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)

SAN Man Dec 17, 2021 2:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrvineNative
The people mover connection to the airport will continue to be superior in attracting ridership unless MTS builds the proposed airport trolley to where you can have all day frequencies of 7.5 minutes or better. Unfortunately, SANDAG's airport connectivity analysis says that an airport trolley would have 15 minute frequencies at best vs. 2 minutes for a people mover. 15 minute frequencies is just... super inconvenient. So you might be spending more time waiting for the train than actually riding the train from airport to downtown. Very bad for attracting ridership.

Swamp MTS and SANDAG board meetings and demand an air rail link with 7.5 min frequencies or better!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 9479109)
The direct trolley connection is stupid and was only looked at because the old chair of MTS demanded it. She's now gone, but the option has kept shuffling through the plans like a feasibility study zombie. I wouldn't keep up at night worrying it might be chosen.

Thanks for the link to the pdf. I think the best option is the Automated People Mover system for a variety of reasons. I agree the direct trolley extension, airport station is stupid. Like you guys said, the frequency of 2-3 minutes vs. a 15 minute wait for the trolley. Also, the trolley is limited in space for bulky luggage. The APM systems in other airports work great. Denver, Phoenix, Tampa to name a few.

On page 38, it breaks down the total transit times, concept 4, the trolley extension has the longest travel times:
Trolley airport station to Old Town TC - 17 minutes
Trolley airport station to Santa Fe Depot - 13 minutes
Trolley airport station to 12th and Imperial - 20 minutes!

Also the trolley extension would most likely be the Orange Line, correct? I guess they could reroute the Green Line to have it end at the airport and re-route the Orange Line back to it's old alignment doing the loop around Harbor and terminating back 12th and Imperial?

I'm leaning towards Concept 1, Navwar tunnel APM - 3 minutes. Tunneling would be an expensive challenge through soft bay fill soils and under MCRD. I would think that the Marines wouldn't be as open about civilian tunneling project under MCRD.

IrvineNative Dec 17, 2021 2:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAN Man (Post 9479454)

Also the trolley extension would most likely be the Orange Line, correct? I guess they could reroute the Green Line to have it end at the airport and re-route the Orange Line back to it's old alignment doing the loop around Harbor and terminating back 12th and Imperial?

I'm leaning towards Concept 1, Navwar tunnel APM - 3 minutes. Tunneling would be an expensive challenge through soft bay fill soils and under MCRD. I would think that the Marines wouldn't be as open about civilian tunneling project under MCRD.

SANDAG has since ruled out Concept 1. I think SANDAG should build the APM from the airport to Middletown station now. The Port HQ, right next to Middletown, is offering their site for a transit hub.

Why connect the APM to the trolley at Middletown? Because if you connect the APM to the trolley only at NAVWAR, southbound travellers will have to double back south. If you connect the APM to the trolley only at Downtown, northbound travelers will have to double back North. With an APM transfer to the trolley at Middletown, you minimize the doubling back for both northbound and southbound travelers, since Middletown is halfway between Downtown and NAVWAR.

The Airport Trolley line, as per feasibility study graphics, might actually follow the blue line into South Bay.

IrvineNative Dec 17, 2021 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 9479109)
The direct trolley connection is stupid and was only looked at because the old chair of MTS demanded it. She's now gone, but the option has kept shuffling through the plans like a feasibility study zombie. I wouldn't keep up at night worrying it might be chosen.

I don't know.

NBC News, December 16 2021: Long Discussed San Diego Airport Trolley Expansion Sees Movement

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...kjMyxV0EEblqd_

The article says "The board voted unanimously to add the multi-billion dollar project to their capital improvement plan and to pursue federal and state grants to help pay for it."

Are you sure the people mover will prevail in the end? I think we need to fight for the APM.

Will O' Wisp Dec 18, 2021 9:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrvineNative (Post 9479448)
^^^ Thank you, Will O'Wisp.

Which means ironically, if San Diego were a blue city in a reddish state that used NEPA, NIMBYs wouldn't be striking down Measure E successfully, and we'd get not only more sprawl but also a lot more infill TOD.

Not to mention likely a ton of corporate relocations to San Diego and a much accelerated Downtown growth. Which can happen even in a blue state like Seattle in Washington.

I mean San Diego has pretty impressive growth in Downtown and Mission Valley but it pales in comparison to Seattle, where Amazon and high population growth is really driving all that Downtown and Bellevue development.

I'm just astonished that slow-growing San Diego is building as much TOD as it is in Mission Valley.

