SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=126473)

staplesla Apr 10, 2009 5:54 PM

New Broadway Cruise Ship Terminal Plan Approved
 
The Port of San Diego Thursday sought construction bids for a $28 million cruise ship terminal at the Broadway Pier along the downtown waterfront.

The California Coastal Commission voted Wednesday to allow the port to build the 52,000-square-foot facility and to demolish an existing embarkation platform on the pier.

http://www.10news.com/news/19142279/detail.html

cata77 Apr 10, 2009 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 4188537)
The Port of San Diego Thursday sought construction bids for a $28 million cruise ship terminal at the Broadway Pier along the downtown waterfront.

The California Coastal Commission voted Wednesday to allow the port to build the 52,000-square-foot facility and to demolish an existing embarkation platform on the pier.

http://www.10news.com/news/19142279/detail.html

Well that's good ;)

laguna Apr 12, 2009 5:44 AM

More tax money down a rat hole
 
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori.../?zIndex=80996

How much more tax money are they going to waste on mass transit?

SD_Phil Apr 12, 2009 5:21 PM

^I don't think tax money is wasted on mass transit. Why do you? I thought both of the quotes below were significant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by article
“(State) funding has not only been reduced – it's down to zero,” said NCTD Executive Director Matt Tucker. “That's the big story for us.”

The cuts come as both agencies would like to expand services to accommodate rising ridership. Instead, both have been moving to cut service and increase fares.

Quote:

Originally Posted by article
“Our county's massive investment in freeways has only led to more gridlock,” said Elyse Lowe, executive director of Move San Diego.


staplesla Apr 12, 2009 8:13 PM

I for one think they need to spend more on mass transit.

bmfarley Apr 12, 2009 9:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 4191494)
I for one think they need to spend more on mass transit.

This is the internet and we are each more liberal in what we say and write when online.

Sometimes forgotten is that everything is inter-related to one degree or another.

Regarding transportation, it's not one mode against another. If congestion were the enemy and economic prosperity of a region were our goal, the frequency of use of one mode is complimentary to another. Or in other words, the greater the dispersal of trips among each mode the movement of people and goods becomes easier and business activity is poised to be effecient and prosperous. Improvement to the network for personal transportation use also adds to the vitality of a region; ie, more people are able and willing to get out and shop and meet personal needs.

Unfortunately there is confusion stemming from one mode being far more more widespread and prevalent than any other. That modal choice has fans, or a voter base, because that is basically what all those fans know. I am generallizing. We know what that mode is, because that mode is physically connected to every driveway in the country. Tho... that mode has limits due to a number constraints... physical capacity of the network, environmental concerns, and/or cost.

If vitality and economic prosperity of a region were the goal, our elected decision makers would get behind actions that provide greater modal transportation choices for the public. Unfortunately some of them cannot see the long-view or connect the dots, and act like representatives rather than leaders. Perhaps some day, sooner rather than latter I hope, that there can be greater public advocacy behind modal choices and then those hesitiant decison-makers would not need to make some personal great leap of faith.

PadreHomer Apr 12, 2009 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Phil (Post 4191280)
^I don't think tax money is wasted on mass transit. Why do you? I thought both of the quotes below were significant.

Lets see, here is San Diego's mass transit in a nutshell:

"Come spend more money to get somewhere slower"

voice of reason Apr 12, 2009 10:13 PM

When you build expensive systems that most of the public never rides, then that is a waste of tax money. What are you going to do, build it and force people to ride, whether they want to or not? More subsidies? No wonder our state and city are broke. I have not seen a public trans. system in the U.S. that wasnt subsidized by the taxpayer. I guess BiG Brother knows best.

I live in Little Italy and I have taken the trolley to Petco and it takes just as long as walking. If you dont want to walk, take the Rickshaw, it is pollution free and employs hardworking people and alot faster than the trolley. When I have gone to Mission Valley to Costco, I can drive cheaper than the fare and can have the capacity to carry my purchases home. In my car I dont have to put up with the obnoxious low-lifes who frequent the trolley.

