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 Sep 12, 2009 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 4451210)
I agree that a train line needs to be built up through Hillcrest, but I also think a connection into Balboa Park is essential. It's not just the zoo, it's all of the museums there, plus the fact that tens of thousands of people use Balboa Park every day just as a park, and not necessarily as a tourist attraction. Besides, the line could connect up back in Mission Valley, basically completing a loop.

Aaron (Glowrock)

If a line ever goes north from downtown, and an alignment could have a station serving Balboa Park and the museums, I'd agree with you; it would be essential. However, my reasoning would be for political purposes mostly, rather than that they were sufficient regular consistent demand. I am skeptical that there would be sufficient regular demand there; Summer Saturday and Sunday afternoons when the weather is good is too small a window for demand.

If I were a benevolent dictator, I'd run a line in a subway alignment from the Harbor/Gaslamp, up 5th or 6th Avenue... all the way up to University or Washington... then turn east toward I-15 or continue into Mission Valley. At Balboa Park, I could imagine a subway station at 6th/Laurel... providing a perfect nice walk into the park and museum area.

Subway stations are looking very nice with recent designs. See these flickr images from bigbend700 of the

LA Metro Soto station:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3126731...7622097195247/

Soto favorite:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2530/...5c6da2b282.jpg
From Flickr, by bigbend700



LA Metro Mariachi station:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3126731...7622201234786/

My Mariachi favorite:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2432/...f6da684032.jpg.
From Flickr, by bigbend700

Check out the LA Transportation thread on page 8; here... for more pics of the above.

voice of reason Sep 12, 2009 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 4452254)
Its not a toy. It moves people. you can't make more freeways so there is only one choice and that is to accommodate something other than the car, like your feet. its a matter of capacity. im sure you havent been on said buses to see how allegedly "empty" they are. light rail has a higher capacity and is immune to automobile traffic. sounds like a great deal. besides, the alignments under study are there to serve those without cars such as students at the universities and areas with nightlife that are crowded and driving is not an option if you drink. plus you may not believe this but people do commute on them even in this city. for your information, no public infrastructure and services pay for themselves. do the police forces pay for themselves? no. then why have them? they offer a service for a fee purely in tax dollars. freeways? a means to a destination. funded by: tax dollars. why would light rail be any different? its costs are merely supplemented by a fare no different than toll roads or gas tax.

Solution.

Buy more buses.

Problem solved.

Class dismissed.

Fusey Sep 13, 2009 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 4452254)
light rail has a higher capacity and is immune to automobile traffic.

Except downtown where it's faster to ride a bike than take the trolley. Of course downtown San Diego has no bike lanes. :haha:

bmfarley Sep 13, 2009 12:23 AM

For the uninformed, light-rail costs less to operate on a per rider basis than buses.

tdavis Sep 13, 2009 4:02 AM

Feasibility/costs of rail in comparison to busing
 
Many on here don't seem to know much about the feasibility/costs of rail in comparison to busing. I work in transit oriented development for projects around the U.S. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Rail lines receive more passengers than the bus routes they replace.

2. Rail lines tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.

3. Buses, are susceptible to potholes and height irregularities in the pavement. Rail lines ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps. The maintenance is less for rail than replacing shocks/tires on buses.

4. Mapmakers include rail lines lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map. TOD is extremely beneficial to bringing in tax dollars to the city. Development will follow a train station, but not a bus stop. Rails don't pick up and move any time soon. Once a rail system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.

5. The upfront costs are higher for rail and higher than buses-but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.

6. Once purchased (albeit at high cost) rail liness are cheaper to maintain and last a whole lot longer (case in point, rail lines discarded in the US in the '40s, have been snapped up by the Yugoslavs, and are still running). Buses have a lifespan of 9-12 years.

7. Rail lines create more walkable streets.

IconRPCV Sep 13, 2009 6:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4453023)
Solution.

Buy more buses.

Problem solved.

Class dismissed.

I am an example of someone that would take a trolley up to Hillcrest to goto dinner or to Whole Foods or Trader Joe's to go shopping, but WOULD NOT take a bus.

