Additionally:

"SDfan, people in SD drive cars to work and prefer an added lane for 500M to bring their commute from 25 minutes to 18 minutes as opposed to spending billions on a system that will get them to work in 45."

SD residents prefer added lanes? Speak for yourself please.

500m for extra lanes? Billions for comparable transit? Who is being unrealistic now?

Yes! Mass transit and transit-oriented development is the way to go in the 21st century. The stupid 50s mentality that everything must be built to accommodate cars is outdated and unhealthy. Transit is expensive? Well what's the cost of buying a 2-ton machine, insuring it, as well as maintain it and drive it in a highway filled with distracted drivers? And gas? :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure if people were really educated about the benefits of mass transit, many more people would support investing in it.

We can prepare for the future, or we can stick with the status quo...

http://robertluisrabello.com/wp-cont...ffic-in-LA.jpg
http://robertluisrabello.com/denial/...in-la/#gallery[default]/0/

(photoshopped pic)

aerogt3,

1. People drive cars and "prefer" highway expansion because there are no other options. You can't brush this issue away by saying "well, no one takes the train to work" when there is no train for them to take. Yes, few people commute on transit now, but that's not because people wouldn't use it - it's because people don't have the option - and why? Because "common sense" people (aerogt3) wouldn't invest in something that "wouldn't be preferred" because obviously since it doesn't exist it shouldn't be considered as an option altogether (so mind-numbing, but so San Diegan).

2. Your are so right aerogt3, the plaza is practical, quick, and cheap. This city is by no means able to pay for anything, not even to fill a pot hole. But I'm not sure if you were around - say 6 months ago - when one of this city's heavy philanthropists was willing to bank roll an extensive renovation of same, said plaza. Yet, San Diego's politically active "preservationists" were successful in giving us what we have now - painted asphalt. You know, they should have just saved us some money and left the black tarmac color instead of painting it, because there really is no difference between the two.

And what are we preserving anyways? Oh yeah - that's right, the cabrillo bridge - an "icon" of San Diego. A hollow, plaster-wrapped bridge built to fool turn of the century tourists into thinking that this city had history. Surprise, surprise, it's fooling us even into today! Does no one else see the hilarity in all of this? I mean, really? My chest of drawers is from 1920, I think I'll have to have it claimed historical by SOHO to leave it protected for generations of underwear to come!

3. Is it really too unrealistic to ask for better infrastructure? I mean, I don't think we're asking for a bridge to nowhere. San Diego isn't some backwater town (as much as the political and NIMBYist sentiments seem to indicate it is). We have a metro of 3 million, 5 million when you include Tijuana (which I'm sure you wouldn't aerogt3, something tells me you're less inclined to think outside the box, let alone over the border). Yet we have one of the saddest air transport situations in the country. And why? Well, I'm not going to get into the history of commercial aviation in this region, but I will sum it up by saying it's pretty much the same story as the plaza, and mass transit, and community development, and... the list goes on!)

4. I'm not bitching, I'm lamenting. Because no one else seems to notice all the stupid shenanigans that San Diegan's put themselves through. No community is perfect, but God damn - San Diego really has a lovely way of putting off or putting down what is necessary for it to grow, let alone, survive.

It's just. Sad.

And not to attack you (any further) aerogt3, but I just see what you have to say and I can easily add it to the larger problems that have kept San Diego from realizing it's full potential.

SDfan should change his name to SDhater or LAfan or gasp Phoenixlover

I don't know how anyone would call 3.2 million small. The city of LA has 3.8 million people, and I wouldn't call that small.

On that note, everyone always compares SF to LA. LA metro has almost 3X the population of SF metro.

Bertrice,

I do not hate San Diego. I wouldn't have spent the last three years studying, advocating, and embracing this community's history if I did.

What I am is frustrated, frustrated by the redundant and self-destructive discourse that seems to take hold anytime someone plans to build a granny flat or shed in their backyard.

SDhater would be inaccurate. LAfan - no, I don't find the Los Angeles basin very pleasant, although they do know how to get things done.

Phoenixlover? Do you not read my posts? They are the antithesis of what Phoenix is.

Maybe you should research the difference between good urban development and metropolitan planning (which is what I advocate for) and what Phoenix has accomplished.

