The most immediate problem at Lindbergh is not with flight operations, but rather with passenger and vehicular traffic. Operational changes can be made to increase the number of flights that operate at Lindbergh, but these changes will create more passenger traffic, which is a good problem to have. A solution on how to accommodate these passengers and associated vehicle traffic must be found. San Diegans have voted and said that the solution must be found at Lindbergh.
What is clear to me, but doesn’t seem to be on the radar of those investigating, recommending and implementing airport improvements is that the existing location of the terminals is the culprit that prevents us from utilizing Lindbergh fully. Having the three terminals located on the very small triangle between the runway and Harbor Drive creates multiple problems. There is very limited room for terminal expansion. Congestion on Harbor Drive is bad at certain times now and will only get worse. Freeway access is terrible. And passenger services such as food and shopping suffer as a result of having services spread over three terminals.
There is a very simple solution. Relocate the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) from its present location north of Lindbergh’s runway to Camp Pendleton. There is no pressing national security reason for this facility to be located where it is. Relocating it would be a relatively minor cost. Currently, Marine recruits already spend several weeks of their training at Pendleton. I both support our military and recognize the importance of defense expenditures to our local economy, but MCRD is not MCAS-Miramar. Let’s let reason, not emotion, guide us in this process.
Looking at a map tells the story why “north of the runway” is the preferred location for a terminal serving Lindbergh. The land area “north of the runway” is at least twice the land area “south of the runway”, allowing for consolidation of the current three terminals into one, greater parking capacity, and re-location of the fleet of rental cars currently on Rent-A-Car Access into the parking structure near the terminal, reducing rental car shuttles.
Access from I-5 to the new terminal could be implemented with minimal impact on residents and businesses. Traffic to and from the south could use the existing Pacific Highway ramps to access the new terminal location. Traffic to and from the north would require new ramps, but compared to the benefits, the cost and impact would be minor. A terminal on the north side of the runway is closer to the existing trolley line, making a link to both Old Town and downtown more feasible and less costly.
A single new terminal should be built utilizing techniques that maximize passenger and vehicle flow. Reducing time from home to gate should be a major design criterion. Benefits of building a new terminal include departures and arrivals on different levels to divide vehicle traffic and eliminated the need to bring baggage upstairs as at Terminal 2 today; the possibility of a multiple level parking structure to minimize the distance from car to terminal; a single stop for mass transit (trolley); larger and consolidated security screening areas allowing for more even passenger flow; new concourse layouts that bring gates closer to ticketing and security; moving sidewalks to reduce time from security to gate; more and better dining and shopping options; rental car fleets at the terminal; and elimination of the Red Bus that currently carries passengers between terminals.
And this could be done without any interruption to existing operations. Work on the new terminal, trolley spur, and freeway and surface street access could occur while the current facilities are still in use. When the new facility is completed, an overnight move of aircraft and landside machinery to the other side of the airport is all that’s needed.
Cargo and private aircraft operations could remain in their existing location.
And there’s more. I propose that after the new terminal is in use, Harbor Drive be relocated northward to the current terminal locations, and creating a new park on the land between the “new” Harbor Drive and bay, accessible to all.
Provision for growth of passenger volume, improved passenger services, less traffic congestion, and a new park are all benefits of a “north of the runway” consolidated terminal. So why isn’t the Airport Authority investigating this?
There are answers to what appears to be a rhetorical question. First was the vehement opposition from Congress and the Marine Corps about MCAS-Miramar and concern that the same reaction would face a proposal to relocate MCRD. Talk about gun-shy!
And then there is the cynical position that creating a new park on the land south of the airport shuts developers out of a land grab, eliminating support from the moneyed bunch.
I would like to see some serious debate on this proposal and then let the people decide, as voting seems to be the preferred San Diego method of choice for getting politicos off the hook.
From my experience, we can’t depend on our leaders to lead, so we have to make them “followers from the front.”

” Richard Wolf is a resident of La Jolla.