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.

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.

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.

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!

Yeah right.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.