Also, to everyone, I don't mean to be mean, nor offensive. But I believe that if anything is ever going to get done within a reasonable time frame, there needs to be a passionate voice of support behind it in order to counter the naysayers and obstructionists who dominate today's community discussions.

Well said Eclipse! Love the pic too!

You are not seeing my point.... which is that even with the best transit the region can afford, a huge majority of trips would be much faster with cars and people would as a result prefer them. No one wants to take a 6 minute bus to the trolley stations you guys want to build, wait 8 minutes for a transfer, ride the trolley for 15 minutes, and then get off and walk 15 minutes to home depot or target when they could just drive there and park 50 meters from the door in 10-15 minutes door to door.

Like I said, there is no transit system on any feasible budget that could carry even a simple majority to work with competitive commute times. Look at greater Barcelona on google maps on the same scale as looking at SD. In BCN the same number of people are living in 1/20th the area..... Transit in SD does not make sense other than a few lines alone high density employment/living corridors. Trying to get more than 30% to take transit daily is going to cost more than the region can ever afford. It make sense in cities like SF, or WITHIN dense areas like downtown or hillcrest, but really, those are small segments of the city both in area and in population.

I used to live downtown and work in eastern poway. The trolley took me 40 minutes to get to fashion valley.... even after a massive extension it would take forever to get to Poway. Think about it, the trolley has to cover 20 mile distances, but it has to stop frequently to get a station in the vicinity of enough people/destinations. That makes it slow. I can't envision any affordable transit system taking people door to door over 15-20 miles in less than an hour. By comparison it was a 25-30 minute drive; 40 on a very bad day (accident, etc.)

It makes WAY more sense to build public transit via rapid bus on extra [HOV] lanes, than a completely new infrastructure that doesn't take anyone point to point. SD is not europe. If you want a carless city, move to bloody new york!!!!

On this I agree, the jacobs plan was way better. Preservationists are bitching about a small, out of sight bridge hidden by trees. They should be told to STFU unless they are willing to throw down the money to buy whatever it is they want to preserve.

Why the hell would I include Tijuana? Out of SD's 3 million people, what percentage journey frequently to Tijuana? 5%? 10%? Versus probably 90% and above moving around the county.....

To each their own I guess. To me the airport is fast and highly convenient. I am sure tourists, convention center visitors, and business visitors would agree. I am sure the folk in north county disagree, but oh well....

Hi San Diegans! I'm moving to San Diego in a few weeks so I've been lurking here in the shadows for a couple months getting caught up on development in the region.

Regarding transportation, has there been any talk about expansion of the metro system? If so, what plans are currently underway?

What are your thoughts on a streetcar program (like Portland) connecting urban areas such as downtown, Hillcrest, North Park, SDSU, etc? San Diego and Portland have just about the same per capita density per sq mile, which is impressive considering Portland has been actively working on mass transit / TOD for decades.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, esp. where you think key streetcar corridors might succeed.

There is much to bash on Phoenix for, but Phoenix has much of what you desire. A big multi runway inner city airport, one of the busiest airports in the country. Their airport has direct access to their light rail line, which is currently extending the LR line on both ends and future lines are funded and approved for construction over the next 10-20 years.

Sky harbor airport just opened phase 1 of a $1.5 billion automated train that connects to their light rail, economy parking and terminal 4 eventually reaching the other terminals once they're rebuilt and the centralized rental car facility - all funded by airport users with no tax increases.

Hundreds of miles of brand new freeways with HOV lanes have been built since 1990, with more on the way.

Their DT continues to add jobs and urban housing units and now a significant student population with ASU DT campus. The central core is undergoing a renaissance much like SD of the 80s/90s. Despite the Great Recession, it's population continues to grow somewhere around 4.2 million in a condensed metro area due to the desert/water restraints/city hook-ups to the system, unlike our east coast counter parts.

we are getting a snazzy bus and bike lanes. whoo whooo
http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Li...ntro.sflb.ashx
http://tribkswb.files.wordpress.com/...ng?w=300&h=271

Some perspective...

San Diego County 40-year historic population:

1970: 1,357,854
1980: 1,861,846
1990: 2,498,016
2000: 2,813,833
2010: 3,095,313

California 40-year historic population:

1970: 19,971,069
1980: 23,667,764
1990: 29,760,021
2000: 33,871,653
2010: 37,253,956

My point... California and San Diego County continue to add population each decade. Doesn't matter who they are or where they came from, they are added bodies that will need a means to travel around the State and their respective regions. By auto, bus, plane or whatever.