NIMBYs are universal, they can strike anywhere. In Texas and other red states NIMBYs use restrictive zoning/lot requirements fairly regularly to prevent development.

The bigger difference is who controls the political dealing in each state. CEQA has two major loopholes:

1. Actions of the CA state legislature aren't subject to CEQA, as they're the ones who determine was falls under CEQA in the first place. They can use this power to exempt specific things from CEQA, as they did for a potential transit hub at NAVWAR.

2. Voter initiatives aren't subject to CEQA, as the voters have absolute sovereignty in CA. This can also be used to to provide CEQA exemptions for certain projects, like Inglewood did for Sofi Stadium.

Courts in CA have been limiting the power of other possible players in local politics. More and more municipal actions have been ruled to fall under CEQA, including government sponsored voter initiatives, which have long been a way to sidestep CEQA (witness the fall of Measure E).

Looking forward this is going to push a lot of decision-making to the state level or by advocacy groups, who are the only ones with the organization and funding to pursue voter initiatives. Red states local politics instead puts more of this power in the hands of private businesses and HOAs.


Quote:

Originally Posted by IrvineNative (Post 9480179)
I don't know.

NBC News, December 16 2021: Long Discussed San Diego Airport Trolley Expansion Sees Movement

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...kjMyxV0EEblqd_

The article says "The board voted unanimously to add the multi-billion dollar project to their capital improvement plan and to pursue federal and state grants to help pay for it."

Are you sure the people mover will prevail in the end? I think we need to fight for the APM.

That's MTS, no one cares what they think. They only have what funding SANDAG gives them, and SANDAG doesn't like the trolley. They can't even fund an environmental study at this point.

But honestly, you should be fighting more to have anything get built at all. Truth is SANDAG doesn't have any money either, and is entirely dependent on Circulate San Diego successfully putting up a voter initiative to raise sales taxes (which is why Ikkahara has gotten so buddy-buddy with them now). Admittedly that will be slightly easier now that the CA supreme court has decided that such an initiative would only need 50% of the vote, but still.

IrvineNative Dec 18, 2021 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 9480633)

But honestly, you should be fighting more to have anything get built at all. Truth is SANDAG doesn't have any money either, and is entirely dependent on Circulate San Diego successfully putting up a voter initiative to raise sales taxes (which is why Ikkahara has gotten so buddy-buddy with them now). Admittedly that will be slightly easier now that the CA supreme court has decided that such an initiative would only need 50% of the vote, but still.

And that's why SANDAG really needs to be more frugal and smart about their rail projects.

Do we really need a big huge central mobility hub? Haven't we learned from SF's Transbay Transit Center that it's excessive to spend $2 billion on a single station for a high speed rail that might not ever come? $2 billion almost built us the entire Mid Coast Trolley.

SANDAG needs to link the APM from the airport to the Port HQ land, which is next to Middletown Station. Just provide a pedestrian tunnel or bridge with escalators, elevators, and moving walkways to connect the APM with the trolley. No need for cavernous, palatial architecture. The Port HQ has offered their land to SANDAG for a transit center. Then later on SANDAG can build the CMH in downtown or NAVWAR and given sufficient demand the APM can be extended to the CMH.

Offering free transit for all then asking taxpayers for subsidies is also a bad idea that will cost billions. Even Colin Parent from Circulate SD says that lowering fares will not increase ridership because transit is already much more affordable than owning a car. And free transit in US cities has just increased homelessness on transit and scared away choice riders. Even Portland abolished their fareless square.

roletand Dec 18, 2021 6:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrvineNative (Post 9478919)
Take a look at pp. 38-42 of the below PDF and you'll see the people mover option gets 40k riders while the trolley gets less than 15k:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...9VnSlZye-_y16R

I'm not sure these ridership estimates are a fair comparison. Of that 40k ridership estimate for the APM, 27k are additions for "Design, Features, Policy, Pickup/Dropoff Capacity".
Quote:

These potential additional policies and design features may include:
• Sufficient curb length to accommodate airport-related traffic flows from multiple vehicle types (private
autos, TNC/taxi, shuttle buses, etc.).
• Airport-like pick-up and drop-off experience featuring dual-level roadways, curbside services, and direct
connection to the APM station.
• Policies diverting commercial modes, including TNCs, taxis, rideshare vans, as well as private shuttles to
Central Mobility Hub.
• Policies implementing variable tolling of San Diego International Airport driveways.
The core modeled ridership to/from SDIA puts concepts 2 & 3 (APM) at 16,500-17,300 riders vs. concept 4 (Direct Trolley) at 12,700 riders. In my eyes, concept 4 doesn't look too bad at that point considering the opportunity to directly connect the trolley to each terminal and, in the long term, the potential to extend the trolley to the communities beyond the airport.

https://i.imgur.com/4pVEok8.png

IrvineNative Dec 18, 2021 6:35 PM

Hi
Quote:

Originally Posted by roletand (Post 9480828)
I'm not sure these ridership estimates are a fair comparison. Of that 40k ridership estimate for the APM, 27k are additions for "Design, Features, Policy, Pickup/Dropoff Capacity".

