Airport Highlights 2005 0203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• • five gates proposed to be parallel to existing Terminal 1 would remove the conflicts with the international terminal. At the most, temrinal development should not expand beyond what is proposed as shown. Expansion of the terminal further north cannot be supported. There should never be any more expansion beyond the number of gates proposed on concept 2B. 2B should meet the passenger demand through 2012. Therefore, there should not be any expansion beyond that volume. Our comments on the other presented concepts are as follows: Concepts IA and lB • Both concepts are too close to North Field. Taxiway enhancements could encourage diversion of South Field traffic to the North Field. Therefore, San Leandro would oppose both of these concepts. • San Leandro cannot support a concept that would fill -in significant portions of wetlands. • San Leandro will support Alameda's opposition to any concept that would generate more vehicle traffic through Alameda. Concepts 2C through 2 [ • 2C, 2D and 2F do not show any connection between parking and the new terminal. How will passengers get from parking to the new terminal? • 2C, 2E and 2F all show potential expansion of gates toward the North Field. Therefore, San Leandro cannot support these concepts. Proximity of the terminal to the North Field at this location will make it too easy to divert flights to the North • Field. • 2D proposes gates too close to the North Field. Therefore, San Leandro cannot support 2D. Proximity of the terminal to the North Field at this location will make it too easy to divert flights to the North Field. • 2F concepts show the potential for expansion onto the OMC site, which San Leandro cannot support. • 2H appears too confusing to travelers, with no connection to the existing terminals. This option of having ticketing, baggage handling and etc. at an off-airport location (close to Coliseum BART?) does not appear practical.