SkyscraperPage Forum - SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

Prev 1 151 201 241 247 248 249 250251252 253 254 255 261 301 351 751 793 Next

Viewing Page 251 of 793

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

dl3000

Sep 2, 2009 6:43 AM

Ahh this gets me in the mood for fictitious maps of how we wish the future transit network would look. I remember eburress had a pretty awesome one.

I always had this idea that the airport would move to Miramar and then a big intermodal hub would be built at the corner of the property closest to downtown. Here, high speed rail, trolley and whatever other future local transit, Coaster, Amtrak, and an Airport Express line would all convene. Theres space for all that stuff there. It would also relieve the train traffic through downtown (if only something could be done about the freight trains like trenching). Just some things I thought would be ideal.

Oh, and the Chargers stadium would be next door.

Fusey

Sep 2, 2009 5:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 4436464)

What it comes down to, imo, is a bias.

Quote:

I'd agree. In fact, I think freeways are a dis-investment. Freeways bring more cars... that's all they do. And the necessary response is to provide more costly parking and local roadway improvments to handle the additional traffic. More cars make walking less pedestrian friendly, and consequently does more harm to downtown areas than no freeway investment at all. Freeway widening encourages blight.

When over 90% of commuters choose to drive, then freeways are considered an investment. Just like if people are fed up with freeway traffic, then transit is considered an investment. Every industrialized country on this planet has freeways, so obviously cars -- and freeways -- are not going away any time soon. The argument that we don't need more freeways is the same as a nimby claiming that we don't need any more skyscrapers.

bmfarley

Sep 3, 2009 2:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 4437226)

I'd agree that balance is needed when investing in transportation. However, in San Diego, the mighty highway has had it's day. They do not relieve congestion; they increase the number of cars on the roadway and exacerbate congestion in already congested areas... like downtown areas. LA has learned this lesson and is instead developing alternative transportation network. Orange and San Diego counties have not yet caught up to this level of thinking.

sdFan09

Sep 3, 2009 6:49 AM

i may have been wrong in saying freeway "expansion". But it makes sense to invest in freeways by making them more efficient through smarter systems and better maintenance. The HOV lanes on the 15 have seemed to make an improvement. Most people in the county use the freeways. At the same time of all the things I said you guys focused on the "FREEWAY EXPANSION" part of my post. The main point I was trying to make was that San Diegans focus on spending, and forget about investing. We could invest in things like a new stadium, new sports arena, new airport, BETTER freeways, more/better transit, etc. It is a tough time with money, but investing in the future will still be positive.

Marina_Guy

Sep 3, 2009 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 4436464)

Those are no more on C Street than they are on Broadway or 5th Avenue. In fact, I'd argue that you'll count more on those than on C Street.

Crime is another observation... check out the SDPD crime maps... it's spread out all over downtown and no more on C Street than anywhere else.

What it comes down to, imo, is a bias.

Maybe you can help me understand something about the downtown segment of the trolley. You seem very knowledgeable and I value your opinion. When I go to other cities there are street car systems like in Portland and now Seattle that the automobile and "trolley" co-exist (They are all over Europe too). You actually drive on the tracks. You do this in SF with the cable car too. I don't think these new systems are true light rail. Why can't we do such a system in downtown? To me the worst thing about the trolley downtown is that it 'de-activated' C Street. I think a street car system could also move people to Little Italy, Gaslamp, East Village, etc. Given the incline to Hillcrest that might be more of a challenge. Your thoughts?

keg92101

Sep 3, 2009 3:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 4438660)

Maybe you help me understand something about the downtown segment of the trolley. You seem very knowledgeable and I value your opinion. When I go to other cities there are street car systems like in Portland and now Seattle that the automobile and "trolley" co-exist (They are all over Europe too). You actually drive on the tracks. You do this in SF with the cable car too. I don't think these new systems are true light rail. Why can't we do such a system in downtown? To me the worst thing about the trolley downtown is that it 'de-activated' C Street. I think a street car system could also move people to Little Italy, Gaslamp, East Village, etc. Given the incline to Hillcrest that might be more of a challenge. Your thoughts?

Completely agree. The trolley should be as Portland's light rail system, that merely runs THROUGH their downtown, and then is serviced by their street car system. Our Trolley should service from TJ to Mid-City to Santee, like it does, and then all of downtown, uptown, Golden Hill, North Park, could be serviced by the street car, which cars could travel on the same lane as it.

kpexpress

Sep 3, 2009 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 4437226)

More like experience from witnessing 'rail only' corridors throughout the country, whether they be in San Diego, Sacramento or Chicago. They encourage loitering, particularly when it comes to gangs and the homeless; most businesses do not want to be located where those activities are active, nor do potential residents, which hurts redevelopment.

When over 90% of commuters choose to drive, then freeways are considered an investment. Just like if people are fed up with freeway traffic, then transit is considered an investment. Every industrialized country on this planet has freeways, so obviously cars -- and freeways -- are not going away any time soon. The argument that we don't need more freeways is the same as a nimby claiming that we don't need any more skyscrapers.

