Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544
Oh really? Getting to or from LAX is difficult at best and nightmarish if traffic backs up, which it usually does; parking is getting more and more difficult to find and more and more expensive (unless you want to park at a remote lot, adding an hour onto each departure or arrival). The neighborhood erupts every time anyone even whispers about enlarging the airport. And nobody else in CA wants a damned airport in their back yard either. I don't know what planet you live on, but if you live anywhere near California, you must stay under a rock.
|
Actually, I am very well versed in the airport.
Take a look at the actual FACTS:
http://www.lawa.org/welcome_LAX.aspx?id=800
In 2000, LAX handled 67.3M passengers.
In 2010, LAX handled 59M passengers.
My statement is based in fact -- LAX could handle millions of additional passengers TODAY without moving a single piece of dirt. Fortunately LAX is undergoing modernization that will provide new terminals, redone terminals, and (probably) a link to public transportation via the Crenshaw Line.
In addition, Ontario is so underutilized they are talking about completely closing one of the two terminals to save money.
And again, why not utilize the UC system to validate the numbers? Why does it seem like they are trying to hide something? After all, it would be great if an INDEPENDENT 3rd party could validate the costs of the alternatives to HSR, rather than relying on the figures of the lead construction contractor.
No, I'm not living under a rock. It's the HSR supporters who attack anyone that dares question the costs or benefits of this project that could use some eye-opening.
Newsflash: We aren't Spain with an unlimited European checkbook to fund this thing. In case you haven't noticed, unbridled spending on massive projects has pushed many of those European countries to the brink of default.