|
Post by Valerieseaker on Jan 12, 2009 21:14:37 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 13, 2009 7:50:22 GMT -9
Thanks for the heads-up.
A quick read of the two choices being presented seemed to favor the major trail realignment, as it provides the most deconflicting choice for trail users versus vehicles AND adds quite an extensive amount of trail length down there - in a visually pleasing manner which moves the trail off old gravel pit roads into the revegetated areas. That's how I answered the survey... it's a well-done site the airport has stood up to talk about the project. Nordic Ski Association (NSAA) leadership appears to support the major trail realignment as well.
Make no mistake - the project will happen - it's just a question of how it's going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by tinman4x on Jan 13, 2009 7:54:41 GMT -9
Bring it on! I'm all for progress and the new trial changes seem like they'd be nice as well.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 13, 2009 20:46:51 GMT -9
It took me awhile to determine why NorthWes was supportive of the project, but then I read about the signage at the road crossing and the need for fiberglass stakes to separate the ski trail and the maintenance road and it all came together for me. It's nice to see that the trail users (summer and winter) would GAIN trail under the proposal. I do wonder why the airport is considering this modification in light of declining cargo and passenger traffic. The statements for why the runway extension is required aren't particularly compelling for me. The last expansion project died a quick death when Alaska Airlines stood up and said they didn't support it. Do any carriers explicitly support this expansion?
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 14, 2009 23:58:14 GMT -9
My understanding of the expansion's need is to reduce congestion caused by heavy cargo aircraft landing from the west, which are unable to stop in time to turn left (north) towards the cargo service areas (FedEx/UPS plus others) along the NE side of the North-South runway at the main intersection of the east-west runway 7R and the N-S Runway; planes have to taxi back westwards after using a cross-over lane to reach the taxiway on the north side of the E-W runway, and that puts them in traffic conflict on the ground with passenger aircraft all around the perimeter of the existing main terminal. It's quite an issue amongst commercial pilots I know, who want the bigger cargo aircraft out of the mix of passenger planes - and the cargo pilot group really wants to go 'straight to the barn' after landing to cut down ground transit time and turnaround times for the cargo aircraft. An additional 1500 feet on the west end of Runway 7R is just the ticket for keeping the cargo planes out of the passenger terminal aircraft staging area. Looks good for support from the airlines - this is something that makes sense no matter which airline is involved.
This option is a much smaller capital build-up than the previous proposals, which were virtually total rebuilds of the runways on the airport(and which ate up lots of park land!) This only affects the end of one of the two E-W runways, and the most intrusive part of the impact for park users is in the form of the lighting towers. As LBK noted, it's rare an expansion of infrastructure into a park area actually serves to increase the length and upgrade the quality of a trail system.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Nov 9, 2013 16:15:13 GMT -9
The link on this opening thread no longer is there.
Another good thread for purging.
|
|