It doesnt save money or time so whats the point?

lakegz Apr 12, 2009 10:20 PM

I'm a Californian, presently a student in NY, should I be paying taxes to build and maintain freeways somewhere off in northern California that I will never use?
Paying taxes is life, sometimes you have good leadership that knows how to do it and what to build from it. I took great transportation for granted when I lived in Japan for 2 years and while NYC is a downgrade from that, I still am glad that people had the foresight a century ago to build a transportation system that moves me past gridlock and saving me thousands of dollars in insurance-gas-buying-a-car- fees. I'm just speaking for myself though. to each their own.

I chuckle out of embarrassment whenever i see the slow trolley with 2-3 cars trawling along because it's all we have, even in a metro of more than 3 million counting TJ connections.

kpexpress Apr 13, 2009 2:55 AM

I highly doubt you can walk to Petco Park fast than taking the trolley. If you are talking about the time it takes to transfer trains at AP, I have found that the fastest way from Little Italy is walking to AP and then taking orange going either way around the downtown loop.

bmfarley Apr 13, 2009 3:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4191638)
"... I have not seen a public trans. system in the U.S. that wasnt subsidized by the taxpayer. ..."

Did you know that roadways and highways are publicly subsidized?

Did you know that, given terrain and what-not being equal, that building 1 mile of trolley tracks (2 tracks) and 1 mile of a highway (2 lanes) are approximately the same?

Did you know that providing more capacity on a highway means that more people will drive their cars, and that that capacity expansion is absorbed very quickly? A past nationally recognized study says that absorption only takes 4 or so years, .... and thus positions the next cycle for wanting to expand yet again?

Did you know that when more people drive cars that there is greater downstream need to improve roadways or provide additional parking... thus allocating more and more valuable land to an unproductive use for society?

In other words, roadway expansions do not relieve congestion and if the cycle is never altered, we're doomed to pave the entire country with concrete and asphalt.

Did you know that cars when driven emit invisible gases that percolate up into the atmosphere, creating a shield across the globe that ends up creating an effect known as a greenhouse? Have you ever been in a greenhouse? They are warm. Did you know that warmer temperatures over Greenland and Antartica are causing glaciers to shrink, thus converting ice into water and sending that water into our oceans? Did you know that oceans seal levels are rising... with 12-20 foot projections, depending on date and source, Coronado's existenace will be tested.

Did you also know that more cars be driven means more money spent on gas and foreign oil? And, that money spent on foreign oil finds its way to people that want Americans dead? Some of those people are training for attacks on you, your parents or friends this very moment!

Did you know that two trolley tracks can provide a lot more capacity than two lanes on a highway? And, that when trains are full, that more trains can be run without the need to build more tracks? Highways can only create more capacity by providing more asphalt.

voice of reason Apr 13, 2009 3:43 AM

After all the fancy scenarios and comparisons, it all comes down to my original point, light and heavy rail are systems that people in the real world dont use enough to justify their cost.

And yes I realize that public transport systems like roads are paid for by the government, I was referring to the subject of rail sysems, I guess I need to be more explicit for some. However, I would argue that roads generally pay for themselves with the commerce they produce, where rail systems dont.
Rail systems rely on subsidies where most highways arent funded by subsidies. Taxes and subsidies are not the same.

dl3000 Apr 13, 2009 4:07 AM

Ha I can't think of a system more subsidized than roads. They're "Free"ways for a reason. They're subsidized. Only reason people dont notice is because youre not paying a fare on the spot like on transit. Not sure tolls help. And yes other countries of the world dont force transit but they put selective pressure like WAY higher fuel taxes and the like. It's not that hard. Its just that the political and public will isnt there...bummer

bmfarley Apr 13, 2009 4:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 4192116)
Ha I can't think of a system more subsidized than roads. They're "Free"ways for a reason. They're subsidized. Only reason people dont notice is because youre not paying a fare on the spot like on transit. Not sure tolls help. And yes other countries of the world dont force transit but they put selective pressure like WAY higher fuel taxes and the like. It's not that hard. Its just that the political and public will isnt there...bummer

I am convinced that he does not know what he's talking about. But, to be fair he's probably thinking of the distinction that fuel taxes are not a subsidy. I am guessing he/she considers them a 'user fee' like tolls are. I think that is a small, but notable distiction.

