voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Part II: Reality and the Airport

Sorry, this took a bit longer to get to than I wanted. I was working on a column that should go up tonight and a couple of other pressing things.

But to follow my last post, I'd like to make it simple: There's two great, though majorly flawed, assumptions underlying the Union-Tribune 's and others' insistence that we construct a massive new airport somewhere within 50 miles of the city's center.

'Honey, do you hear that?' Photo: Sam Hodgson

The first is that demand will go up so much and so fast that Lindbergh Field will, within the next ten years, reach capacity. And then, it will become congested. And then, our economy will suffer.

The second major assumption is that you have to build a massive, two-runway, Denver-like aviation wonderland in order to handle all this traffic.

The collective acceptance of these two assumptions by a few relatively powerful people led us to that stupid ballot measure in 2006 that advocated some kind of bizarre partnership between the Marines and the city to share the only plot of land within 50 miles that could possibly have enough room for this dream: Miramar.

But enough on that.

We've already challenged the first assumption appropriately: There is simply little evidence that the airport is rapidly approaching capacity.

But let's just roll over for it. Regardless of the argument, let's drink it in, swish it around and swallow it like any ol' mind-altering drug and delight in the delusions that follow.

If we accept that Lindbergh is on a crash course to insufficiency, then what do we do.

We first need to accept some truths about our community. First off: Miramar Marine Corps Air Station is out as a possible site for a new airport. It's just not going to happen. Maybe in the past it would have worked out -- it was far enough away from the city proper that its neighbors couldn't kill it.

But even if the Marines leave, the neighbors and surrounding businesses just won't let it happen. Qualcomm, the region's biggest business, basically threatened to leave if the powers that be tried to put an airport at Miramar. It was unworkable even without the fact that the Navy and Marines were intolerant of the concept. The "joint use" idea was predicated on the idea that Miramar eventually phased out fighter jet training on the land. That's not going to happen.

So get over it.

Secondly, accept that there is no other place within 80 miles where a major airport like the one they dreamed of could fit. Nowhere. As we're told in countless luncheons and conferences, San Diego is bound by borders, mountains, oceans and Marines.

So, we don't have to decide where to move the airport in the county. We have to decide whether to build an airport outside the county or not. Very simple. Imperial County wanted the big airport. Either we build it out there or we don't. That's it.

So given that reality, we don't need to keep fretting at all. We can either start to truly decide whether we want to build a rail line or drive all the way to Imperial County to be able to enjoy a massive airport, or we can look at our situation and try to make the best of it.

Other communities in the world do that all the time. They take their unique geography and just deal with it. In Japan, they decided they needed a huge airport, so they built an island for it.

I don't think that's going to work here, but we can adapt. We have to decentralize the airport and its authority. Perhaps the airport authority itself should be housed in, say, Kearny Mesa. There it can really see its job as maximizing and making efficient all of the region's airports -- Lindbergh being the biggest asset of them all but not the only focal point.

Looking at the region as a whole, they can decide where they should put general aviation, cargo and other major operations to ease congestion at Lindbergh. They can work on innovative proposals like the cross-border terminal. But their mission would be to maximize the efficiency and convenience of Lindbergh while evaluating other assets and ensuring we are using them to their full potential.

If you are afraid of congestion at Lindbergh, take a look at the stats, chill out, and then go support a region-wide evaluation of how each and every asset can be used more and better.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Someone should to chime in and speak more to implications to airlines of increasing fuel costs and the possibility that high speed rail will soon link San Diego to LA and points north. I will try. On fuel, CEO's of major airlines and oil company's have publicly stated that high costs are here to stay. Airline's say this will have a substantial impact on the industry; higher fares, new surcharges, flights cut, services eliminated... As a result, rider demand will decrease. High-speed rail... statewide polling shows support for the November ballot measure to construct high-speed rail. The adopted preferred alignment includes a Santa Fe Depot terminus. Like elswhere around the world, quality HSR service will replace short-haul flights as a preference. This double whammy will affect demand at Lindbergh... substantially. We may not need any satelite

Posted by Brandon F | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 5:28 pm

... airports; let alone terminal expansion at Lidbergh.