Respective of autos... we have run out of room to add freeways, freeway lanes, collector roads, and parking structures. Moreover, do we really want to try and add more if the consequence results in the below picture, or, pay for gas/oil by sending our $ to other nations?:

http://robertluisrabello.com/wp-cont...ffic-in-LA.jpg
http://robertluisrabello.com/denial/...in-la/#gallery[default]/0/


I don't think so.

I support Rail Mass Transit. Fast, frequent and high capacity. Preferabably, grade separated for added safety and effeciency. Capital cost differences, squarefoot for squarefoot, are comparable between highways and rail; however, rail transport provides significantly more capacity. Granted, it comes with operating costs that need to be in-part, publicly supported. However, intelligent design can minimize capital costs, maximize public access, enable effecient operations, and, generate revenue inducing ridership that can minimize a public subsidy.

I also support development patterns that support Rail Mass Transportation. The more people located near hubs, the better. Buses are far less effecient, but, they can provide feeder service to rail stations. Where feeder bus services need help... park-n-ride lots can provide that 'first mile' access to a rail system.

I am not certain the Trolley is the most effecient rail mass transit model to connect to some regions of San Diego County. There is too great a distance and time involved to make rail transit attractive if it were provided by the Trolley.

For connecting Escondido, Oceanside, San Diego... the region needs something faster and more frequent. A rail system needs to run at least every 15 minutes as a base service level throughout the day, and, more frequently based on demand sensitive periods of the day.

Unlike Phoenix which is super flat for the most part as are large sections of LA, San Diego has a complex topography full of steep canyons in many areas, and a bunch of ocean inlets. Missions Hills / Hillcrest, sit on, well, a hill crest, overlooking Mission Valley - quite difficult to walk to or ride a bike between the two.

The Trolley system, although not extensive, is clean and fairly well run and has been considerably expanded over the decades.

The very recent uprooting of the upper parking lot at Balboa Park and the ongoing expansion of the plaza at Horton Plaza are IMO steps in the right direction in opening up more urban socialization space.

On another topic, the FAA limit of 500 feet for buildings downtown, does that extend to the La Jolla / UTC area?

Welcome! I hope you like SD as much as I do. In addition to the Mid-City Rapid Bus, bike lanes and a few other random BRT projects we are adding the Mid-Coast Trolley line from Old Town to UTC over the next 5 years. What we need even more than those IMHO is a streetcar loop around Balboa Park linking DT, Hillcrest, North Park, South Park, Golden hill, and Logan Heights. There seems to be growing support, but it still looks to be decades off at this point. :(

San Diego 500 feet FAA skyscraper limit
 

Does the San Diego 500 feet FAA skyscraper limit apply to northern areas like the La Jolla / UTC area or south like towards the border?

http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/San..._500_limit.jpg

Pretty sure the height limit applies to University City because of its proximity to NAS/MCAS Miramar. I think it may be citywide.

The San Diego-Tijuana Olympic bid is no more. Both San Diego and Tijuana are going to bid on their own. Hopefully we can grow up as a city and make something of this scale happen. http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/07/03/b...#axzz2Y2UgcUWZ

The entire city of San Diego does not have a 500 foot limit imposed by the FAA, however, the city may have a 500 foot limit because of the FAA's grasp over downtown. I remember a while back somebody made a graphic showing areas in the extreme south East Village were technically outside of the 500 foot limit radius.

I don't think you understand how big SD is and how long it would take people to get between two points using mass transit. You need stations close to people to attract ridership. But stations that frequently make for long journey and/or many connections with bus, private car, etc. It make sense in core SD but not in the metro region as a hole.

You are going to spend a shitload of money to provide a service no better than just running buses along freeway HOV lanes, with feeder buses taking people to destinations. The difference is running buses on existing infrastructure is hundreds of times cheaper than building an entire rail system.

A rail system big enough to get major ridership running 15 minutes is something that only happens in very large, very dense cities. You are dreaming on this.

Barcelona has the transit you are looking for. Have a look at it and SD on google maps at the same scale....