For some reason while I was reading your comments I was hearing the voice of Tracy Morgan narrate what you were saying.

kpexpress

Sep 3, 2009 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 4438802)

I agree completely. I would love to see some street cars running from horton plaza to bankers hill, then to hillcrest, then turn and go down university ave to North Park, south through south park and golden hill, then enter downtown through F street and tie back into horton plaza. Street cars going in both directions, one every 30 mins at least.

IconRPCV

Sep 3, 2009 9:51 PM

Also one going up Park blvd from City College to University Heights then down Adams to Kensington then right to El Cajon blvd and back to Park blvd,

Marina_Guy

Sep 4, 2009 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg92101 (Post 4438802)

Why is this not discussed? We seem to be very behind in mass transportation ideas in San Diego. I am sure there are federal $$ for street cars...

To me it is almost unexcusable to not have a trolley line to the Airport. I mean, come on, to extend that line the mile or two from its existing track seems to be something the airport authority could finance. It can't be that expensive. Almost every new light rail system in the US/North America goes to the airport... Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Minneapolis, etc..

brantw

Sep 4, 2009 5:08 AM

Derek

Sep 4, 2009 7:59 AM

Nice pics!

brantw

Sep 5, 2009 12:18 AM

Derek

Sep 5, 2009 12:44 AM

Keep them coming!

bmfarley

Sep 5, 2009 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 4438660)

No, those are examples of light-rail systems... in many of those instances they'd be called streetcars. And, there are at least three different types; Historic, Vintage, and Modern.

Historic is like San Francisco's cable cars... very old systems. Small, very little capacity... 20-30-ish. There are overhead electrical ones too, but I cannot readily think of an example.

Vintage is like the WWII or post war types. San Francisco and Phildelpia run them. Probably others too. SF's is the F Street line. Medium capacity... 30-50-ish. That includes standees.

Modern... that is what Portland has. They are a bit longer and can carry more riders. They are typically low-floor allowing easy access for disabled riders.

The Historic and Vintage ones only have a cab/driver on one end. Thus, they need to be turned around somehow on the end of the line; turntable or a looping track. They cannot couple to other cars.. therefore they cannot really provide high capacity transit. And, they tend to be slower than light-rail. These factors tend to make them limited to only enabling short distance travel.

Streetcars are unlike light-rail that we have come to known; which is faster and has much higher capacity. Although, the Trolley does operate at-grade and in-street along C Street. That's called street-car mode; whereas it operates in an environment very much like streetcars, in a street. However, by policy, and out of safety and practicality, cars are not allowed to drive on the tracks. Why... light-rail is heavier than street cars and need a longer braking distance. Can you imagine a car swerving into the front of a Trolley to make a left turn... only to stop right infront of it? Additionally, the trains are too long and the blocks are too short. Imagine, if you will, a car stops at a red light and a long trains pulls up behind it? As a result, the tail of the train blocks the street behind it. Trains and cars sharing the roadway on C Street is not an option under present conditions.

I am not finished, but that's it for now as I'm leaving town. Have a nice weekend.

brantw

Sep 7, 2009 8:37 PM

Skyline from Balboa Park
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/...6b74a56506.jpg

HurricaneHugo

Sep 8, 2009 5:47 AM

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/headers/8.jpg

Nice.

bmfarley

Sep 8, 2009 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 4438660)

Part 2...

One, I don't subscribe to the idea that the Trolley "deactivated" C Street. Two, any relationship between the two should be discussed at the same time as the following:

* The role and activities of C Street just prior to the Trolley, circa 1981?
* The County jail; essentially building a barrier across C Street at Union.
* City/County policies pushing/supporting/investing in business centers outside of the downtown core.
* Public sector lack of investment and upkeep along the street.
* Private sector turning their backs to the street.
* Horton Plaza.

In my opinion, the Trolley played as much a positive role for downtown San Diego as Horton Plaza did.

Marina_Guy

Sep 8, 2009 2:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 4445365)

Agreed. Things do not happen in isolation. I do believe the width of the street and the odd way that cars can or cannot navigate has made the street challenging for automobiles. Also, the blight along the street has not been addressed...only in 'plans'. I do remember the discussion about whether to put the trolley on C Street or Broadway in the early 80's. Looking back, I think Broadway may have been a better choice since it is wider and had a historic retail core.

I am only interested in looking forward these days... and I think street cars have some potential to improve downtown transit mobility and encourage more retail activity.

Thanks.

sandiegodweller

Sep 8, 2009 5:46 PM

Update on land values

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandiegodweller (Post 3469442)

Entitlements in downtown San Diego have little intrinsic value. CCDC basically rubber stamps approval of your application as long as it meets their guidelines and there is little or no public opposition to almost every submittal.

Regarding the Simplon site, the current approvals decrease the value of the property. The requirement to relocate and build a new $5 million firestation make it less valuable. If Cisterra doesn't get refinanced out of the deal in BK court, they will go back to the drawing board and redesign a different project.

If the site was actually worth more than the $17 million +/- that Cisterra paid for the note, why didn't anyone else figure it out while the note was being marketed for 2+ months?

http://residentialpropertyanalytics....s-at-zero.html

All times are GMT. The time now is 4:16 AM.

Prev 1 151 201 241 247 248 249 250251252 253 254 255 261 301 351 751 793 Next

Viewing Page 251 of 793

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page