Sometimes it seems San Diegans want to argue about the future of San Diego’s airport because by debating about the future of Lindbergh Field we avoid actually doing something. Muddling is just too often seen by people as more politically beneficial than putting shovels in the ground and getting the bulldozers working.
The latest debate involves a necessary expansion of Terminal Two and the construction of a multi-level parking garage. If completed, the new gates and increased airplane holding space would help facilitate operations during the morning rush – as planes which stayed overnight in San Diego leave and the first planes of the morning start to arrive. The parking garage would be built in a way to separate arrivals and departures at Terminal Two and adds almost 2,000 more parking spots to help alleviate what is now a parking crunch at the two short-term lots.
These improvements are becoming imperative. In 2007 Lindbergh Field shattered records for the number of passengers passing through the airport. 2008 seems to be on track to set another record. Just try finding a spot in the parking lots on a weekday morning after 7:00 a.m. Given the time it takes to work through the environmental permit process, to get the expansion done in time to meet capacity means the Airport Authority needs to move forward this year. Delays in getting the improvements approved poses a risk that San Diego International Airport will become severely congested at the busiest time – meaning more hang-ups and waits on San Diego International’s tarmac and more gate holds in distant cities when San Diego travelers are trying to get home.
But even though this expansion needs to be done as soon as possible, some in the community are counseling for a delay because they feel it makes more sense to move gates to the Northeast side of the airport. This, they argue, would free up significant acreage along the bay front for other uses, reduce traffic congestion along Harbor Drive and better link the airport to the Coaster and San Diego Trolley. The expansion, in their opinion, is a band-aid which does nothing to dramatically improve what is destined to be our airport for the next several decades. Instead of approving the expansion, they have lobbied the Airport Authority to link that decision to a larger dialogue about the airport’s long term plans.
There is an admittedly attractive quality to this “vision.” Harbor Drive is congested and the presence of certain airport uses on the waterfront, such as rental car lots, makes little sense. But we think there are at least three reasons why the San Diego County Airport Authority would poorly serve the interests of San Diego if it were to delay moving forward with its plans to expand Terminal Two and build a new parking garage. Too many questions exist about the idea of moving the terminals for us to hold the expansion hostage to this conceptual idea.
First and foremost, it is not clear that the economics work. Most airport expansions are paid for by fees and by the airlines themselves – and almost always because the new facilities help them increase the number of flights they can get in and out of a particular airport. The airlines agree to increased landing fees, rents, ticket surcharges and concession fees because with additional capacity comes greater efficiencies and ultimately increased profitability. For example, United Airlines agreed to fund the bulk of the cost of the new terminal at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport because it helped them increase the number of flights they could move through United’s key hub. Likewise the airlines agreed to finance the new Bradley International Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport because the new facility enabled LAX to handle more international flights and allowed international carriers to expand their presence at that airport.
But Lindbergh’s capacity is largely capped as a function of its single runway. There are so many landings and takeoffs that can safely occur and we are quickly approaching that cap. Given that constraint, it is difficult to see why the airlines would have an economic incentive to pay for relocating the entire ground operation of the airport over to the Northeast side. A new terminal on the northeast side of the airport might be great for San Diego but it would seem to be of little interest to the airlines and of minimal benefit to the traveling public.
Second, any plan to move the terminals to the northeast side of the airport will require the construction of a complete taxiway on the north side of the runway. Otherwise taxiing planes will have to cross the runway, severely hampering operations and the airport’s capacity. Building such a taxiway requires the Marines to give up acreage at MCRD and relocate their obstacle course to other parts of the depot.
Such a move would be difficult. The depot is currently graduating more Marines and the Global War on Terror has made the Marine Corps more important than ever before. It is unclear where the obstacle course could be relocated and it would likely be years before such an arrangement could be negotiated.
Third, it is unclear that mass transit does much to alleviate congestion associated with airports (or at least enough to justify a multi-billion dollar investments) Consider the nearly $1 billion dollar extension of BART from South San Francisco to San Francisco International Airport. After a dismal start, in September of 2007, the BART system reported that an average of 9,500 weekday trips were made to and from the station at San Francisco International (SFO). That sounds impressive but that still means that more than 90% of the trips to and from SFO are made by car. Or consider Kennedy Airport in New York City. Even though NYC has the highest percentage of transit users in the country and an efficient rail link between Manhattan and the airport, more than 85% of the trips to Kennedy are made in automobiles. While it might be visionary to directly link Lindbergh to the Trolley or Coaster, it is unclear that ridership demand justifies the expenditure of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to create this “multi-modal link.” That isn’t to say that transit isn’t important – just that it would seem it could be done much more efficiently and effectively through more frequent buses and shuttles to the existing expensive infrastructure taxpayers, travelers, and airlines have already paid for.
Does that mean that planners should throw up their hands and ignore the proposal? No. Serious people have made a serious proposal and it should be accorded respect. But it does mean that there are enough significant questions unresolved to caution against delaying the expansion of Terminal Two since we must make sure we meet the region’s short term airport needs
Reader Feedback
Lance Murphy Says:
An interesting promotional piece for an outdated development strategy first formulated by the Port District in the late 1980s.
This proposed expansion of Lindbergh is simply a stop-gap measure that was to provide gates and facilities that would bridge the current limited airport to the newly relocated facility. Unfortunately, the poorly timed and terribly executed Prop. A debacle allowed the NIMBY's to discredit the latest in over 30 studies, each pointing squarely to the physical limitations imposed by Lindbergh's location and single runway.
It is simply ridiculous to fund a billion dollar installment on a facility that will be 'max'ed out' by the time the carpet is laid. In reality, the author should not simply point to the near term benefits of the minor capacity issues, but rather identify the long term economic gains to be had from a properly sized and located regional facility.
Finally, no one is seemingly concerned with the safety consequences of Lindbergh at its limi
February 22, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Post a Comment
Feedback Rules:
Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
If you have not posted before, you will be required to verify your email address before your post is displayed.
An interesting promotional piece for an outdated development strategy first formulated by the Port District in the late 1980s.
This proposed expansion of Lindbergh is simply a stop-gap measure that was to provide gates and facilities that would bridge the current limited airport to the newly relocated facility. Unfortunately, the poorly timed and terribly executed Prop. A debacle allowed the NIMBY's to discredit the latest in over 30 studies, each pointing squarely to the physical limitations imposed by Lindbergh's location and single runway.
It is simply ridiculous to fund a billion dollar installment on a facility that will be 'max'ed out' by the time the carpet is laid. In reality, the author should not simply point to the near term benefits of the minor capacity issues, but rather identify the long term economic gains to be had from a properly sized and located regional facility.
Finally, no one is seemingly concerned with the safety consequences of Lindbergh at its limi