The core modeled ridership to/from SDIA puts concepts 2 & 3 (APM) at 16,500-17,300 riders vs. concept 4 (Direct Trolley) at 12,700 riders. In my eyes, concept 4 doesn't look too bad at that point considering the opportunity to directly connect the trolley to each terminal and, in the long term, the potential to extend the trolley to the communities beyond the airport.

https://i.imgur.com/4pVEok8.png


Sure, but do you really want Sports Arena and Liberty Station to be stuck with a trolley coming every 15 minutes at best, with no potential to increase frequencies?

An APM is actually perfectly expandable to neighborhoods such as the Sports Arena. Cities like Singapore use airport style APMs to serve dense neighborhoods (look up Punggol LRT for an example). Better yet, unlike the Trolley, an APM wouldn't have any catenary wires for NIMBYs to complain about. Not to mention the footprints of APM tracks, viaducts, and stations are smaller than those of a Trolley.

The APM doesn't seem to cost any more per mile to build than an elevated trolley, and what is certain is that an APM would have lower operating costs because they are driverless. Sure, a trolley would be cheaper than the APM if it's a slow, street running, trolley that comes every 15 minutes and is no faster than a rapid bus. But then why not just build a rapid bus?

roletand Dec 18, 2021 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrvineNative (Post 9480837)
Hi


Sure, but do you really want Sports Arena and Liberty Station to be stuck with a trolley coming every 15 minutes at best, with no potential to increase frequencies?

An APM is actually perfectly expandable to neighborhoods such as the Sports Arena. Cities like Singapore use airport style APMs to serve dense neighborhoods (look up Punggol LRT for an example). Better yet, unlike the Trolley, an APM wouldn't have any catenary wires for NIMBYs to complain about. Not to mention the footprints of APM tracks, viaducts, and stations are smaller than those of a Trolley.

The APM doesn't seem to cost any more per mile to build than an elevated trolley, and what is certain is that an APM would have lower operating costs because they are driverless. Sure, a trolley would be cheaper than the APM if it's a slow, street running, trolley that comes every 15 minutes and is no faster than a rapid bus. But then why not just build a rapid bus?

If that's the transit option to the airport that gets built, yup I'm all for it. I don't believe in a situation where there is no potential to increase frequencies. If there is enough will and funding, someone will find a solution.

An APM to Sports Arena could be a possibility if SANDAG finds someone to operate it, sets up a fare collection system, builds this ITC (which involves building a new Amtrak & Coaster stop) etc. If they want to do that, I'll support that project too.

On the last part, the MTS feasibility study recommends Option 3 which builds the new line underground. The airport trolley wouldn't be street running and any catenary wires wouldn't be visible at street level either.

IrvineNative Dec 18, 2021 8:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roletand (Post 9480893)
If that's the transit option to the airport that gets built, yup I'm all for it. I don't believe in a situation where there is no potential to increase frequencies. If there is enough will and funding, someone will find a solution.

An APM to Sports Arena could be a possibility if SANDAG finds someone to operate it, sets up a fare collection system, builds this ITC (which involves building a new Amtrak & Coaster stop) etc. If they want to do that, I'll support that project too.

On the last part, the MTS feasibility study recommends Option 3 which builds the new line underground. The airport trolley wouldn't be street running and any catenary wires wouldn't be visible at street level either.

Sure, given enough money, you could build your way out of anything, but at what cost? It's expensive, time consuming, and disruptive to build a trolley initially to run at only 15 minute frequencies, then later triple track it to provide 7.5 minute frequencies (especially if your trolley is elevated or underground). And future funding can be very finicky, so you want to get things right the first time.

With an APM, you could initially run trains less frequently. Then, when demand explodes, you can instantly deploy more APMs, without needing extra construction. APMs, of course, would save operating costs. Driver shortages are problems for trolleys, but not with an APM.

