San Diego desperately needs a new airport. It has needed one for years. The existing facility, San Diego International, is crowded onto a puny 675 acre parcel. That’s a lovely size for a horse farm, but it’s infinitesimal for an airport serving a metropolitan area of 3 million people. All of San Diego shares a single runway–the busiest in the country and also one of the most dangerous.
So freaking build a new airport already, you say. To their credit, the fine people of southern Southern California have expressed a desire to do just that. They’ve had commissions and referendums and so forth. But the problem boils down to the fact there’s nowhere to put a new airport, except for a local Marine base. But San Diegans voted overwhelmingly in 2006 not to build an new airport on the Marine land, both because they didn’t want to see the military depart and because of noise concerns.
In the midst of this pickle, along comes a fellow named Adam Englund. He’s a local lawyer who studied international law at Cambridge and has long nurtured a fascination with the idea of floating cities. He’s got an idea–a $20 billion business plan, even.
It’s so incredibly simple, says Englund. We live next to all this open, watery space. Let’s put the airport… in the ocean.
The airport-in-the-ocean idea is not a new one. Among other places, Hong Kong did it recently–filling in 4 square miles of the South China Sea with rocks and dirt to build an artificial island. By all accounts the resulting facility is lovely. But the Pacific off San Diego is too deep to lend itself to that sort of scheme. So Englund has proposed a solution that’s both more dramatic and elegant: Build a giant oil rig-style floating platform permanently moored 10 or so miles off the coast of San Diego. It would be three square miles and afford plenty of room for two long and very safe runways. To move the plan along he and his partners have even put in a first-of-its-kind claim with federal government for “airport rights” to a 40,000 sq mile swath of the Pacific.
The structure Englund and his 40-strong group of collaborators–”pilots, naval architects, maritime engineers” as well as the standard array of finance types–are proposing is called OceansWorks Offshore Airport. The airport would be located mostly on the roof of the structure though. Below it would be four stories of open real estate open to almost limitless uses. “Hotels, restaurants, conference centers, free trade zones, distribution facilities, research facilities, universities…” Englund says, pauses for a moment, and then ticks off some more possibilities. “Even after all the space required for internal infrastructure, that leaves 200 million square feet. That’s more office space than currently exists in all of San Diego county.” The floating airport would be a city unto itself–a green city, even, as it would harvest energy from wind, waves and ocean currents. A massive on-board desalinization plant would also supply not only OceanWorks’s needs, but pump clean water back to coastal cities, taking some pressure off existing sources like the Colorado River.
Because the platform would be moored in water that’s a thousand feet deep, there wouldn’t be the same environmental concerns that crop up with projects closer to shore, where the ecology is more delicate. If anything, says Englund, OceanWorks would enhance the area environmentally by creating a massive artificial reef. He notes that the Sierra Club has declared “no opposition” to the project–a noteworthy accomplishment for a $20 billion, 2000-acre development in Southern California.
But Englund’s most immediate problem is how to even begin going about applying for permission from the relevant authorities. “There is no legal regime for airports in the ocean,” he tells us. “The Dept of Interior’s Mineral Management service would seem to be the presiding authority.” They’re the same people who hand out oil drilling rights. The Interior Department, however, has not evinced much openness to the Oceanworks plan: they denied the group’s airport rights application without even offering a reason. Oceanworks is now planning to sue in federal court, hoping to establish that there was no legal basis for the denial.
“We’ve gone through economic, environmental and technical preliminary analysis and found no fatal flaws,” Englund says. “So we’re moving into the next stage–figuring out the financing and the politics.” A potential political tailwind is that the project could create tens of thousands of jobs in the region and establish San Diego a global hub for some future industry designing and building floating airports. By any measure, $20 billion is a lot of money, but Englund claims his group isn’t seeking any government funding–all they need from the Washington are airport rights to this swath of ocean.
At the local and state level they need a “coastal partner” — that is, someone who can agree host the shoreside passenger terminal. “We’ve made this claim from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border,” he says. So if San Diego doesn’t step up, the Oceanworks airport could theoretically end up serving greater LA, which is also bumping up against the limits of regional airport capacity.
For transporting passengers, OceanWorks would depend either on an underwater light rail connection–a submerged floating tunnel–or a series of fast ferries running to a string of terminals up and down the coast.
What’s most interesting here though, is the big idea. “Bluefield” development–as Englund calls it–could become standard operating procedure for coastal cities around the world in the next 50 years or so. It may be the only reasonable response to the near impossibility of building megaprojects today in most of North America and Europe. The idea of building an airport and new small city within 10 miles of the Southern California coast for $20 billion (or whatever) is so compelling that it’s hard to imagine it won’t someday become a reality.