I can't tell you how many ties I have been up in Hillcrest and have had too many to drink so I take a taxi home, I wished there were a trolley so that I had an alternative to that.

kpexpress Sep 13, 2009 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdavis (Post 4453448)
Many on here don't seem to know much about the feasibility/costs of rail in comparison to busing. I work in transit oriented development for projects around the U.S. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Rail lines receive more passengers than the bus routes they replace.

2. Rail lines tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.

3. Buses, are susceptible to potholes and height irregularities in the pavement. Rail lines ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps. The maintenance is less for rail than replacing shocks/tires on buses.

4. Mapmakers include rail lines lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map. TOD is extremely beneficial to bringing in tax dollars to the city. Development will follow a train station, but not a bus stop. Rails don't pick up and move any time soon. Once a rail system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.

5. The upfront costs are higher for rail and higher than buses-but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.

6. Once purchased (albeit at high cost) rail liness are cheaper to maintain and last a whole lot longer (case in point, rail lines discarded in the US in the '40s, have been snapped up by the Yugoslavs, and are still running). Buses have a lifespan of 9-12 years.

7. Rail lines create more walkable streets.

Not to mention adding more sustainable land values to transit areas. Plus rail lines are more consistent with their schedules and people tend to trust them over buses and plan accordingly.

Filambata Sep 14, 2009 12:04 AM

Curitiba's Bus System
 
Curitiba, Brazil, has a very nice bus system that is recognized by the planning and green community all over the world as a first-class model. The link below to an article is a good read. Plus, just do a Google search on Curitiba.

http://urbanhabitat.org/node/344

HurricaneHugo Sep 14, 2009 6:25 AM

I work for UCSD's Shuttle Services and it's annoying to work as a dispatcher because we usually have about 5 break down each day lol.

By break down I mean they're still usable but it's recommended to take them off line for repairs.

SDfan Sep 14, 2009 6:44 PM

Based on my own experiences, the trolley line does feel safer, but by no means was it more dependable then the bus route I take now. They are about the same. Both have long waits at times. Both stop for one reason or another in the middle of rush hour. Both have loons annoying passangers. And if you're going to use transit anywhere in San Diego you have to be willing to give up large amounts of your time to use it. It goes against our instant mobility instincts we as San Diegans are used to with cars.

As for the coaster, its definetly more of a long distance commuter who rides. Your less likely to get a homeless man heading from Old Town to Oceanside then one whos trying to get from North Park to downtown.

As to whoever proposes a subway line in this city, I'll be more then willing to pay an extra half-cent tax to get that done. There are only so many carpool lanes you can add to the five and fifteen before there isn't any space between the two freeways left...

Can you imagine if all of our major freeways looked like the 5-805 merge? *shutter*

kpexpress Sep 16, 2009 5:48 AM

Imagine if the airport was moved and a large portion of bayfront land was allocated for a stadium and this was built.

http://www.archdaily.com/35207/dalia...-stadium-nbbj/

dl3000 Sep 16, 2009 6:13 AM

Delete

dl3000 Sep 16, 2009 6:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4453023)
Solution.

Buy more buses.

Problem solved.

Class dismissed.

Golly, with all those buses and cars, don't you think the roads might feel a little congested? At least they would in the real world.




And yeah yeah, Fusey, the downsides of the downtown trolley segments have been discussed. But regardless, whenever a rail system runs through the core of a city, the density of stations always slow things down. Granted that is not the main issue, but it is one of the reasons.

brantw Sep 17, 2009 6:11 PM

Sapphire Tower at night
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2511/...22b17391e8.jpg

brantw Sep 18, 2009 12:33 AM

From the Top of the Hyatt
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2557/...28644b14bd.jpg

OneMetropolis Sep 18, 2009 1:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brantw (Post 4462000)

^^^^^^ yuck I hate those buildings. They look like two mishappend retarted pens. They're just hideous, never were they my favorite building's in SD.