If the trolley to Liberty Station and the Sports Arena were to be built entirely underground, it would need longer stations than an underground people mover would, because trolley vehicles are longer than APMs. Trolleys, with their catenary wires, would also require larger tunnels than people movers. Underground stations are really expensive, so the smaller the better.

A trolley to the airport is better than no train to the airport, but SANDAG can do better than a trolley by building an APM.

Will O' Wisp Dec 19, 2021 1:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrvineNative (Post 9480763)
Do we really need a big huge central mobility hub? Haven't we learned from SF's Transbay Transit Center that it's excessive to spend $2 billion on a single station for a high speed rail that might not ever come? $2 billion almost built us the entire Mid Coast Trolley.

I've been saying that for 3 years, but no one cares what I think either :grumpycat:

If you ask supporters will say stuff like the current trolley system doesn't provide enough ridership, we need to get people out of cars, we need to have 25% of passengers using the APM (no airport in the US exceeds 10% fyi), etc etc...

Really though, I think it's about symbolism. It's making a statement that San Diego is "21st century transit oriented city" with a cathedral of glass and steel. And underneath that is a discomfort about mass transit, and a desire to prove that it is different than everyone's preconceived notions with overgrand architecture.

IrvineNative Dec 19, 2021 3:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 9481043)
I've been saying that for 3 years, but no one cares what I think either :grumpycat:

If you ask supporters will say stuff like the current trolley system doesn't provide enough ridership, we need to get people out of cars, we need to have 25% of passengers using the APM (no airport in the US exceeds 10% fyi), etc etc...

Really though, I think it's about symbolism. It's making a statement that San Diego is "21st century transit oriented city" with a cathedral of glass and steel. And underneath that is a discomfort about mass transit, and a desire to prove that it is different than everyone's preconceived notions with overgrand architecture.

I agree that the air rail link ridership numbers are overly optimistic. They assume that NAVWAR Alternative 4 will be built (it won't) and that the HSR will be completed to San Diego (it also won't).

That said, all else equal, the APM is superior to the trolley, simply due to higher frequency and the fact that APMs are better designed to handle luggage.

We need an APM from Middletown to the airport. But an APM to Trolley transfer doesn't take billions to build.

Have you read Alon Levy's work? He and his colleagues at the Transit Costs Project do excellent work explaining that new US subway stations are extravagant, with full mezzanines, compared to subways in Europe and Asia. Along with burdensome regulations, US construction design causes US subways to at least be 4x-5x as expensive per mile as similar subways in Spain, Sweden, and South Korea.

SAN Man Dec 19, 2021 2:06 PM

Thoughts on commuter rail expansion?

I was surprised to learn that the Coaster only has 4,200 average daily riders and this is along one of the most congested and along the highly populated coastal region, that overlaps with LA's MetroLink commuter rail in Oceanside.

IrvineNative Dec 19, 2021 3:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAN Man (Post 9481215)
Thoughts on commuter rail expansion?

I was surprised to learn that the Coaster only has 4,200 average daily riders and this is along one of the most congested and along the highly populated coastal region, that overlaps with LA's MetroLink commuter rail in Oceanside.


The "commuter rail" in SANDAG's plan seems more like BART, as it will have trains every 10 minutes or better and probably be electric and fully grade separated.

I'm glad Ikhrata realized building the purple line in the I-805 median was a bad idea and the new plan has the purple line running on arterial roads. My skepticism remains, though about Kearny Mesa, if it will actually density quickly enough by 2035 to serve as an anchor for the purple line. I just really wish the purple line will actually go to SDSU Mission Valley, the biggest TOD in the county.

I would, however, build the purple line as another trolley line. Commuter rail usually means stations that are several miles apart from each other. Sure you can take a bus several miles to the nearest commuter rail station, but wouldn't it be so much better if you could just walk or bike half a mile or so to the nearest Trolley station? Which is important since the Purple Line will serve dense areas like Mid City and Western Chula Vista/National City.

Metrolink lines average 36 mph, or so. That's actually not much faster than Seattle's Link light rail outside of Downtown and Rainier Valley. Take Northgate Link, which has a mile between stations but averages 34 mph throughout the 4.3 miles. Northgate Link achieves those speeds because it has no sharp turns and is fully grade separated.

The Mid Coast Trolley is also fully grade separated, and it goes pretty fast until you hit University City. That portion averages only 20 mph because the stations are about 0.6 miles apart and there's lots of tight curves.

So SANDAG should copy Seattle's Link when building the Purple Line. An LRT system would be able to provide 5 minute frequencies or better (which is what Seattle's alibi will do). More frequent than a commuter train. And despite having smaller trains, an LRT would likely have at least as much capacity as a commuter rail because it comes more often.