Photo of Englund via SignOnSanDiego.com
ALSO CHECK OUT ON INFRASTRUCTURIST:
HA! AMUSINGLY DEFACED STREET SIGNS
**********
CELL PHONE TOWERS PRETENDING TO BE TREES
***********
Beyond the Cloverleaf: “The Butt” and 21 Other Crazy Highway Interchanges You’ve Never Heard of
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
If they had a fast train to LA, they would not need the added airport capacity.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Brilliant, definitely.
What would the security considerations be at such an airport?
And I shouldn’t really like working in an office underwater, way off the coast like that. It might be cool for a little while if they do something interesting with the windows, but 8 hours every day? It makes me kind of nauseous just thinking about it. And would you be able to go up to the roof/deck for fresh air, or would that put you in the middle of a runway?
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
The only problem with the proposed Miramar airport comes down to two words: La Jolla. The USMC could lose Miramar and still have Camp Pendleton (approx. 45 minutes north of downtown SD,) share North Island NAS and/or Point Loma, and the Marine Corps Recruiting Station next to the current airport. Not to mention all of these could be improved with the funds from the sale of the land at Miramar.
The only folks who opposed who opposed the airport for noise reasons are those who live in La Jolla–about 5 miles west of Miramar and right on the most likely takeoff heading. Unfortunately, that’s also where most of San Diego’s wealth is concentrated, so the NIMBYism is powerful.
That being said, an offshore airport would likely encourage a greater investment in rapid transit on the coast, which could help combat the sprawl that cripples San Diego. (Its density is 4175 people/mi^2–a third of Miami’s despite having more than half of Miam’s population.)
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 am
This assumes a continuing availability of cheap airplane fuel.
Also, 20 billion sounds low.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 am
How much of the airport’s capacity is taken up with short-range flights that can (and should, in the long-term) be handled by other means of transportation?
I’ve never been there, but Wikipedia says that the most flights/destination go to LA (30 weekday roundtrips) and the most seat capacity/destination goes to Sacramento (14 weekday roundtrips). All three of these cities would be served by the eventual California high speed rail system– which opponents (read: highest cost estimate) predict will cost $80bn for the whole state-wide system.
So, a significant amount of capacity (obviously not all of those flights, but many) can be freed up in an environmentally friendly way. I presume the CHRA has done some studies on things like this…
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
HST right on right on! However floating cities make sense.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
I think that accelerating the construction of the planned San Diego- L.A. HSR line would be a better investment. $20 billion would pay for such a link 10 times over. A link which would be more convenient than flying and would free up a lot of airport capacity and allow San Diego to keep its wonderfully easy to get through airport unchanged.
If Caliofrnia were run by folks more interested in the common good then it wouldn’t be too hard to fund HSR entirely from the cost-savings associated with forgoing airport expansions. Of course, each airport is its own little fiefdom with its own source of money, so it will never happen.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
How does this floating city process its waster?
Cruise ships are horrible for the environment in this regard. So how would a flaoting city handle it differently?
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 am
This has been done in Osaka as well. Also, there was a plan floated in the 70s to put a new Chicago airport in fill deposited into Lake Michigan, never happened obviously. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Those who think that you can avoid straining airport capacity with HSR to LAX should be aware that LAX is also at capacity. California needs a ton of new airport capacity all over the place.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
Eric F:
I think what people are saying is not that people can take the train to LAX, then fly, but that they can take the train to LA (and perhaps even San Francisco and Sacramento) rather than flying. Which makes sense - good HSR systems tend to drastically reduce demand for the kinds of short-haul flights clogging up our nation’s airports.
‘Course San Diego may need a new or expanded airport, anyway - it sounds like the current one is entirely too small. But good HSR systems would reduce strain in airports across the board.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Folks, there’s just no way that high speed rail between SD-LA-SF reduces demand for air transit enough to solve any of the air issues San Diego has.
I’ve flown in and out of San Diego many times and even with, say, massively efficient 200 mph rail from LA, there’s just no way I’d fly to LAX then take a train down to SD. It doesn’t work that way.
HSR could possibly reduce some air traffic from SF to SD, but even that’s dubious. And anywhere beyond SF, it doesn’t make a difference. From a near term economic development standpoint, improving the efficiency and capacity of air has big implications for the city’s ability to compete against other cities for business growth, out-of-state tourism and conference travel.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge proponent for HSR in California. But it isn’t the solution to San Diego’s airport problem.
Now to the post… floating airport? It make a lot more sense in Southern California where the weather is almost always the sunny and there’s no threat of hurricanes. It would be interesting to understand more about the impact an on or off shore earthquake could have. But the other issue I could foresee is heavy fog, which is very, very common on San Diego mornings. I wonder if the coastal fog generally extends out 10 miles? I would think so, but not sure.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
Eric, a major reason SD and LAX are at capacity is flights from SD to and from LAX.
