Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by WaltBrewer

San Diego Airport Seeking Public Opinion On Long-Term Plan

Good overview of the Plan and of the airport in the pictures. Certainly a tight squeeze!
I’ll leave it to the pros for decisions to maximize gates numbers, while meeting aviation, service, and especially convenience to travelers.
But don’t you have the cart before the horse?
Are not there some more basic decisions to be made before expensive mods to terminals, parking, access, etc?
If the current planning builds out to 2035matching aeronautical capacity, are you still considering “Destination Lindbergh?”** I hope you are not.
Reconfiguring the airport to the north side to justify MTS’ desire for a multi-modal terminal near a trolley stop is overkill. Optimistic use is about the same as much more simple Old Town Transit Center. And is unlikely to be noticed on Harbor Drive traffic. For questionable convenience to a few mass transit users, why build complete new Terminal facilities? And all travelers, crews, etc., transported across the airport to gates at current more useful Terminals!
Lindbergh is one of the most convenient drive/ride to park, or dropoff, then walk to gates in the world.
That should be the principal objective for realistic improvements as San Diego grows.
There is already an expandable shuttle for principal downtown locations. Stop near a trolley station could be added.
If mass transit advocate Supervisor Ron Roberts disagrees with trolley to the airport, why tale the airport to the trolley; at great expense and inconvenience to most travelers?
Some overall design suggestions considering need to mesh with, and define the Terminal improvements being considered as permanent:
Priority to route the I-5 ramps being considered directly to the current parking, as close t to Terminals as possible. Tunnel where needed. Expensive, but look at the cost and inconvenience for the alternatives. While automated travel on narrow guideways in the future can reduce road traffic, and provide service direct to gate areas, autos, including automated will dominate for the period of interest.
Applying the convenience to travelers rule further, terminate the ramps underground near escalator equipped terminals. Incorporate underground parking. More expensive but frees up more land for the airport related investments you cite. Terminal design interactions with preferred forms of personal access is obvious.
** Please keep Lindbergh in the airport’s official title.
His accomplishments overshadow opinions held at a time the extent of Hitler’s intentions was not clear. Hus accomplishments promoting aviation, and the San Diego connection put him right up with the Wright Brothers. “International” is old news, and of little community value.
I hope this will be useful to the Authority, and assist discussions in meetings with users and the public.

June 12, 2014 at 4:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Firefighters Use Air Fleet To Aid Wildfire Ground Battle

Kudos to the job well done.
And getting experience with new technologies.
We must work on a bigger step to deliver massive modernized retardant loads to the fire’s origin before control is lost.
Takes money for the fast action standby capability and organization to detect and control. But think what’s at stake.
We know how to launch hundreds of long range bombers and assign them targets in say 10 minutes.
In vulnerable areas, can’t we do the same for wildfires?

June 2, 2014 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

California High-Speed Rail Begins Search For Artifacts

Is there an artifacts category for Boondoggles?

October 22, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Will San Diego Help Stop Global Warming?

RTP2050 was rendered for public comment on Good Friday. A resurrection of long discarded mass transit is unlikely however.

It is a fantasy in mid 21st century to expect inconvenient 19th century concept buses and trolleys to replace autos’ overwhelmingly choice early in the early 20th century. This nation’s technology can do much better.

It is a fantasy that RTP2050’s increased congestion by over 20% and 15% reduction in average auto speeds will coerce citizens to nearly double mass transit use.

After spending about 50% of the $196 billion and using valuable land for saturation of San Diego’s developed area for mass transit, and so called sustainable communities, daily travel by autos is still over 90%. So why don’t we just concentrate on the demonstrated feasible auto improvements? That’s where about 80% of the GHG and energy improvement in RTP 2050 come from anyway.

Autos are already at least at par with mass transit for saving energy and greenhouse gases. The 25% improvement for autos that starts in 2016 is only the beginning of feasible ways to cut auto’s energy and GHG to half current values. That preserves on demand direct to destination personal transportation citizens have demanded for decades.

But somehow leaders and activists can't seem to absorb the lesson after trying unsuccessfully for 25 years to reincarnate mass transit: transportation is not an end in itself. Mobility is the important part of the Region's productivity, and requires the on demand fast direct to destination travel provided by autos.

Instead we have slogans about “coercing the public from cars” and emotional arm waving about those nasty freeways’ impact on health and quality of life. No rationale or replacement that preserves mobility and social travel preferences. Projected daily traffic growth alone in about three years is greater than mass transit’s tiny share.

RTP 2050 boasts of offering choices; travel mode choices that is. We can’t afford them. Long ago citizens overwhelmingly made the critical choice for the productive personal transportation autos provide.

But indeed looking down the road, there is a bigger choice offered by the comment period before it is too late:
1), Embrace higher energy and GHG savings with “greener” but smaller and lighter autos in residential and industrial developments reflecting marketplace determined densities as population increases 40%. That requires RTP 2050 significant mass transit reduction away from nearly 50% to concentrate on its core support for non drivers, and limiting additions to a few dense destination pairs where commuting can be provided efficiently. Or,
2), Live with RTP2050’s permanent long term congestion, lower speeds, and tolls to discourage solo driving. Modify lifestyles for many in mass transit oriented developments of multiple residential-industrial purpose buildings.

The report and instructions for comment are at 2050.

April 25, 2011 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

SANDAG Approves A 40-Year Transportation Plan

The American positive “Way”, fairness, constitutional respects for individual rights, are inconsistent with government imposing restrictions, inconvenience, waste of time, and freedom of choice upon activities, including means for travel.

Some leaders and media members and a few activists create the illusion of a canonical belief that mass transit is the end product Holy Grail to which all should aspire in order to satisfy ideologically based expenditure of taxpayer resources.

Thus statements such as that by Mr. Fudge which would impede achievable efficient travel flow in order to coerce travelers from overwhelmingly personably preferred autos, into less desirable and less effective collective modes of transportation.

Perhaps Mr. Fudge, and lawyer Gonzalez should set down and distribute in specific quantitative terms exactly what it is about mass transit to make it the not to be questioned pinnacle of desirability to be reached at considerable effort and sacrifice compared to means the vast majority has chosen for several decades

December 20, 2010 at 1:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )