Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (opus-fddi.hpl.hp.com) by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA122775545; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:59:09 -0800 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 AA109415543; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:59:03 -0800 Received: from sgi.sgi.com (SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1/8.9.1/HPLabs Relay) with ESMTP id QAA04498 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:59:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.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 QAA03179 for <@sgi.engr.sgi.com:wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:54:55 -0800 (PST) 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 OAA62664 for <@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com:wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:16:21 -0800 (PST) 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 OAA60544 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:16:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811242216.OAA60544@bluedini.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis From: Martin Frankel <mdf@sgi.com-DeleteThis> Subject: Re: Oyster Point/Flying Tigers Threatened In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Nov 98 12:46:44 PST." <365B1AD5.7A6B@hpoclrf.sj.hp.com-DeleteThis> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 98 14:16:16 -0800 Sender: mdf@bluedini.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis
Kirk, you make a good point, but San Francisco Int'l just spent 2 or 3
billion expanding their terminal. In that light I think the runway
expansion is almost inevitable.
Of the two site plans in the SJ Mercury, neither looks good for
windsurfing. If the new north-south runway is built west of the
existing pair, then Oyster Point loses. If it's built east, then the
new east-west runway and its landing light pier might interfere with
reaches from Coyote.
On the other hand, from looking at a map, neither case looks like it
would be more than an inconvenience. There are other situations on
the bay (Coyote construction, Seal Point, Crissy renovations,
Berkeley, Treasure Island access, etc) where I believe windsurfers
stand to gain or lose much more, and have a much greater chance of
having an significant voice.
-- Martin Frankel |||| mdf@sgi.com-DeleteThis |||| (650)933-6191
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2013 - 02:03:12 PST