HSR solves that.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
adamclyde:
San Diego’s airport handles about 300 departures per day. Of these, 116 are to places that would be served by the proposed HSR system (San Francisco Bay Area, Fresno, Sacramento and Monterrey*). If HSR manages to get 2/3 of that traffic, which is typical in Europe than we’re talking about freeing up 77 daily departure slots, which should be enough to resolve San Diego’s capacity problems.
*Monterrey isn’t directly served by HSR but the Gilroy station is closer to Hollister and as close to Salinas as the Monterrey airport. Subtract out the 13 daily flights to Monterrey if you want to.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Does Amtrak take 2/3 of non auto travel between NYC and DC? I’m not sure what the answer is to that. S.F. is much further away from S.D., than DC is from NY, so this better be one really fast train.
I really don’t understand the tradeoff, however. You want to save, say, 1,000 acres from being used as an airport by plowing under many more times the acreage to build a rail system over a dedicated, straight, no grade crossings, right of way?
I would also imagine that some of the air travel from SD to LA is comprised of people getting on an international flight at LAX. There would be no reason for anyone to replace a plane trip with a train trip in that circumstance.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
STUPID & STUPID AGAIN…….Mayor Daley concocted this idea for Meigs Field.
Additionally….that fast train is going down the I-215 ……so get ready for an
Airport in ALPINE! (p.s. there are already 3 inland sites under consideration)
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“The approach from the east is steep, necessitated by terrain which drops from 266 ft (81 m) to sea level in less than one nautical mile. Aircraft normally descend at 318 feet per nautical mile (52.3 m/km) per nautical mile. Due to terrain in San Diego they must descend at 331 ft/nmi (54.5 m/km), exceeding the FAA standard. San Diego’s only runway is located at the base of a hill lined with several obstructions, including the I-5 freeway and trees in Balboa Park. Contrary to local lore, the parking structure off the end of the runway was built long after previous obstructions built up east of the I-5. The parking structure was then built up to this controlling limit. Aircraft clear the parking structure by the required 109 feet (33 m).”
Even if the traffic were reduced, Lindbergh just ain’t safe.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
The floating city concept is an interesting one, but I have a hard time believing that it can be built for even a fraction of that price. Additionally, any included office space would be in exceptionally low demand due to the marine travel requirements getting on/off the platform.
I live in San Diego, and the utility of a downtown airport is enormous, unfortunately it comes with a major caveat: No long-haul flights can fly out of the short runway. Much of the SAN-LA, SAN-SFO, and SAN-SJO traffic is driven by connections to international routes. Most of the rest is commuter traffic (I regularly fly to San Jose in the morning on business, returning the same afternoon). I believe much of the existing airport capacity issues will dissapear once HSR is built-out. Unfortunately, more capacity does not give San Diego the international connections it wants.
FWIW: I give this project a 1% chance of moving beyond a powerpoint presentation.
//dan.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
[...] Image: OceanWorksDevelopment Source: Infrastructurist [...]
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
There is no future in air travel except for the most ultra-rich. So, this project is pointless. There won’t be enough liquid fuels to sustain air travel growth. It would be better for SD to invest in high speed rail up the coast, and then port facilities for electrified ships.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Better use would be the following improvements to the HSR system: For about $5b, you could put a line in over the Cajon pass, shortening the trip between San Diego and SF, as well as San Diego and Vegas (via the Desert Xpress), and making those trips even more competitive with airlines.
Another couple billion, plus matching funds from Arizona, and you could drag a line from Riverside to Phoenix.
At that point, you’d have flight-competitive connections from SD to all major CA cities, Vegas, and Phoenix. I haven’t looked at San Diego’s top city pairs recently, but those cities probably represent over half of the total flights out of SD, similar to LAX, if not more.
Or, you could build a giant floating barge out in the middle of the ocean and ferry a bunch of seasick-prone land-lubbers on 45-minute, fuel-guzzeling ferry rides.
Can we stop talking about how HSR is a pipe dream? If this is seriously the only alternative, why are we even discussing it? Put the damn line in already.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Given how much people hated the people-mover shuttle system at Dulles airport, I have a hard time believing that people would want to spend the extra time on a ferry to get to the airport.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
There’s no reason this model can’t be expanded to cities on the US East Coast. Boston and New York could become candidates to replace and/or complement Logan and La Guardia. But, in addition, the so-called commuter flights gunk up the capacity. You can fly less often or with larger planes. But the number of empty seats among carriers is staggering.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Odds of this happening? 0% Don’t even think about it for 100 years.
A more sensible solution is to expand Tijuana’s airport which is precisely on the US/Mexico border - look at it in Google Maps and you’ll see what I’m talking about. You could put one runway north of the existing one, then two terminals, a US one and a Mexican one. It would function as one airport, which would make air traffic logistics simple, but flights would simply be directed to the appropriate nation’s terminal on the north/south side of the tarmac. Security’s already high enough at airports to make any cross border shenanigans unlikely.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Make the same investment in intercity high speed rail to serve the cities now being served by air, and San Diego wouldn’t need a new airport.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I say build it and if it doesn’t work out for San Diego, just tow it somewhere else and try again!
