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)

bmfarley Nov 10, 2011 4:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 5474560)
High speed rail is still kicking arse in California! It's one hit after another. hahaha

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblog...MhNLg.facebook

People need to give up on this monumental waste of money. Like others have stated, the cost/benefit ratio is so thoroughly out-of-whack with this thing.

The cost of doing nothing is not nothing. Demand to travel in this state will grow proportionally with the population, yet, where is the land and money for freeway expansions? Which, would require three times teh cost and three times the footprint. Actually, it is silly to think that roadways and more parking structures make any sense at all.

bmfarley Nov 10, 2011 4:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongoXZ (Post 5473495)
The article also posted an alternate version which I feel is better, more pleasing to the eye and less obtrusive to the views. They may have something here. Perhaps tweek the design a bit and add a observation booth on the top.:hmmm:

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...c82dae770b93ac
signonsandiego.com

But please don't call it "Wings of Freedom" :haha:



Looks nice. Personally, I have visions of an Arc de Triumph type building in Balboa Park at Laural Drive and Balboa... immediately east of 6th Street. Call it, "The Arc of Tolerance"

SDfan Nov 10, 2011 7:24 PM

Just watch, the double deck parking will turn into single level meters, the amphitheater into a circle of benches, and the monument into a 30ft pencil, designed to maintain the "view." This city's citizens are way to simpleton to let this go through.

LosAngelesDreamin Nov 10, 2011 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 5475015)
The cost of doing nothing is not nothing. Demand to travel in this state will grow proportionally with the population, yet, where is the land and money for freeway expansions? Which, would require three times teh cost and three times the footprint. Actually, it is silly to think that roadways and more parking structures make any sense at all.

I completely agree... it would cost more to expand highways, more parking, more plane runways and more airport gates.. than to build the bullet train. how many major airports do we have in CA??? haha that is a lot...not only LAX and SFO but also Sac, SJ and SD. I don't even wanna start with the freeways... think of all that expanding AND repairing of CA's extensive highway system.

Right now i believe it was around $170billion for all those expansions and only around $98billion for bullet train.

PLUS the high speed train is more environmentally friendly. using less energy to transport people. and its proven to be one of the safest transportation methods in the world... yes trains can derail... but far far less than how many car accidents happen everyday and waiting time is shorter than airports.

eburress Nov 10, 2011 10:44 PM

HSR isn't going to do away with the need for airports or freeways.

Virtual Urban Vision Nov 10, 2011 11:08 PM

Conversely, airports and highways can't do away the need for High Speed Rail and the cost of expanding their capacity exceeds the cost of building HSR.

Zorak Nov 11, 2011 3:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin (Post 5475852)
I completely agree... it would cost more to expand highways, more parking, more plane runways and more airport gates.. than to build the bullet train. how many major airports do we have in CA??? haha that is a lot...not only LAX and SFO but also Sac, SJ and SD. I don't even wanna start with the freeways... think of all that expanding AND repairing of CA's extensive highway system.

Right now i believe it was around $170billion for all those expansions and only around $98billion for bullet train.

PLUS the high speed train is more environmentally friendly. using less energy to transport people. and its proven to be one of the safest transportation methods in the world... yes trains can derail... but far far less than how many car accidents happen everyday and waiting time is shorter than airports.

If I understand the published materials correctly, the $98 billion only pays for the San Francisco - Anaheim segment (construction of which is broken into 4 phases) and would not be completed until 2030. I also read the $170 Billion for freeway and airport expansion was an estimate put out by the CHSRA, hardly an impartial source in this context.

I voted for HSR but that was based on proponents saying it would only cost $33 billion for the entire system. We've blown way past that.

bmfarley Nov 11, 2011 5:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin (Post 5475852)
I completely agree... it would cost more to expand highways, more parking, more plane runways and more airport gates.. than to build the bullet train. how many major airports do we have in CA??? haha that is a lot...not only LAX and SFO but also Sac, SJ and SD. I don't even wanna start with the freeways... think of all that expanding AND repairing of CA's extensive highway system.

Right now i believe it was around $170billion for all those expansions and only around $98billion for bullet train.

PLUS the high speed train is more environmentally friendly. using less energy to transport people. and its proven to be one of the safest transportation methods in the world... yes trains can derail... but far far less than how many car accidents happen everyday and waiting time is shorter than airports.