What he does not know is that those fuel taxes or tolls are insufficient to pay for the annual operations and maintenance of those roadways.. and that the other sources of revenue are needed and that those DO represent a subsidy.

What this person also does not consider is that when people use other modes of transportation other than cars, that roadways have less congestions.... for his and everyones benefit if they choose to commute at peak times. But, this person also thinks they can walk from Little Italy to Petco park faster than riding the Trolley! I find it ironic that their username is 'voice of reason.'

voice of reason Apr 13, 2009 4:56 AM

You are mixing and missusing terminology. Subsidy is not the same as user taxes. Highways are paid for primarily by users paying fees and taxes based on their quantity of useage. Light rail and bus systems are SUBSIDIZED, that means that funds, not from system users, are what pays for them. Anyone in the industry knows the difference. Actually gas taxes, car taxes etc, produce surpluses that governments raid for other uses.

All recent studies show that the San Diego trolley is used daily by about 2% of the workforce for commuting. The studies also show that the trolley only eases traffic by 1.3%. The difference is accounted for by the fact that a vast number of users of the trolley come from the bus system, which means that those people werent commuting with cars anyway.

The San Diego trolley has a budget of around $45 million and ticket revenues are around $24 million. This does not take into account the capital costs that were incurred at the point of construction. So there is a shortfall of $20+million per year that must be subsidized by non-users.

The only real test of a rail system is 'do people ride it in numbers sufficient to justify the cost'. The data speaks for itself.

I love the Tube in London, the Metro in Paris and have used them often. Millions of people ride them each day, thats more than ride San Diegos in a whole year. If people rode ours, I would support it, people chose not to. The government shouldnt build expensive things that the citizens dont want to use, for whatever reason.

The bus system, even though it too is not self-sufficient is a better use of public transportation funds than a rail system and the numbers bear this out.

As to the question of walking or riding to downtown. The trolley doesnt run every 3 minutes, I believe in the evening it is every 20-30 minutes. So lets say you hit the pickup time in the middle and you wait 13 minutes to get on, you then have to transfer trolleys lines down at the main station, this is usually about 4 minutes and then add in the travel time of 18 minutes. That comes to 35 minutes. I can easily walk to Gas Lamp or even Petco in 29 minutes without pushing it. The pedicab is 13 minutes flat. Try it yourself if arent too lazy.

bmfarley Apr 13, 2009 5:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4192189)
You are mixing and missusing terminology. Subsidy is not the same as user taxes. Highways are paid for primarily by users paying fees and taxes based on their quantity of useage. Light rail and bus systems are SUBSIDIZED, that means that funds, not from system users, are what pays for them. Anyone in the industry knows the difference. Actually gas taxes, car taxes etc, produce surpluses that governments raid for other uses.

All recent studies show that the San Diego trolley is used daily by about 2% of the workforce for commuting. The studies also show that the trolley only eases traffic by 1.3%. The difference is accounted for by the fact that a vast number of users of the trolley come from the bus system, which means that those people werent commuting with cars anyway.

The San Diego trolley has a budget of around $45 million and ticket revenues are around $24 million. This does not take into account the capital costs that were incurred at the point of construction. So there is a shortfall of $20+million per year that must be subsidized by non-users.

The only real test of a rail system is 'do people ride it in numbers sufficient to justify the cost'. The data speaks for itself.

I love the Tube in London, the Metro in Paris and have used them often. Millions of people ride them each day, thats more than ride San Diegos in a whole year. If people rode ours, I would support it, people chose not to. The government shouldnt build expensive things that the citizens dont want to use, for whatever reason.

The bus system, even though it too is not self-sufficient is a better use of public transportation funds than a rail system and the numbers bear this out.