Posted by Brandon F | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 6:26 pm

I'm disappointed that Scott chose to take the "Don't worry, be happy" approach. It ignores all the historical evidence of aviation's importance to local, regional, national and global economies. It ignores the fact that you cannot dictate where airlines fly, they are not houses on a Monopoly board to be moved at your pleasure. Sure, there will be a place for high speed rail, if we can afford to build it. And yes, we should work to maximize Lindbergh Field. But if there was really nothing to the argument in favor of moving to Miramar then that proposition should've died years ago; instead, it continues to surface again and again. And no amount of effort by SecNav, the Marines or the military industrial complex appears able to kill it. Why? Because the concept has merit. Funny thing about that idea, it's so logical, and inevitable.

Posted by Transportation Guru | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 8:23 pm

Brandon F. First, high-speed rail will never happen in San Diegoâ��too expensive and no place to put the tracks~ Get over it! Heck, they canâ��t even dual track the railroad into San Diego now, how do you think that a high-speed rail line will ever be put in place here? Think Del Mar and their obstructionist argumentsâ��. San Diego is destined to be a perpetual cul-de-sac. However, I do agree with Transportation Guruâ��s comments. Eighty percent of all air freight is trucked out of San Diego right now, and that is efficient? It either goes to LAX or March AFB (Riverside).

Posted by Howiek | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 6:32 am

What's wrong with expanding Brown Field to supplement Lindbergh?

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 7:18 am

If we would have had a cohesive regional plan we would have no problems at all. We had plenty of room to redesign and expand Lindbergh, but the powers that be gave away NTC to developers and lost are best chance at reorienting Lindbergh. Brown was ideal to turn into our air-"port" for all cargo. The powers that be preferred to let development encroach on that airport to the point it is now hardly viable. Palomar is a perfect place for a commuter airport. It is doing that job now, but its ability to expand in that capacity is being encroached by development. Montgomery field is an ideal civilian airport, but the DSD long-term plan (as voiced by Jim Waring) is that the airport will disappear within twenty years and the land will be developed.

Posted by Mike P | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 7:48 am

I've lived in San Diego more that 50 years. Thousands and thousand of dollars have been wasted on studies. As a destination SDIA is fine. It's not, and never will be a hub like Denver. Add some new passenger gates along the Pacfic Hwy, move air freight traffic to Brown Field and general aviation to Montgomery, Carlsbad or Gillespie then have a glass of red wine, problems solved for the next 100 years without another 250K study, then my great-grand kids and advances in technology will tackle it.

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 7:50 am

To add to the above: The vise grip that developer interests have held for decades in this county over our elected officials, departments like DSD and our planning boards has destroyed any chance we had for a long-term comprehensive (and intelligent) regional solution for our airport needs. The same culprits pop up again and again with regards to killing the cargo airport at Brown and encroaching on Montgomery, Brown and Lindbergh.

Posted by Mike P | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 7:55 am

Worldwide demand for oil is exceeding supply, and shows no signs of abating. There is no replacement for oil on the scale we currently use it (i.e. 1 plane can operate on biodiesel, the global aviation system cannot). Oil supplies from existing fields are depleting faster than we are finding new supplies. And nations such as Saudi Arabia are saving oil for themselves rather than selling it on the futures market. So demand is outpacing supply, and the imbalance is only going to worsen into the future. A barrel of oil is now roughly $130/barrel. As global oil supply depletes and demand for oil remains robust, prices will likely far exceed $130, and our aviation system will collapse. If we don't invest in electrified rail, mobility will be much more limited in the future. And if we invest in airports, future generations will rightly think of us as myopic fools.

Posted by TheAirplaneAgeisOver | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 8:12 am

Can't find where you live Scott, are you a NIMBY too? Or 'paid off' by the housing developers or the military? This can be a huge 'economic stabilizer' for San Diego, one missing for Fifty Years, but your own limited, short-term blindness & ignorance covers your ears. Stop looking at all the negatives -very small-impact is ZERO at East Elliott, in the middle of 64,000 Undeveloped acres. Lindbergh is 660 acres. O'Hare is 7,700 acres. You could fit Eight O'Hare's in the southeast of Miramar, 4.5 miles. Far 'further away' than either Coronado Naval Air Station or Rodriquez Airport from Brown Field, both exactly 1.5 miles, sideways away! UTC/La Jolla/Sorrento would Never be the aircraft 'path', as you have a 1300 ft. high 'obstacle' (mt. soledad) a commercial aircraft would never 'take off into' at 400-600 mph.