Good points. More people need to realize this.

Personally, I don't think ribbons of concrete for freeway is the way to go. I also don't want to see downtown San Diego become a car park.

eburress Nov 11, 2011 6:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 5476562)
Good points. More people need to realize this.

Personally, I don't think ribbons of concrete for freeway is the way to go. I also don't want to see downtown San Diego become a car park.

And you think that HSR is going to influence that in ANY way?

bmfarley Nov 11, 2011 6:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 5476589)
And you think that HSR is going to influence that in ANY way?

I think society has largely moved on. Admittedly, San Diego and Orange County havent turned the corner yet it would seem.

mello Nov 11, 2011 7:09 PM

Wow a sudden flurry of activity on the San Diego page. Where do I begin, towers on 6th Ave, Seaport Village Hotel, Navy Pier proposals, HSR debate....

Great to see some density going in the Southern Portion of Bankers Hill jet noise be damned I still think there is good potential there. Of course a street car up Fifth would really help.

Seaport Village is in dire need of a redo so I applaud that proposal and lets get that Police Headquarters project moving please... Seems to really be lagging.

I'm down with the wings as long as they use really good materials, would like to see some more detailed renderings though. And I really don't know enough about HSR to weigh in on the debate I just don't see it getting built with the global economy set to go in to the shitter again very soon and costs ballooning combined with California NIMBYism and regulations/lawsuits...

HurricaneHugo Nov 12, 2011 3:48 AM

For those who don't think HSR will help with air traffic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid%...peed_rail_line

Quote:

It was forecast that the AVE will substantially replace air traffic on the Barcelona - Madrid route (in the same way that the Eurostar has on the London-Paris/London-Brussels routes and France's TGV has on the Paris-Lyon route). In fact, more than 80% of travellers between Madrid and Seville use the AVE, with fewer than 20% travelling by air.[4] The route Madrid-Barcelona was in 2007 the world's busiest passenger air route with 971 scheduled flights per week (both directions). In order to compete with each other RENFE has made, and Iberia will make, changes to their fare structures, as well as changing services; Iberia plans to use smaller planes which will leave as soon as full, and a non-stop AVE service is available between the two cities.

202_Cyclist Nov 12, 2011 6:24 AM

HurricaneHugo:
Quote:

For those who don't think HSR will help with air traffic...
Of more relevance here in CA:
1) A report, "Expect Delays: An Analysis of Air Travel Trends in the United States," by Brookings notes that almost half of all flights in 2009 were distances less by 500 miles. The second biggest origin/destination pair in the US is SF - LA. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...vel_report.pdf

2) SH&E, a very well respected transportation consulting firm, estimates that 12% of passengers at San jose, 9% at Oakland, and 4% of passengers at SFO will switch to high speed rail, a total of 6M annual passengers. http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/ne...n20100224b.pdf

3) SFO is the second-most delayed airport in the US from Jan - Aug. 2011. http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_.../table_04.html

4) SAN has a single runway and may be capacity constrained in coming decades. http://www.aci-na.org/static/confere...Van%20Beek.pdf

5) High speed rail can actually improve aviation by expanding the catchment area for airports, especially SFO. This airport would be an hour (or less) from Fresno and other Central Valley cities. http://www.aerlines.nl/wp-content/up..._AMS_BRU-1.pdf

For those who are interested, there is an excellent Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) report about the ability high speed rail to alleviate aviation capacity and delay issues in the coastal megaregions: http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/acrp_rpt_031.pdf

202_Cyclist Nov 12, 2011 6:31 AM

It is also worth noting that high speed rail will be valuable for intra-city travel if there is high or volatile oil prices. When oil was $145 per barrel in 2008, airlines were quickly cutting capacity and charging fuel surcharges of $20-$30. Just this week, the IAEA announced that Iran is much closer to developing nuclear weapons than previously estimated. If there is a Middle Eastern war involving Iran and Israel or Iran and its Arab neighbors, oil could quickly rise to $150 - $175 per barrel. It would be nice to have options for intra-city travel in CA (and other corridors in the US) that don't put us at the mercy of petro-dictators hostile to the US>