Fusey Sep 18, 2009 1:08 AM

Quote:

Sanders to push for new City Hall, other projects
Critics say pension should be key focus

By Craig Gustafson
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. September 16, 2009

SAN DIEGO — San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders plans to push forward on major municipal projects despite naysayers who cite the recession and a projected $100 million budget deficit as insurmountable obstacles.

Sanders said he believes the city can and will build a new City Hall complex, expand the San Diego Convention Center and construct a new downtown library over the next few years.

“We cannot allow our judgment to be clouded by the defeatists who think the only response to a weak economy is to abandon our aspirations,” he said.

The mayor's economic speech yesterday came ahead of a crucial decision Friday by pension officials that will largely determine how big the city's budget deficit will be next year.

The pension board is considering changes that could relieve the city of $50 million of its $225 million projected payment into the retirement fund next year. The changes would provide short-term savings but likely result in higher payments in later years.

Several critics — including City Council members Carl DeMaio, Kevin Faulconer, Donna Frye and Todd Gloria — say the changes would repeat past problems of failing to save enough money to fund promised pensions.

Sanders referenced the importance of the pending board decision in his speech before a 300-plus crowd gathered for a San Diego County Taxpayers Association luncheon at the Town and Country Resort & Hotel.

“There has been considerable speculation about what the size of that payment will be, but whatever the amount, let me be clear: We will make our full pension payment,” he said.

The mayor has declined to weigh in on how he would prefer the board to vote, saying that past city leaders pressuring pension officials led to many of the city's money problems.

If the board does nothing, the city's annual payment will continue to consume an ever-larger piece of the city budget — as much as $318 million by fiscal 2015.

Businessman Steve Francis, who lost to Sanders in last year's election, said he found the timing of the mayor's speech bizarre.

“It is a bit baffling in light of the fact that we're facing — to his own admission — a fiscal tsunami that he didn't lay out an evacuation plan,” said Francis, who attended the speech. “We need to be talking about how we're going to solve this pension problem and not building buildings.”

Sanders has long said each of proposed projects would need to be funded without affecting the city's general fund. Methods on the table include fundraising and downtown redevelopment money for the library, and taxes aimed at the tourism industry for the convention center expansion.

DeMaio said the mayor should focus his energy elsewhere.

“To basically say the emphasis should be on three costly civic projects, rather than fixing the financial problems, as our core priority is disappointing to say the least,” he said.

Gloria said he appreciated the positive tone of Sanders' speech and agreed the city shouldn't be afraid to think big despite its money woes.

“His approach of suggesting that we are right to be optimistic about the city's future and that we must continue to dream big dreams is exactly right,” Gloria said.

Mike McDowell, board chairman of the taxpayers group, said the budget deficit next year doesn't mean progress isn't possible.

“I think it's important that we don't put our head in the sand, that we face the obstacles and the opportunities with equal vigor,” he said.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...ther-projects/

IconRPCV Sep 18, 2009 5:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brantw (Post 4462000)

I love them. I have a fondness for anything 70's with brown glass. I know they weren't built in the 70's but they sure look like it. If nothing else they are unique and distinctive. I think they look like they are two sentinels guarding downtown.

brantw Sep 18, 2009 5:29 PM

Some random ones from the Hillcrest/Mission Hills area:

This one kinda reminds me of the building I live in (Treo). It kinda has a step-like design.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/...5e13df0c0b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/...19ba65a5cb.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2568/...4633d42c09.jpg

Here's a random little guy that they are just finishing up
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2642/...ff11400130.jpg

Don't know the name of these, but I like them
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2667/...2f9a18bc6f.jpg

This could be tall, sorry I don't have the name. It's somewhere on 5th.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2205/...fbd1ea5171.jpg

This one is called Mis Arbolitos. One unit per floor starting at $1.2 million, I believe.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2449/...869e4334a6.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/...fc59031aba.jpg

tdavis Sep 18, 2009 7:17 PM

The building you referenced on 5th, "could be tall" was foreclosed on over a year ago. Notice all the steel is rusted.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:07 AM.

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