Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA238604006; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:26:47 -0700 Return-Path: <mdf@bluedini.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis> Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA260544001; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:26:41 -0700 Received: from sgi.com (sgi.SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id LAA20555 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id LAA01894 for <@external-mail-relay.sgi.com:wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:22:35 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (mdf@bluedini.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis) Received: from bluedini.engr.sgi.com (bluedini.engr.sgi.com [130.62.244.69]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA69884 for <@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com:wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:22:34 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (mdf@bluedini.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bluedini.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id LAA88794 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906171822.LAA88794@bluedini.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis From: Martin Frankel <mdf@sgi.com-DeleteThis> Subject: Re: SFO expansion meetings In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Jun 99 10:42:49 PDT." <9906171033.ZM10784@lanina.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 11:22:33 -0700 Sender: mdf@bluedini.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis
When I look at the airport runway alternatives, I keep having the same
recurring thought. It seems like there's a quite acceptable
alternative which would have much less impact on the bay. SFO needs
to scale down their grandiose plans, in order to have a win-win for
everyone.
As I understand, the current situation has four runways in a #
pattern. However the two sets of parallel runways are too closely
spaced to be used simultaneously in IFR conditions, which is when the
airport is most stressed anyway. Also, the runways cross at the
center which means they can't be used simultaneously. So four runways
are reduced to effectively just one in the worst case.
My feeling is that what the SFO people want is to have four
non-intersecting runways that can all be used simultaneously in IFR
conditions. I think they're asking too much. I'd propose alternative
MDF, with two new runways roughly parallel to the existing ones, in
the same # pattern. This would be somewhat like alternative BX,
except the new east-west runway, rather than extending way out in the
middle of the bay, would be much further west and would cross both the
north-south runways. Also, I'm unclear on why the existing
north-south runway needs to be extended out into the bay, since it's
presumably long enough as it is. Alternative MDF would still involve
quite a bit of bay fill but the overall "footprint" on the bay would
be much smaller.
Naturally, plan MDF would have no windsuring impacts. ;)
What do y'all think?
-- Martin Frankel |||| mdf@sgi.com-DeleteThis |||| (650)933-6191
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:42 PST