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Yeah, cause what I really want to do after spending hours in an airplane is wait for a boat to show up, cram on it, and then spend 10-20 minutes riding in said boat to shore. Sounds awful.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
As a long time San Diego resident I do not believe we need a new airport. Lindbergh Field is just fine and except for JUST a few busy days a year it is has enough capacity. Unless, of course, you want the land to build hotels, condos, and other businesses. And no, you can not have Miramar, move cargo flights to Brown Field, move some regional commuter flights to Carlsbad, build the bullet train to San Francisco.
Think that you have a fog problem at Lindbergh Field now, move the airport offshore where you have a greater number foggy days and nights.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Stupid.
Just build regular airport to the east of San Diego and run a high speed train or other connector from it to the city. Waaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper, safer, and not nearly as……need I say it……stupid as a sci-fi floating airport that has exactly zero chance of ever being realized.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Problem: Every economist who’s studied the San Diego airport problem has said that we don’t actually NEED a bigger airport.
The extra revenue from the added traffic wouldn’t offset the cost of building the airport for a minimum of 20 years. There just isn’t enough demand for incoming and outgoing traffic to justify the expense. The recent economic downturn has meant a dramatic falloff in the number of landing and departing flights, and many are noticing that the runway wasn’t even as maximum capacity during the GOOD times.
The arguments about “no long haul flights” are strawmen. Our regional economy wouldn’t support a large longhaul sector anyway, particularly when we would now be in competition with LAX.
As for the Miramar plan: Its a fallacy that “only La Jolla people” are opposed. People in Scripps Ranch, Rancho Penasquitos, Poway, and Kearney Mesa are also opposed. Not only due to the noise (these communities are in the approach path), but for the added traffic and infrastructure requirements. That part of the city has NO rail support, practically zero hotel/convention support, and already has some of the most congested bits of freeway in the entire county.
The most ardent supporters of Miramar, Brown field, and other airport alternatives are those with real estate interests in the current downtown area. The port commission, developers, etc. are all frothing at the mouth at the thought of further development in the area, not to mention everyone who already owns a house along the I-5 or in Point Loma, whose values would skyrocket once the airport noise goes away.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
This is fun for infrastructure geeks to dream about but not a practical solution for San Diego. The issue here is two fold: safety and capacity.
The first one is a semi-red herring. Yes, the airport has steep approach angel and is in the middle of Downtown… but so is Logan, Midway, and La Guardia. That’s what pilot training is for… if they can’t navigate around buildings and a couple of hills, they probably shouldn’t be flying commercial jets.
The second one is more complicated. The airport is pretty busy but as others have already pointed out, with HSR, much of the demand will disappear. Sure, people in SD will still fly to LAX to connect with international flights but most intra-state travel will be by HSR once it is done. The short runway is a real problem but then again, even with a longer runway, there is no evidence that SD can support long haul international flights other than perhaps a handful of flights to London and Tokyo per week. SD will never have multiple daily departures from 3 or 4 airlines to the same overseas destination like LAX or JFK. So at the end of the day, a massive investment in new airport in San Diego may end up not having any new flights.
Which brings me to Tijuana. If SD really thinks that it needs a new airport for that 3 weekly flight to Narita, there is already an airport like that in your own backyard. Mexicana operates a 3x weekly flight to Narita and 2x weekly flight to Shanghai out of TJ. Use it… And smart people should be able to figure out how to build an international terminal North of the boarder so you can use the airport without “going over the fence”.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Actually, this is an old idea. A man designed (and a 3/4 size version was actually built) back in the 1930s. At the time planes weren’t capable of crossing the Pacific in a single flight (or the Atlantic for that matter) so he proposed a series of floating airports to eliminate the need for flying boats or island hopping.
It makes sense but the high speed trains would make more sense. If I remember correctly the Acela train connects Boston-NYC-Washington D.C. with a travel time of about 4 hours end-to-end (about 440 miles). The same thing for San Diego to LA would be about 1.5 to 2 hours one way. That would seem to be competitive with the travel time out to a floating platform. Additionally, you have the issue of disruption of travel during heavy seas and for people such as myself (who suffer from sea sickness) it would be a nightmare just getting to the airport.
But its cool to think about.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Right. Run this past any naval aviator, they will look at you like you’re insane. Trying to land a S3 on an aircraft carrier could be difficult - but a 747, or one of those Airbus monsters? Not going to happen. BTW, calling it the **Pacific** Ocean is a bit of sarcastic humor - offshore, the winter swells can be nearly as bad as the North Sea.