Now for the Coaster: a tunnel through Del Mar is necessary. I don't know about electrifying the line, though. It's silly to think that the Coaster will become the ridership magnet that Caltrain is. (Caltrain's single line gets more ridership than all seven Metrolink Lines combined!) The secret to Caltrain's success? Downtown SF. Outside of Greater NYC, there is no US metro statistical area that has as much of its employment concentrated downtown as SF-Oakland does*. Downtown San Diego, on the other hand, has a much smaller regional employment share.

And North County is full of NIMBY suburbs, so beefing up Coaster in those areas will be much more controversial than building the purple line.

*Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...nenM41wPBQ0EkL

aekrid Dec 20, 2021 11:10 PM

Second crane is up at the RaDD site.
https://i.imgur.com/rhSTN75.jpg?1

Crane is up at the 9th and G Site.
https://i.imgur.com/qgCwr7h.jpg?1

DTSDguy Dec 29, 2021 1:26 AM

Elevate on 10
 
Looks like a hotel/apartment project is moving forward at 10th & Island Ave. Green construction fencing is up around the perimeter of the existing 2 story building and parking lot.

8 story project, 135 units, good infill and activates that corner

Link:
https://www.elevateinvestmentpartners.com/san-diego

Also, is there any easy way to upload pics from an iPhone/Mac?

IrvineNative Dec 29, 2021 6:17 PM

I took the Mid Coast Trolley Sunday. The Costa Verde Center has no signage at all hinting a mall renovation. I don't know, is their office project just going to be delayed to death? They were supposed to break ground 2nd half of 2021.

Same with Riverwalk, what's going on? Was supposed to break ground in 2021 but on their website the latest info is a June 29 post about how the permitting process is anticipated to take the remainder of this year. Or will it take forever?

I really want Riverwalk to succeed because while Downtown projects are cool, we need TOD outside of Downtown, and two $3 billion TODs outside of Downtown in the same neighborhood is dope.

Edit: Rode the Green Line through River walk and sadly, no signs of progress. Not even fencing with advertising of the "upcoming" project.

On a positive note, Fairfield Residential's 7050 Friars Road apartment project (6 stories, 300 or so units) has apparently broke ground. Right across the street from Fashion Valley. I saw fencing with banners advertising the project, bulldozers, and heaps of debris.

Why, then, can't I find any online updates on 7050 Friars Road? San Diego must be the stealthiest city when it comes to TOD projects flying under the radar.

SAN Man Dec 29, 2021 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTSDguy (Post 9488088)
Also, is there any easy way to upload pics from an iPhone/Mac?

It took me about a week to figure it all out. I've been using Flickr, but there are a lot of other image hosting sites you can use. Once you upload your photo on Flickr, make sure it's public, then you can share your photo, copy and paste the url from Flickr to a post here. When you post a picture here, click the yellow icon with the mountain and paste the url there. I hope that helps.

DTSDguy Dec 30, 2021 7:27 PM

Timeline
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DTSDguy (Post 9488088)
Looks like a hotel/apartment project is moving forward at 10th & Island Ave. Green construction fencing is up around the perimeter of the existing 2 story building and parking lot.

8 story project, 135 units, good infill and activates that corner

Link:
https://www.elevateinvestmentpartners.com/san-diego

Also, is there any easy way to upload pics from an iPhone/Mac?

I spoke with the GC on site today, they will obtain building permits next week and anticipate a 22-month timeline for completion!

mello Jan 4, 2022 12:31 AM

Is anyone surprised that the lot behind Petco where the pedestrian bridge ends has never been developed or had any proposals. I remember way back in 2002 to 05 the CCDC website had a tower listed that was supposed to be built there. It is a large triangular shaped lot with great access to the bay seems like a no brainer.

IrvineNative Jan 6, 2022 6:40 PM

^^^ I mean not really, when you have a crappy economy and high taxes like San Diego, it's not surprising that growth will happen much slower than in a corporate powerhouse like Seattle. There's NIMBYs everywhere, but when your city is growing fast like Seattle, the NIMBYs get ignored. When your city is growing slow, the public and the business community see less justification to build more high density housing so no one opposes the NIMBYs, so NIMBYs win.

Before people get defensive and rave about how strong San Diego's tech economy is, when I say crappy economy I obviously don't mean San Diego is as bad as Detroit. But it's no Seattle, and Seattle already has decades as an established tech/engineering corporate center while the venture capital is only starting to flow into San Diego this past year or two.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.