austin242 Nov 12, 2011 6:50 AM

The point is sometimes you have to spend money for the future. If its 100 billion now it will be 1 trillion in the future. In the future people will see it as a good investment if you keep the lines up and running. Things that need to be done shoudln't have to worry about the price ($) it will take to get them done but what is at stake if its not done. If its not done traffic will be higher on roads and there really is only so much roads you can build till enough is enough. Same with airports. California's real problem is overpopulation which no one has the balls to adress anywhere in the world except china. Yah I said it. :tup:

mello Nov 12, 2011 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5477595)
It is also worth noting that high speed rail will be valuable for intra-city travel if there is high or volatile oil prices. When oil was $145 per barrel in 2008, airlines were quickly cutting capacity and charging fuel surcharges of $20-$30. Just this week, the IAEA announced that Iran is much closer to developing nuclear weapons than previously estimated. If there is a Middle Eastern war involving Iran and Israel or Iran and its Arab neighbors, oil could quickly rise to $150 - $175 per barrel. It would be nice to have options for intra-city travel in CA (and other corridors in the US) that don't put us at the mercy of petro-dictators hostile to the US>

Good thinking but a conflict with Iran is probably going to happen in the next 2 years. HSR won't be finished until 2025 or 2030. The impact to the world economy of the Strait of Hormuz being shut off will be astounding and oil will probably skyrocket to $250 to $300 a barrel. Unfortunately HSR will not arrive in time to help out with the result of an Iran conflict and the massive global inflation that would ensue. :(

LosAngelesDreamin Nov 12, 2011 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorak (Post 5476482)
If I understand the published materials correctly, the $98 billion only pays for the San Francisco - Anaheim segment (construction of which is broken into 4 phases) and would not be completed until 2030. I also read the $170 Billion for freeway and airport expansion was an estimate put out by the CHSRA, hardly an impartial source in this context.

I voted for HSR but that was based on proponents saying it would only cost $33 billion for the entire system. We've blown way past that.

yea SF-Anaheim correct.. i didn't mean 98B for the completed Sac-SD.... and even if 170B isn't the precise amount... it would still be over 100B

bmfarley Nov 13, 2011 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin (Post 5478096)
yea SF-Anaheim correct.. i didn't mean 98B for the completed Sac-SD.... and even if 170B isn't the precise amount... it would still be over 100B

$98 billion = Year of Expenditure
$65 billion = 2010 dollars

Assumed is a 3% annual increase in cost of construction. That might be overly aggressive.

laguna Nov 14, 2011 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by austin242 (Post 5477605)
The point is sometimes you have to spend money for the future. If its 100 billion now it will be 1 trillion in the future. In the future people will see it as a good investment if you keep the lines up and running. Things that need to be done shoudln't have to worry about the price ($) it will take to get them done but what is at stake if its not done. If its not done traffic will be higher on roads and there really is only so much roads you can build till enough is enough. Same with airports. California's real problem is overpopulation which no one has the balls to adress anywhere in the world except china. Yah I said it. :tup:

most would agree that your mother should have visited Planned Parenthood-now I said it.

twrb Nov 19, 2011 7:39 PM

AKA Winged Ugly
 
Really? This giant piece of art (junk) sitting smack in the middle of the downtown waterfront, completely discordant with the landscape and serving no purpose other that (further) junking up the view, is going to draw people like the Eiffel Tower or the St. Louis arch? LOL.

Kinda like people will want to fly to SD to see this "iconic" piece of junk:

http://art.san.org/pub_art/legacy/ga...he_gate/large/

?

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 5473370)
Midway aircraft carrier museum proposes $68 million plan with 500-foot-high sail-like structures; critcs say views will be blocked

Sydney has its opera house, St. Louis its arch and Paris, the Eiffel Tower.

San Diego can match those iconic images with "Wings of Freedom," a 500-foot-high sculpture shaped like sails or wings on the downtown waterfront, the San Diego Unified Port District was told Tuesday.

The Midway aircraft carrier museum proposed the concept as part of a $68 million development, called "Veterans Park," on the adjacent Navy Pier:
  • A 500-space parking lot;
  • A 5-acre park on a deck 12 to 20 feet above the lot;
  • A permanent home for the San Diego Symphony's Summer Pops concerts with capacity for 6,000 attendees, plus public restrooms; and,
  • The "Wings of Freedom" sails flanking the pops amphitheater.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...osed-navy-pie/

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...c82dae770b93ac
http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...c82dae770b93ac



All times are GMT. The time now is 9:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.