I see dead people, lots of dead people.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
In most of Connecticut, you can look out across Long Island Sound about twenty miles and see Long Island. And not just see, it, but make out buildings, beaches, houses, etc. What would this thing look like off the coast of California? Four stories high, and then probably with terminal buildings on top of that? This has as much a chance of getting past NIMBY-ism as would the same project getting built off the coast of Long Island. No shot.
Though the desalinization and electricity generation aspects of this plan seem like a decent enough idea to help cities with overtaxed resources in certain areas of the world, the airport is pretty worthless.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 am
»»# Winston Says:
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
adamclyde:
San Diego’s airport handles about 300 departures per day. Of these, 116 are to places that would be served by the proposed HSR system (San Francisco Bay Area, Fresno, Sacramento and Monterrey*). If HSR manages to get 2/3 of that traffic, which is typical in Europe than we’re talking about freeing up 77 daily departure slots, which should be enough to resolve San Diego’s capacity problems.««
Here’s an interesting question, how much would that help? IE how over loaded is the SD airport? 77 daily departure slots isn’t bad, but if the airport is heavily overloaded, those slots could be snapped up near instantly when they’re available and have little effect on lightening the load.
As to getting to work there, heck, i’d live there ifn it weren’t too expensive, the one reason i’ve never considered CA to be a viable state to move to. They’ve certainly got the space to offer apartments, and i actually think it’d be a neat place to live. Lets see, no driving, and they’ll have to off set the high price of goods there… kinda like Hawaii, but without as good scenery. Still, i think it’d be neat to live in an artificial ocean city, so long as its built right, leaks would definitely be a downer.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 am
Sea Tac handles around 400 flights per day for a somewhat larger metro area, adding around 80 slots would get San Diego’s airport pretty close to that level of traffic and would be a lot more convenient than having to take a 20 minute ferry ride to the airport. As for the space under the runway, remember that precious little of this space would have any daylight (being under the runway and all). Sounds rather dreary to me.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 am
Even if this is technically and financially feasible, the required ferry trips make it a no-go. They have to find a different way to get people out there.
If these guys manage to come up with the money by themselves then they can build this for sure, but California needs to focus on HSR.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
[...] An Airport Off the California Coast? – Jebediah Reed, Infrastructurist [...]
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
[...] An Airport Off the California Coast? – Jebediah Reed, Infrastructurist [...]
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Glen says:
“…If I remember correctly the Acela train connects Boston-NYC-Washington D.C. with a travel time of about 4 hours end-to-end (about 440 miles)…”
Wrong. Acela takes at least 6 hrs 37 minutes for the Boston-DC route, and the distance is about 469 miles
Acela is a very poorly conceived apology for HSR - although the Bombardier-Alstom trainsets are designed for a maximum of 165 mph, they rarely, if ever, touch that speed, averaging less than 71 mph over the distance due to a combination of poor railbed design, grade crossings, excessive track curvature and ageing electrical infrastructure - look to SNCF, Japan Rail or Deutsche Bahn, among others, for the current standards in HSR, where maximum operating speeds are now about 225 mph, and average speeds about 170 mph
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
This idea is a pipe dream for this guy and his cronies. A much easier solution would be to find an area east of the city and Build a new airport there.
Another alternative would be to use Harbor Island as an extension to the airport. Close the marina, fill in the bays and you have your extra space for a runway. The runway can be made as long as needed right up to Harbor View if called for.
You don’t lose the military and you can build a new Harbor island a bit further into San Diego Bay off the airport.
That $ 20 Billion he mentions would be more realistic for something like that I reckon.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I’ve lobbied for years for just this sort of airport, but tie a rope to it and “beach it” just north of Imperial Beach. Same safe approach / departure over water but IB allows easy rail & freeway access plus water taxis; and by the way if you recognize few million Tijuanans living in this metro area, doesn’t it make sense to coordinate IB Airport with TJ Rodriguez flights and connect via monorail along I-905? Look at the shallow the ocean floor along the Silver Strand and flatten the Adam Englund structure into a less costly more accessible airport at the water’s edge.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Amazing that the entire article and 40+ comments go by with only a couple of questions / points about how the whole thing handles storms, earthquakes, etc. I think the person who was making comparisons to landing on an aircraft carrier probably misunderstands how big this thing is supposed to be (as does the guy who claims that a 3/4 scale version has already been built …… no it hasn’t). But still, how does this thing handle weather? Never mind fog. Does it get closed down because of waves crashing over the side? Etc.
But I agree with just about all the other points - $20 b is too low, no one is going to want to add 45 minutes for a ferry ride, HSR should be able to handle some of the demand, etc. 1% chance of being built or less…..
