for an airport to REPLACE Lindbergh, but from what I hear there is zero chance of that happening in our lifetimes. IMHO Without the possibility of Miramar our only option is making Lindbergh as efficient as possible while, utilizing and expanding the TJ airport, moving some smaller regional service to Palomar, and creating more efficient ground travel to our VERY established neighbors to the north.

For sure, Love, Midway, Hobby, etc are all still around for a reason, and IF San Diego were to ever build a new airport at Miramar, there could still be reason to maintain SAN. It's unfortunate, but you're probably right about the likelihood of an airport being built at Miramar. There are too many people in this city worried solely about their own needs/property values and not enough vision/leadership to push something like that through. Sometimes I hate this can't do city.

[dales5050]

Originally Posted by Bertrice

This article article claims the park is to be completed by december 2013. any new info?

http://djcoregon.com/news/2012/05/15/wal...piration-from-pioneer-courthouse-square/

Last time I walked by the site a couple of weeks ago, the year 2013 had been replaced with 2014. I think late 2014 is now the goal.

The site is nowhere near being ready this year. They have not even poured the floor.

Really looking forward to it when it's done. Reminds me a lot of Union Square in SF. I just hope they find a way to keep the homeless out of it. Somehow Union Square does.

[mello]

We have already discussed at length on this forum how our limited airport is a symbol of the "Can't do" nature of this metro area as a whole and how it has affected business growth and is a turn off for people looking to possibly establish or expand their businesses here. Plus we lose out on tons of cargo revenue because we can't fly 747 cargo planes out of here and a lot of SD county's air cargo has to be trucked up to LAX/Ontario

Another thing is that SAN location is not very centrally located to where the money is in this county. An airport at Miramar would be much more convenient for the big players who live from La Jolla through Olivenhein and Southern Carlsbad.

--- Side note not forum related --- If anyone has a spare room they are looking to rent or knows of anyone please pm me, may have to move from my current place on a short notice thanks