Posted by Wide Awake | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 8:41 am

As I understand it, besides congestion, the issue for Lindbergh is its ability to support large, long haul (international) flights. Which is to say, economic links to rising economies (China, India, Brasil, etc etc) will exist directly with LA (and a long list of US cities), but only indirectly with San Diego. We can live with that, but it will tend to solidify our role as a tourist/military outpost. There are competing interests in town, and this is why they're keen on a new airport.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 8:52 am

The Miramar Airport was a good plan and may still be but as much as I hate to admit it Scott is probably right, politically it won't fly, If the military leaves, not likely, the neighbors will bash it to death. The only thing that might cause Lindberg to move would be a major disaster, an earthquake that shakes all that liquefiable soil in the airport area or a major airline crash. God forbid either. With high fuel costs and less travel Lindberg probably won't reach its capacity for some time and mass if rail transit may become more user friendly we can catch the train to LAX or John Wayne and only lengthen the trip by several hours. The airport will have an economic impact on the city. We will just have to deal with it.

Posted by Stu | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 9:05 am

Scott, Your assumption that Miramar is off the table for ever is absurd. There might be no movement as of now but it remains the ONLY location for a new airport. You may be right than in the next 10 years it ain't going there but I would be willing to wager that it will be there once the military decommission Miramar over the next 10 years. One other note: You suggest that the current airport doesn't yet hurt our economy which is false. People are constantly forced to travel to LA to travel internationally and to access flights. One key reason SD has so few corporate headquarters is that this City has a lame airport in terms of serving a global marketplace. I think your assumptions are problematic and not based in a true understanding of the economics of the airport.

Posted by sdsteven | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 9:17 am

#4 - Have you even seen the plans for high speed rail? It goes nowhere near Del Mar, it runs down the I-15 corridor. #6 - We do have SANDAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. The problem is that compliance is not mandatory, so it can't go very far.

Posted by That Guy | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 10:45 am

Debating the inevitability of high-speed rail (HSR) shouldn't be the point, but "That Guy (#14)" is correct; it doesn't go through Del Mar. Additionally, HSR would be completely grade separated; having no conflicts with street crossings (think above/below existing conditions). It also gets travelers to downtown LA than flying through LAX ever could, and would be very time competitive for the same trip to downtown SF. I believe about 30% of all flights to/from Lindbergh are in-state. Planning studies have shown that it would take x2 to x4 times the amount of funding to accommodate the same number of people at the states airports and roadways as HSR would. So, it's more cost effective. Yes, maybe Lindbergh needs improvements, but my thinking now is limited to accommodating larger planes... not more of them or their passengers.

Posted by Brandon F | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 10:56 am

Trying to be objective for a minute, the airlines have an economic model that works, and is profitable, even if it has been stressed since 9/11. HSR has nothing like that, if it did, there would be HSR to Vegas and a few other spots and Amtrak would be in the private sector. But it's not. Economics is the biggest deterent to HSR; and distance, no HSR will match a plane to the east coast. And people, both leisure and business, will pay a premium for time and increased productivity associated with air travel. Whenever tough times hit aviation, as they have over the past 30 years, skeptics call for its demise. Funny thing, it comes back stronger every time. San Diego can either participate in the global economy or become a tourist/military destination with its lower paying jobs.

Posted by transportation guru | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 4:29 pm

The studies comparing HSR to airport and road infrastructure are flawed. They vastly underestimate the cost of HSR infrastructure and operation. And so is the business model the HSR Authority developed in 2002. It's all being re written thanks to a dose of reality. No mode of transport is more efficient at moving people over long distances than aviation; not even the automobile.