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
there are so many reasons this is a bide idea.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
How much would phase two of CA High Speed Rail cut down on airport traffic? My understanding is HSR would help a lot, and I would rather see those billions spent on the rail project, not floating airports.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I don’t know if this has been said yet, as I haven’t read through all of the posts. But fog would likely not be a problem. If you’re going to spend 20 billion on a floating air port I’m guessing the planners will be smart enough to have the runways far enough apart to run 2 ILSes simultaneously (unlike say the SFO situation). Also, earthquakes aren’t going to be a problem that far out to sea. Any earthquake caused surge is only going to be a few inches high out there.
Not that I think this idea is getting off the ground, or even gets rolling on the ground. I believe most of the commenters here are right, if this is the point we are at, HSR is going to win. It would be much more practical to just build an airport 10 miles outside the city than have it floating 10 miles out to sea. Or just bite the bullet and put in HSR to PHX, LAS, SFO, SJC, LAX, etc. Building another airport in SD to send more flights to already crowded airports elsewhere isn’t going to fix anything long term.
Anyway, its too bad our country is busy spending billions on cash for clunkers or first time home buyer credits. If we are so desperate for things like floating airports, we need to direct that money to transportation in general. That money could be better spent on more highways, more rail, more airports (which can just mean expanding old ones), more everything. Not stupid tax tricks or redistribution of wealth policies.
October 24th, 2009 at 4:35 am
[...] Crazy Or Brilliant? Plan To Build Giant Floating Airport Off … [...]
October 24th, 2009 at 10:45 am
interesting idea but for a 45 min ferry ride, why not just take the train to John Wayne Airport in Irvine? it’s about 50min-1hr..
October 24th, 2009 at 11:16 am
You can vote on this here: (linkback) Crazy or Brilliant? Plan To Build Giant Floating Airport [VOTE] - http://www.pikk.com/24922
October 24th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
[...] Jebediah Reed / The Infrastructurist / October 22n, [...]
October 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Such proposals have been made for the southern California area before. One was floated (no pun intended–or maybe so) during the 1960s with the proposed replacement of Los Angeles International Airport with an off-shore airport. Another proposal was for an addition to Los Angeles airport, which would extend into the ocean.
According to Don Dwiggins’ book about the supersonic transport, which was in development at that time, (The SST: Here It Comes Ready Or Not) the off-shore airport would resemble an aircraft carrier (prompting some wags to call it the “SS LAX”). Dwiggins’ book noted that the airport might have been located on the same site as an ill-fated floating casino, the SS Rex.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:20 am
So if its going to take 45 mins for a ferry and you are going to be able to see the airport from the shore. Why not go back to that idea of making the Airport in Imperial Valley and adding the HSR from there to San Diego, which could make a couple of stops in east county?
It would probably take 1/2 hour to 45 mins for the ride and would most definitely reduce air traffic by having all the fed ex, ups and usps planes land in the IV airport.
If the Imperial Valley folk don’t mind having a massive airport in their backyard and the cost of the airport would end up costing around 1/10th of what the floating airport would cost then I think it would be a better idea to have an off county airport.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:53 am
[...] Englund, a local lawyer with a fascination for floating cities, is pushing the $20-billion idea. He proposes that the city build “a giant oil rig-style floating platform permanently moored 10 or so [...]
October 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am
[...] Via Infrastructurist [...]
October 26th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Question- how to handle waste water.
Answer- do like the space station, drink it.
There are an infinite number of green solutions to waste water, it is just a question of cost.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
A few points:
1) The Big Dig in Boston cost $500B for a bunch of tunnels. Yes, these were complicated and under existing infrastructure. However, even if the tunnels themselves were 1/5 the cost for 3 miles, this project will easily run $250B. Let’s call it for what it will be.
2) Given the likely cost from municipal bonds and federal subsidies, would HSR be a a better solution from a cost standpoint? Seems like a no-brainer - but let’s call it neutral.
3) Would HSR be more efficient environmentally? - i.e. more “fuel” efficient, cleaner regardless of fuel, more people served, better consolidation of infrastructure, less storm water pollution issues, and who knows what kind of seals will be clubbed out there for supposed progress! HSR is the way to go.
4) Remember, the people posing this question are looking to make a buck - as we all are. But just because this is the only proposal coming forward to deal with “transportation” and congestion, there are dozens of other ideas our there for perhaps a fraction of the cost…economically and environmentally…
October 27th, 2009 at 1:01 am
This is nuts. NUTS. Why does there always need to be some hyper-techonological Jetsons solution to every problem???
I live in San Diego, and San Diegans like their airport right where it is — in the middle of the city. It is SO convenient. Seriously, it’s like a 10 or 15 minute drive from the most populated residential neighborhoods. The 2006 proposal was voted down in part because Miramar is pretty far outside the city.
