Annoyed tax payer wrote on Nov 5, 2006 1:16 PM:Miramar as a site for a new airport is NOT an option ! The military is there and they aren't gonna move and they aren't gonna share. Military security post-9/11 is NOT something that is easily done with a civilian airport occupying the immediate vicinity air space. So ...get over it ! Find a real solution instead of wasting our tax dollars for month studying something any intelligent person knows is not possible. How about moving the commercial freight traffic to a new location somewhere away from downtown ? I never heard anyone discuss that. Everyone complained about the regional international airport being to far away if it was in Alpine or some place East of the city...but all those complaints were about how far it would be for the passengers. Well cargo doesn't car. Bixes and crates don't talk or write letters. Move the freight business east and leave the passenger service where it is and be done with it. The last thing we need is a huge LAX or bigger airport clogging up our community. If you want that ...move to Los Angeles !

To easily angered and annoyed wrote on Nov 5, 2006 2:34 PM:Freight to the east requires additional road and rail traffic. The end destination is not in the desert. May I suggest Estrogen replacement therapy? Joint use does work. Robert Gray Army Airfield, it's our future too

Don't be annoyed wrote on Nov 6, 2006 5:55 AM:Airports aren't taxpayer funded. You'll survive, as will the airport authority and the 2013 BRAC is just around the corner. Duke Cunningham won't be aroudn then. Sure fire to close the base. Concerned about security? Joint use is found at Honolulu, Yuma, Whichita Falls (a training base), Egline (a traninng base). Oh the misguided lemings on this issue.

Congrats Mr Boland wrote on Nov 6, 2006 6:19 AM:You've successfully regurgitated the $390,000 worth of talking points bought and paid for by the military. Bravo! You might win this battle over Miramar, but Adam Smith has already predicted the long term outcome. As for an East County Airport.... It's just as easy to drive an additional hour north as it would be to head east - sorry it just doesn't work that way. It's Miramar, Pendleton (which lets face it no one would support right now - our LA buffer) or a congested Lindbergh. Take your pick.

Raymond wrote on Nov 6, 2006 9:37 AM:Move all frieght and cargo to Brown Municipal. Add two runways at the USN Radio station location (Proposed second Harbor entrance area, over five miles south of North Island. Add elevated rapid transit. Invite already highly noted Dutch, German, Canadian and Japanese engineers to help with an airport design. Use same technologies which created Shelter Island. Quit flogging a dead horse.

Brown doesn't work wrote on Nov 6, 2006 11:33 AM:The FAA ruled out Brown due to terrain otherwise it would already be a cargo airport. The communications area makes sense, but the tree huggers will be out in full force. No need for any major input on how to fill or pier build, only how to spank the huggers.

Evoking Carson Again? wrote on Nov 6, 2006 11:48 AM:Seriously. Carson is on the record as being a no-growth, environmental economist who believes that if an economic opportunity is foregone (such as an airport) then people will simply move elsewhere and only those who can afford will remain. Or with regard to an airport, international service and cargo service will bypass San Diego and go to another airport. First he said he did work for Boeing, then he didn't, then he again says did. Next he said he did work for other airports, yet there is no evidence of this at all. He's also the only economist I've heard claim there isn't a need for a new airport, then he San Diego only needs a short runway, and then finally he said modify Palomar. No, no credibility issue there at all. Where does Carson live? Just North East of Miramar.

JPSten wrote on Nov 6, 2006 12:27 PM:I seem to recall that the Albuquerque Airpport shares its location with the Air Force Base there. What is the difference between ABQ and SAN?

Simple answer to a simple question wrote on Nov 6, 2006 12:51 PM:Take out a map and find the airfield in the most central location that will serve todays population as well as the growing size of aircraft and runway needs. As a qualifier, it must have access to at least one main arterial route, more than one is a bonus. Additionally, there should be some room for growth so we're not facing this again in another 20 years. Welcome to Miramar! It took Orville and Wilbur less time to go from bicycle to flight, than it will take to satisfy the nimby's and naysayers. Joint use Military and civilian airbase/airports work elswhere in the USA. Why not here too? It has occurred elsewhere since 9-11, so the security argument is a non-issue. Crosswind, downwind, base and final. See how easy that was?