As to the question of walking or riding to downtown. The trolley doesnt run every 3 minutes, I believe in the evening it is every 20-30 minutes. So lets say you hit the pickup time in the middle and you wait 13 minutes to get on, you then have to transfer trolleys lines down at the main station, this is usually about 4 minutes and then add in the travel time of 18 minutes. That comes to 35 minutes. I can easily walk to Gas Lamp or even Petco in 29 minutes without pushing it. The pedicab is 13 minutes flat. Try it yourself if arent too lazy.

Close, but no cigar. Fuel taxes ARE taxes. However, there have been efforts legislatively here in California to get them reclassified as a 'user fee.' The purpose would be to enable raising those fuel taxes/fees with a 50% or more vote instead of a 2/3rds vote required by a tax.

No, user fees like tolls... or fuel taxes do not fully pay for the cost to operate and maintain highways. The Federal highway account once collected more than it spent; however, for the past several years has seen a decreasing balance; more outgoing funding for maintenace and operations than what is comming in from fuel taxes. We can thank increased fuel effeciency standards for part of that; however, labor and what-not has also increased in cost over time.

And, it is disingenuous to compare the Trolley to the entire region. Isn't that obvious? If you compare commute period Trolley ridership with the capture area of the Trolley... you'll find that the Trolley carries a very hefty portion of the commuters. For downtown... transit (bus & Trolley) carries over 20% of the commuters. The Trolley carries 2/3rds of the transit portion. Of course, as I mentioned above, highways and roadways have a monopoly, don't they? They are everywhere.

kpexpress Apr 13, 2009 6:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4192076)
After all the fancy scenarios and comparisons, it all comes down to my original point, light and heavy rail are systems that people in the real world dont use enough to justify their cost.

And yes I realize that public transport systems like roads are paid for by the government, I was referring to the subject of rail sysems, I guess I need to be more explicit for some. However, I would argue that roads generally pay for themselves with the commerce they produce, where rail systems dont.
Rail systems rely on subsidies where most highways arent funded by subsidies. Taxes and subsidies are not the same.

Freeway systems providing more commerce than rails? Are you considering the amount of land needed to produce this commerce? In Southern California there is not a lot of undeveloped land within close proximity of mass populated areas. When you compare the amount of land needed to produce commerce, rail systems far exceed road systems due to one very important and amazingly COOL factor: their scale. Road systems need roads to bring cars in, cars require a lot of room to park and move around. Rail systems just need people walking therefore can pack a much more dense punch when it comes to commerce/land ratio.

HurricaneHugo Apr 13, 2009 8:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4192189)
As to the question of walking or riding to downtown. The trolley doesnt run every 3 minutes, I believe in the evening it is every 20-30 minutes. So lets say you hit the pickup time in the middle and you wait 13 minutes to get on, you then have to transfer trolleys lines down at the main station, this is usually about 4 minutes and then add in the travel time of 18 minutes. That comes to 35 minutes. I can easily walk to Gas Lamp or even Petco in 29 minutes without pushing it. The pedicab is 13 minutes flat. Try it yourself if arent too lazy.

You know that you can check departure times online right?

sdcommute.com

That way you don't have to wait that much, the trolley is pretty punctual.

----
FROM: COUNTY / LITTLE ITALY TC
TO: PETCO PARK

1. walk 0.1 mile S from COUNTY / LITTLE ITALY TC to COUNTY CENTER at LITTLE ITALY STN

2. At 06:37 PM take the MTS BUS route Blue Line San Ysidro

3. Get off the stop on PARK at MARKET STATION at approximately 06:50 PM.

4. walk 0.3 mile SW to PETCO PARK
Schedules and maps for your routes
Bus route
Fare Information
Regular Fare: $ 1.75
Senior & Disabled Fare: $ 1.00
Total Trip Time = 0 hr. 13 min

Doubt you can walk to Petco in 13 minutes, but hey, that rickshaw can get you there one minute earlier!

kpexpress Apr 13, 2009 7:06 PM

Just curious how many people (actual residents of downtown or nearby areas) actually use the pedicabs on a regular basis. I've only used them once.

cata77 Apr 13, 2009 8:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 4193065)
Just curious how many people (actual residents of downtown or nearby areas) actually use the pedicabs on a regular basis. I've only used them once.

i've only used them twice.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.