Replies

Field elevation is 13 feet. So a sea level increase of 3 feet will put the airport "under water". Great math there folks! And at the minimum rise of 4", they can turn the airport into a marina.... RIGHT!

Ooh! I hate when I have to take the wrong side here, but the 13 feet is probably an average elevation. Portions of the airport could possibly be close to sea level. I Google Earthed the airport and it appears that this could be the case. I'm not sure how accurate the Google Earth database is for SFO. Are there any Freeper pilots out there who have used SFO?

I hate when I have to take the wrong side here, but

FR has turned into an echo chamber of people parroting the company line. You should always take the right side, even if the mass of parrots disagree.

Field elevation is 13 feet. So a sea level increase of 3 feet will put the airport "under water". Great math there folks! And at the minimum rise of 4", they can turn the airport into a marina.... RIGHT!
Ooh! I hate when I have to take the wrong side here, but the 13 feet is probably an average elevation. Portions of the airport could possibly be close to sea level. I Google Earthed the airport and it appears that this could be the case. I'm not sure how accurate the Google Earth database is for SFO. Are there any Freeper pilots out there who have used SFO?

Im just making a quick guess, but runways have very thick concrete (like 10 feet thick) to support the massive load and impacts that large planes require. I would think that they would want ALL of that concrete above the water table level (and near the bay THAT is sea level) as part of its structural requirements.

Other parts (foundation) extend deeper (thick layer of gravel) and even some of that probably would be designed to be above the water table to allow proper drainage.