Annoyed Tax Payer wrote on Nov 6, 2006 1:08 PM:We have rail traffic to Lindberg Field now ? Hmmm, I hadn't noticed that. We may have other joint use airport examples in this country ...but how many of them were put there after 9/11 ? And how many of them did they force upon the Military ? Its gonna cost ous more $$ to force the military to buckle under and we've wasted a ton just doing "studies" ...who's best effort was to say "make the military let us use their land". It doesn't seem prudent to force the military to let us use some of their land to build our own version of LAX when most us don't really want an LAX or larger size airport here anyway. And how many Miramar area residents want 767's landing over their houses ? Oh please ...this whole thing has "long and costly battle, wasting huge taxpayer dollars" written all over it. But hey ... either way ...stop wasting our tax dollars.

Call Me Tree Hugger wrote on Nov 6, 2006 1:22 PM:although I don't think there are many trees at Miramar that could lose their lives to a new airport. But there are some magnificent rolling hills east of the runway that would disappear, plus some vernal pools. It's funny how on any big capital project proposal in San Diego there are the 'NIMBYs, naysayers and environmentalists' on one side, and the thieving, lying, selfish, money-grubbing developers and investment bankers on the other. You guys will lose this one, I'm happy to say.

Anthony wrote on Nov 6, 2006 5:30 PM: The problem in the San Diego area is the land is precious resource and it is hard to find a piece of land for a new airport that is not already been used. The solution woul dbe dual usage: Either build a floating airport on the sea. Or, a better idea is to find a good stretch of highway that is suitable to be turned into an airport. Dig tunnels underneath the highway to replace the highway. Once the tunnel is done, all highway traffic goes into the tunnel and you build an airport on the top. The original highway will become the runway. And access to the new airport is automatically solved because you are right on top of a highway.

So Tree Hugger wrote on Nov 6, 2006 7:13 PM:Where does the airport go? Oh, that's right. We'll just stop flying. Or perhaps you Like Campo as a site?

Rolling hills? wrote on Nov 6, 2006 7:24 PM:Dont' see anythign abotu leveling anythign to make way for a runway that is considered a hill. Vernal pools? I can make you one in my back yard in an hour. You envirojunkies need to quit making things up to justify your existence.

allied gardens wrote on Nov 7, 2006 6:21 AM:I do not want the planes flying over our area. We have plenty of noise as it is with airports. Brown Field is perfect.. except that city officials have sucked up to developers and pretend that the option is not there when it is. Wake up people in San Diego-look through the lies. See that Brown Field is being kept quiet so that some developers and businessmen will make money and we all lose again. No on the proposition.Lets do some honest research that wil represent us all for once.

Steve wrote on Nov 7, 2006 3:23 PM:Like there's no noise at Miramar now? Military aircraft often put out lots more noise than civilian aircraft. Also, the attack angles used by civilian pilots resolve most noise concerns. The approach to Miramar goes over no housing at all. The take offs go over businesses. The only actual threat to Miramar would be another major fire to the east of it. There's a reason the government built that base and that's because it's the best place for one. Dual usage works at many places. Just think about the last time you saw some Air National Guard planes parks as you taxied in or out someplace.

Brown Field? wrote on Nov 7, 2006 3:28 PM:An approach is for 15 miles. There's a 3,600' mountain at 6 miles. Who are you kidding? This airline pilot is far from interested in becoming one with the earth. Allied Gardens is no where near the approach for Miramar. You and Madaffer go have a good time now with developers.

Tree Hugger wrote on Nov 7, 2006 6:26 PM:Tick tock, tick tock. Time is running out on your expensive little airport proposition.

Pave over paradise.. wrote on Nov 8, 2006 7:09 PM:..and put up parking lot .. with an airport! Move over Lawence Welk. Build San Diego's airport *IN SAN DIEGO proper!* Not Campo, not Riverside .. "On behalf of Whoopdee-dooh Airlines we would like to welcome to San Diego, but you'll be there in two hours."

Sanguine wrote on Nov 8, 2006 11:05 PM:Maybe you haven't noticed, but Laurel Travel Center (LTC) at the foot of the runway is a BIG obstacle in the Lindberg Field glide path (the building's height violates FAA regulations, the last time I checked, but the City of San Diego approved the building permit anyway). If pilots can avoid smashing into LTC when landing, surely they can avoid a few mountains that are six miles away. Not to mention our airport is known to pilots as having one of the least-safe approaches of any major airport -- in fact, commercial fliers must pass special flight-simulator training EVERY SIX MONTHS to land at Lindberg. And don't forget: when jets take off, the climb skyward as rapidly as possible because jet engines are much more efficient in rarified air than they are on the ground. The presence of 3,600-foot mountains located 6 miles away are not a reason to nix Brown Field. Making Brown Field a freight-only terminal would relieve Lindberg's overcrowding without endangering the public.