Posted by transportation guru | reply to this comment
June 20, 2008 4:36 pm

Airline operations at Lindbergh Field have increased from 180,000 operations in 1990 to 216,000 today. The airport had 227,000 total operations (including military and private aircraft) and has a service volume of 240,000 operations. La Guardia is at 90% of its service volume and it's a parking lot. Finally, lets talk about gas. Same whining in the 70's. Did we stop flying? No, we made more efficient aircraft. Like what Boeing is doing in the 787.

Posted by Just the facts | reply to this comment
June 21, 2008 5:26 am

Joint use doesn't work? North Island is joint use. As far as the FAA is concerned, airports within 3 miles of each other function as one. Lets now talk abotu the UT's flawed data. They use the OAG guide, which reports code share flights. You know, buy a ticket from Continental, fly on Delta.... Well, for starters, look at their chart that shows Delta to LAX. Delta doesn't fly to LAX, they sell tickets on American Eagle. There's 92 flights that are double counted.

Posted by Just the facts | reply to this comment
June 21, 2008 5:37 am

Some more facts...Continental just left Delta and Northwest to hook up with United. That means Continental no longer flies to Salt Lake City, Cincinati, Minneapolis, Detroit, memphis and Atlanta according to the OAG guides. Ooops! Continental cut half their flights! Yet, they never flew there in the first place, they simply sold seats on Delta and Northwest flights. Fact is, most of the UT hype in that article is a bunch of BS. Where the airlines are makign the major cuts is in small markets where 50 seat RJ's don't cut it.

Posted by Just the facts | reply to this comment
June 21, 2008 5:39 am

Its flawed analysis such as this from the UT, the Voice and others that lead a public to buy into a well that is just about dry. We didn't stop flying the 1970's after the oil crisis, and we won't now. Biofules are just around the corner as are new more efficient aircraft. Wait for rail? Till when??? 2040??? Comparing a two runway airport at Miramar to a five runway Denver is also a bunch of bunk. But hey, dramatic affect matters right? But hey Scott, you're a military dependent right? No bias there.

Posted by Just the facts | reply to this comment
June 21, 2008 5:45 am

Scott, I think you need to read up on the proprietary powers of airports, public access laws and the public use of airports. There you will find that you can't bar access to Lindbergh Field. Its a flawed and now tired argument made by many to justify not building a new airport. I can't wait for 2015-2017 to see the delays and complaining. It will be a wonderful day for those of us who watched the airport issue and hoped the public would show some intelligence for a change. Then again, this is San Diego.

Posted by Just the Facts | reply to this comment
June 21, 2008 9:30 am

It's the details that count, such as "affect" vs "effect" and the well-advertised fact that Scott's wife is now out of the military, thus he is no longer a military dependent. That's the way it goes. We have quite a crew of posters who hold themselves out to be experts on commercial aviation, yet their numbers just don't quite seem to add up. Details. Details.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 21, 2008 11:08 am

Wouldn't it be easier to stop the local growth to include these employment centers till we can figure out how to solve these infrastructure problems? Trying to lay tracks as the train moves is the action of a fool!

Posted by jr | reply to this comment
June 21, 2008 12:18 pm

Right, jr. That's something Stalin or Mao would/could have done. In this country we have a constitution. You can't just "stop" growth because someone doesn't like it. Necessity is the mother of invention, ergo if the situation gets out of hand, we will be forced to find new ways to deal with it. It may not suit some people's idea of how to deal with the situation. But, this isn't the E.U. where some puny bureaucrat with Coke-bottle bottom glasses can just order everyone to do things a certain way because he feels it's best. Wait long enough, it may come to that, though.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 21, 2008 6:44 pm

Its generally understood that those who nitpick about gramatics in a blog generally can't argue a point or dispute the facts of the blog. Details. Details. Damage is already done jr, the time to act on San Diego's transportation infrastructure was in the 1990's. It's all about catching up now.

Posted by Just the facts | reply to this comment
June 22, 2008 5:00 am

Being objective... no one is assuming the airline industry is going away and HSR is the solution for all of Lindbergh's woes. The viability of HSR remains within the state, or for trips under 500-600 miles. The airline industry will remain; however, in-state trips out of Lindbergh could be replaced with HSR trips. What is irrational is dismissing HSR as not being viable for unsubstiated reasons and in the face of incredible costs expected if the same number of travellers were accomodated by other means; roadway and airport improvements. Each have ridiculous costs associated with them, or are burdened due to environmetal or physical challenges. HSR brings competition to the table. It's business plan is derided by some, but on the other hand, may be too conservative given the current woes of its competitors.