There’s a lot of land on Coronado Island across the harbor from downtown. Most of it is occupied by a military base also, but it wouldn’t be a bad location for an airport if they could solve the transit problem.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:51 am
[...] consider the absence of $20 billion a fatal flaw, but the man’s a bigger optimist than I. [ Infrastructurist via Stoke [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 3:43 am
[...] consider the absence of $20 billion a fatal flaw, but the man’s a bigger optimist than I. [Infrastructurist via Stoke [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 3:44 am
[...] consider the absence of $20 billion a fatal flaw, but the man’s a bigger optimist than I. [Infrastructurist via Stoke [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 3:57 am
[...] fuente Compartir Si te gustó este post, agrega tec.nologia a tu lector RSS | 0 comentarios Por tecnologia tec.nologia Tags aeropuertos, aeropuertos flotantes, arquitectura, california, ciudades flotantes, plataformas flotantes, san diego October 27th, 2009 @ 7:56 am [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 4:00 am
High Speed Rail won’t go to LAX. It goes to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. And there’s no mass transit from Union Station to LAX. The HSR will go to the LA/Ontario Airport (ONT) though. ONT sounds like it has plenty of room for expansion (3 terminals currently, with 5 planned) and it has a longer runway than LAX, so even the biggest of planes should have no problem. So in under an hour people could go from San Diego to ONT. I’d imagine that will be the most likely scenario after the HSR is completed.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:21 am
It sounds intriguing at first. I grew up in Orange County, so I’ve only ever driven to San Diego, not flown, so I cannot really say much about the existing airport situation and how much it needs “fixing” but my questions about this whole thing lie elsewhere.
First problem is, if the only way on and off this thing, aside from flying, is to take a ferry or underwater train, then I think someone is drastically overestimating how patient people would be with the idea of adding an extra 30-60 minutes to the process of getting in and out of the airport. ‘Cos you know, that’s all a trip to pick up someone at the airport needs to make it perfect, is a couple of ferry boat rides.
And are these ferry boats or underground rail systems going to be free? ‘Cos having to pay $10-$20 or more to park and then and then another $10-$20 to jump on a train is perhaps the cherry on top of the whole idea of picking up someone or dropping them off.
Where is long-term parking? What about short-term? You know, the terminals and runways are only part of the whole package. If those are going to be nearby on the mainland, you’re still going to need a pretty darn big spot of real estate for it.
Where are the maintenance hangers, cargo loading facilities, etc? Aircraft carriers use elevator platforms to bring aircraft into the body of the ship for maintenance and whatnot, but that part of the equation hasn’t been mentioned here.
Where are the docking facilities for ships? Are small ferry boats the only thing we’re going to allow to tie up?
It’s a pretty picture, but it doesn’t represent a modern functional commercial airport.
Convincing the Navy to give up Coronado Island and building a new facility there seems to me like it’d make a lot more sense. You could connect the existing airport via an underwater rail tube, but it’s only a mile or so instead of 10-12. And there is plenty of space for commercial development like new hotels.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:49 am
[...] consider the absence of $US20 billion a fatal flaw, but the man’s a bigger optimist than I. [Infrastructurist via Stoke Report] Tagged:adam [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
[...] Check out this new airport concept to replace the current San Diego International Airport. Designer and wishful thinker Adam Englund has solved the “lack of space” problem but creating an entire floating airport just off the coast of San Diego. The airport would consist of four different levels with over 200 million square feet of space. It’s been suggested that all that extra space would house, restaurants, hotels, shops and possibly even a university. The price-tag on this floating beauty? Only 20 Billion Dollars enough to build the new Bay Bridge three times over. [The Infrastructurist] [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
But in a country takes years just to expand a roadway, or build a new tower in New York, I have a hard time seeing this ever happening in my lifetime… unfortunately.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Sure. Where do I get on the boat that takes me to the airport? How early do I have to leave home? What fog? How many secuirty checkpoints? The boat is delayed? I am stuck at the airport beacuse of a storm/fog?
Yeah right.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Who said anything about a 45 minute ferry ride? It’s 10 miles, even Amtrak can make that in less than 20 minutes.
Most of the comments are extremely short sighted like “Just build an airport east of the city. They’ve looked at that obviously. Just build a “HSR” to LAX. Who implied the majority of traffic is to LAX? That isn’t the problem with the SAN airport.
Just to build a freeway to the alternate airport would cost 8 billion by the committees own admission. That’s just the cost of the extension of the freeway. How much do you think this HSR would cost?
Just drag it up to shore and dock it and eliminate the transportation to the airport! Are you serious? The noise survey alone would kill it.
Obviously, a lot of thought has gone into the design, placement, and air traffic before publishing this. It’s always interesting how the “stay at home and research it on the computer” experts have a simple solution.
Do you have any idea how stable a platform of this size would be? Waves splashing over the side? What a laugh, it was stated it would be at least 4 stories high. When was the last time San Diego had 40 foot waves. Bragging a bit aren’t we?
