Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsPlane

Valley Perspective

Safety and Expansion at Burbank Airport

March 12, 2000

When I saw the live reports Sunday night of the Boeing 737 that skidded off the runway onto busy Hollywood Way in Burbank, I knew it was just a matter of time before the airport expansionists seized that opportunity to further their cause of building a new, bigger terminal, with ultimately more flights ("Crash Spurs Interest in Airport Pact," March 7). They ask, "What if that plane had skidded into the existing terminal located too close to the runway?"

Well, as long as we're playing the "what if" game, what if that plane had crashed into homes on its landing approach? Or what if another plane happened to crash into a crowded elementary school during takeoff? There are many scenarios possible. I suggest the Burbank Airport Authority thank its lucky stars that the citizens of Burbank don't just close down their noisy, polluting and dangerous airport.

WILL RAY

Burbank

*

As every Burbank traveler knows, landing on [that runway] is a white-knuckle experience. Airliners invariably use almost its entire length, coming to a stop barely short of the barrier at the east end. With even a slight excess in speed or height at the threshold you [could] end up on Hollywood Way, as on last Sunday.

Lengthening the runway to the west, bridging Vineland Avenue, is not impossible and should be considered.

CHARLES C. WAUGH

Tarzana

*

Considering the matter of safety, the horrendous noise and the air pollution caused by the planes, should there really be a major commercial airport in the midst of a densely populated residential community? I don't think so.

Surely, the value of human life is more important than mere convenience! The Palmdale plan with a rapid transit system makes more sense than having an airport in Burbank.

MERVIN B. TOMSKY

Sun Valley

*

Re "An Endless Holding Pattern," Valley editorial, Feb. 27.

Why is it that you cannot understand our viewpoint? Those of us who have been fighting the proposed airport [expansion] have never been against a larger, safer terminal. We know that a larger and better terminal is a necessity.

But a new terminal should be a true replacement terminal, one that does not exceed the present capacity, while being compliant with the law. Expansion cannot take place until specific growth controls have been adopted and the environmental impact of that growth assessed.

There should and must be a mandatory curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

The eastern runway should be opened and some departures routed over Glendale and Pasadena. (After all, the airport is called the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.) This would be a true "share the noise" arrangement.

Adopt a permanent cap on flights and a noise budget based on state noise limits.

It is time that The Times stopped being a dupe of the excellent P.R. that the airport authority publicizes. It is time that The Times prints the truth.

LORI DINKIN

Valley Village

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|