Posted by Brandon F | reply to this comment
June 22, 2008 7:41 pm

"Gramatics"?? Yeah, sure, "just the facts."

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 23, 2008 9:04 am

HSR only brings competition if it is on par with flight from a cost perspective. It does well in Europe because aviation fuel costs twice as much as it does here and the fees on air service are off the charts making rail a less expensive alternative. HSR will only be successful on routes where Southwest does not exist, they have far too muach pricign power. San Diego to LAX is problematic, HSR doesn't go anywhere near LAX. Stupid move if you ask me.

Posted by Just the Facts | reply to this comment
June 24, 2008 5:26 am

Brandon F...I applaud your HSR push, but just HOW do you expect to 'fund' these HSR's going 'within the state?' If a Coaster from San Marcos to Encinitas (?), approximately only 20 MILES, cost '$500,000,000?' You must look at the BIG PICTURE and learn where you think San Diego can (we definitely don't have any of the rain, sleet, ice, snow, wind, tornadoes or levees to worry about here) 'get' that kind of government funding if the military is almost at its mxa in tapping out the Feds, the State of California AND San Diego are about bankrupt?

Posted by Wide Awake | reply to this comment
June 24, 2008 10:23 am

I want to know three things about the airport. Why is the airport named after the fascist, Charles Lindbergh (see, for example, American Axis by Max Wallace) rather than Dr Seuss, a real local hero who attacked Lindbergh repeatedly in his wartime cartoons (see Dr Seuss Goes to War)? Second, why does the trolley not go to the airport? Third, why are the people who direct travelers to the many shuttle vans at the airport ordered not to tell visitors the cost of a ride to a given area since, after all, there is a terrific disparity from company to company. Finally, will someone please remove Alan Bersin from any proximity to public money? The man is nearly as bad as Steve, "Enron" Peace.

Posted by joshua | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 12:15 pm

There will always be people with a big voice and even bigger visions in our city. Please note that their visions always require either (1) a hand in your pocket or (2) a hand in the pockets of your children. Some past visions--the stadium deal, PETCO Park, and NTC ("another Balboa Park"). Some future visions--the downtown library and Balboa Park privatization. How can you detect visionaries? When you hear someone justify a project so that San Diego can become (or continue to be) a "world class city"...that's a sure sign

Posted by josil | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 4:31 pm

1. Oh brother. 2. Ask SANDAG. 3. They probably don't know the costs given they vary from company to company. 4. I'm with ya.

Posted by Just the Facts | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 5:55 pm

So Josil, is again passing the buck of an inadequite airport then visionary in your book? Its got little to do with world class and everything to do with what is and isn't adequite. So visionary were its builders that they beleived its location was best (vs. the site of Mongomery Field) because it could not only serve as an airport but also be used in conjunction with sea planes in the bay. Some vision.

Posted by Just the Facts | reply to this comment
June 26, 2008 7:51 am

Wide Awake... not trying to begrudgin your post, but you must get informed on this project. HSR is a State project. It's an effort by the Calif High Speed Rail Authority... a state agency created by the legislator about 10 years ago. HSR is not a local/SD project; however, SANDAG can choose to assist with funding efforts (in return for something, of course). Right now, State Proposition 1 will come before voters in November... $9.95 billion bond for HSR and other rail feeder services. Some $ will go to MTS and NCTD if passed. The business plan is being refined on HSR, but it's anticpated 1/3rd fom the bond, 1/3rd from the feds, 1/3rd from private sector. It's a $37b-$38b project in 2006 or 207 dollars. Final environmental, design and engineering going on right now.

Posted by Brandon F | reply to this comment
June 28, 2008 11:15 am

Part II: Reality and the Airport

Published: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:43 PM PDT

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.

twitter.com/vosdscott

Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (October 18): Andrew Donohue and Scott Lewis talk in depth about the Chargers stadium search, municipal bankruptcy and whether residents are too dumb to vote on the City Hall project.

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed

Subscribe to this RSS Feed