To fly off of the most modern airport in the world and experience the technology to make it available, I would easily take a 10 minute ferry, plane, HSR, or any other mode to get there. Let’s keep it alive and see how the politicians kill it.
This could be the “Greenest” place on earth with it’s own power plane, de-desalinization plant and operate on bio fuels. I can’t wait to see it. But then, I have been on HSRs and seen what committees can destroy.
Good luck Adam Englund!
October 28th, 2009 at 11:44 am
[...] Crazy plan to build a floating airport off the coast of San Diego INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Ezra’s right, San Diegans will be able to leverage Ontario airport for flights out of state once the HSR line is built. This floating airport is a solution desperately looking for a problem. I expect someone will eventually talk the US military into having that problem, but it makes no sense for commercial civilian operations.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
The poster suggesting the use of the TJ aiport makes a good point. There is some virtually vacant land just north of the border there. Build a new port-of-entry, the necessary parking and roadways, and a bridge from the airport. The cost would be a fraction of the 20B (severe underestimate) they are claiming for the floating airport. TJ has the better piece of real estate in the metro area with relatively lower-cost land around it for expansion.
I also think the potential for HSR to reduce flights at the SD airport is being overlooked. What is going to power those planes when the oil runs out? At least the trains can be powered by electricity from alternative sources to fossil fuels.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
For all the people discussing the “45-minute ferry ride”, I suggest re-reading the article. This is never referred to. The article states, “For transporting passengers, OceanWorks would depend either on an underwater light rail connection–a submerged floating tunnel–or a series of fast ferries running to a string of terminals up and down the coast.”
Also, the list of collaborators ”pilots, naval architects, maritime engineers” seems like a good group to ask all of the proposed questions throughout the posts. I would venture to guess that all the problems listed have already been brought up.
I like the HSR system idea. I love the train! Apart from that, I also need to fly further than our local coasts and a HSR system would not be able to accomplish that. The HSR system would hopefully be subsidized and this says that they are not asking for any government funding, so there is no need to put the two against each other for funding.
The article also suggests many environmental pluses to this project and I am extremely interested to see where that side of the proposal takes us. Water is our biggest environmental need. We use too much and don’t have enough. The proposed desalinization plant aboard this structure may in fact help that situation. It seems that this is about more than just an airport; jobs, environment, transportation, etc. I am interested to see where this goes and I would love to take the HSR to the floating airport. LAX is ridiculously overcrowded and I need to get there at least 2 hours early just to park and get through bag check and security. By the way, I don’t think those concerned with the noise would have to worry, since this is supposed to be 10 miles out. I doubt you would ever hear it.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:10 am
[...] Via Infrastucturist [...]
November 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am
[...] 6. A (silly?) plan to build a floating airport off the coast of San Diego, at Infrastructurist. [...]
November 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
[...] an airport on the ocean? check it out: Crazy Or Brilliant? Plan To Build Giant Floating Airport Off California Coast
November 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
[...] an airport on the ocean? check it out: Crazy Or Brilliant? Plan To Build Giant Floating Airport Off California Coast
November 10th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Dear Sirs!
I invite your attention the patented technology of construction of floating mega structures, using a specially prepared ice surface of rivers, lakes, reservoirs, oceans and seas with the installation of a temporary three-dimensional heat-insulation cover in the form of a structure (The Air-Structures) (www.arizoncompanies.com; http://www.asati.com) or other light structures.
This technology allows to:
1. Build a monolithic floating objects of virtually any size and shape (floating wind turbines, floating islands, hotels, helipads, airfields, floating dry docks, oil-gas platforms, etc.);
2. Build floating objects are not attracting specialized shipbuilding enterprise;
3. Build floating mega-structures in isolated waters (lakes, rivers, ponds.);
4. Build large floating objects for the Navy and NASA (floating dry docks up to a mile, platforms for the launch of space systems, etc.)
Construction of the proposed technology allows to build objects, that can not be another way to build!
Cost of construction on the proposed technology, even standard objects (platforms, pontoons, berthing facilities and so on) in the 4-10 times lower than the cost of their construction in the existing shipyards.
It is not a fantasy (idea) but a reality. On the ice islands produce oil. On the ice build huge structures. But I propose to use an ice islands as a construction site, plus some proprietary know-how Almost all the questions on the construction on ice calculated and thought out.
This technology has some secret know-how, so that it can be successfully applied in the southern latitudes.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
[...] (image via: Infrastructurist) [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
[...] is reported that San Diego, U.S.A and Dutch has plans for constructing their floating [...]
February 1st, 2010 at 4:03 am
[...] consider the absence of $20 billion a fatal flaw, but the man’s a bigger optimist than I. [Infrastructurist via Stoke [...]