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)

staplesla Nov 8, 2008 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 3897183)
its not coming to san diego...

Why are you always so negative about everything in San Diego, and why do you believe HSR won't come to SD?

My husband has been working on the design for years on the line. It may or may not end up being the first line. But at least it is a huge start for CA, which will allow for the eventual expansion down here.

We have to start somewhere.

Fusey Nov 8, 2008 2:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 3898685)
Why are you always so negative about everything in San Diego, and why do you believe HSR won't come to SD?

My husband has been working on the design for years on the line. It may or may not end up being the first line. But at least it is a huge start for CA, which will allow for the eventual expansion down here.

We have to start somewhere.

The soonest SD will see it is 2030. Ugh... I'll be near retirement then... :haha:

I still have budgetary concerns about this project, but ah well.

Just out of curiosity, does your husband work for URS? I worked for them for about 3 years and know they received a couple early contracts for HSR (I was only involved with bridges and highways).

bmfarley Nov 8, 2008 4:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 3898867)
The soonest SD will see it is 2030. Ugh... I'll be near retirement then... :haha:

I still have budgetary concerns about this project, but ah well.

Just out of curiosity, does your husband work for URS? I worked for them for about 3 years and know they received a couple early contracts for HSR (I was only involved with bridges and highways).

PB also been very active with HSR and they have offices locally. Including downtown.

Imo, I do not believe one iota that local citizens, business leaders and elected officials will tolerate HSR only serving the streches between LA and SF. Those in Sac and SD will demand it. There is no reason why this area would tolerate having 2nd rate access serving the region when our bigger cousins have 1st rate stuff. This region will be at a disadvantage right off the bat. In fact, consideration should to be given right away from local decison makers to consider efforts to minimize the interim period when there is no connection to SD while there is plenty to the north.

staplesla Nov 8, 2008 9:27 AM

No my husband is with HDR, Inc.

HurricaneHugo Nov 8, 2008 9:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 3899038)
Imo, I do not believe one iota that local citizens, business leaders and elected officials will tolerate HSR only serving the streches between LA and SF. Those in Sac and SD will demand it. There is no reason why this area would tolerate having 2nd rate access serving the region when our bigger cousins have 1st rate stuff. This region will be at a disadvantage right off the bat. In fact, consideration should to be given right away from local decison makers to consider efforts to minimize the interim period when there is no connection to SD while there is plenty to the north.

Yeah because they demanded a first rate airport and got i.......oh wait...

A first class stadium and got i..........oh wait...

Fusey Nov 8, 2008 4:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 3899038)
PB also been very active with HSR and they have offices locally. Including downtown.

Imo, I do not believe one iota that local citizens, business leaders and elected officials will tolerate HSR only serving the streches between LA and SF. Those in Sac and SD will demand it. There is no reason why this area would tolerate having 2nd rate access serving the region when our bigger cousins have 1st rate stuff. This region will be at a disadvantage right off the bat. In fact, consideration should to be given right away from local decison makers to consider efforts to minimize the interim period when there is no connection to SD while there is plenty to the north.

I'm looking over the CAHSR's latest business plan, and honestly, I'm not that impressed. 1 hour and 53 minutes from Sac to SF? And that's the express time frame. I've driven from Sac to SF in 90 minutes, so HSR won't deter me to get out of my car much when I'm up north (granted this time frame does not include the Altamont Pass alignment, but that will most likely be phase 2.5 or phase 3). Same goes for the hour and 18 minutes from SD to LA. But I digress...


Quote:

Originally Posted by staplesla (Post 3899328)
No my husband is with HDR, Inc.

Ah, worked for them for them too (2003-2005)! Unfortunately most of it involved the Knik Arms Crossing which is why I left. Good to hear HDR got involved early on. With exception of the bridge to nowhere (may it stay dead forever) they've got some solid projects lined up. :cheers:

bmfarley Nov 8, 2008 6:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 3899661)
I'm looking over the CAHSR's latest business plan, and honestly, I'm not that impressed.

Same here. I scanned through it and saw every subject that needed to be addressed, but at an insufficient level of detail. I find it hard to fathom that private sector interests would be interested in financial participation with the shallow detail provided. I can only imagine that what was released was for public consumption and a more detailed version, consistent with what we see now, will be provided to financial institutions and other private interests. Wht was released really does not seem worthy of much of my time.

staplesla Nov 9, 2008 8:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 3899334)
Yeah because they demanded a first rate airport and got i.......oh wait...

A first class stadium and got i..........oh wait...

I agree totally. I've lived in NYC, Dallas, and Germany, and when I moved here I was amazed at how poor the SD airport is.

Just imagine with a larger airport, and with the runway capability to land more planes, how much additional revenue and jobs would be generated for this area. Plus this area is such a tourist hotspot but we limit that activity with a joke of an airport and cruise terminal.

I'm a personal fan of Mayor Sanders, but disagree with his proposed new airport terminal. It's almost like the current bailout plans. All it does it put the proverbial "lipstick on a pig." You can add as many gates as you want, but without the additional landing capacity through more runways, it won't make any difference in the long run. And in 20-30 years we are going to be dealing with this problem again. I've actually argued about this recently with Councilmen Scott Peters and Jim Madaffer.

It just bothers me that of every city I've lived in San Diego seems to be the least progressive in their thinking and almost reactionary to most problems.

But HurricaneHugo, as with any issue whether mundane, or to something of civil rights, etc....you have to continue to raise your voice and let your thoughts be heard or nothing will ever change.

bmfarley Nov 9, 2008 11:34 PM

^^^ I would agree with that; that the proposed transit terminal on the east side of the runways is putting lipstick on a pig.

And, although HSR may result in a modal shift for some in-state travel (from air to rail) and mitigate some projected demand at Lindbergh, Lindbergh is still deficient when it comes to handling larger aircraft for valuable connections to international business locations.

Fusey Nov 10, 2008 12:49 AM

It's too bad there really isn't a place to build a new airport in SD County. Maybe if the Marines leave Miramar, but obviously that wasn't very popular a couple of years ago. I can't even imagine how much the land along the bay would be worth if Lindbergh were theoretically decommissioned.

staplesla Nov 10, 2008 1:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 3901997)
It's too bad there really isn't a place to build a new airport in SD County. Maybe if the Marines leave Miramar, but obviously that wasn't very popular a couple of years ago. I can't even imagine how much the land along the bay would be worth if Lindbergh were theoretically decommissioned.

In my conversations with the city council I've suggested they look at the land east of Miramar. It is mostly undeveloped, you won't have to worry about pissing off the neighbors, no tall buildings to worry about for height restrictions, and it is centrally located in the county considering the huge growth in North County. And you'd have pretty easy access off the 52 which could be widened easily to the 15th, Miramar could be expanded from the 15, the 125 from the 8, and the 67 from Scripps Poway. The trolley could also be extended from the Santee line to connect to the airport.

Fusey Nov 10, 2008 4:43 AM

I can see that as doable, but (if I'm thinking of the same area you mentioned) leveling that terrain would be a nightmare. Besides the terrain my biggest concern would be the amount of air traffic between MCAS Miramar and Montgomery Field. Luckily the areas between the 805 and the 15 north of Aero Drive are mostly warehouses and industrial.

CoastersBolts Nov 10, 2008 7:02 PM

East Miramar = NIMBYism beyond belief from Scripps Ranch, Tierrasanta, and possibly even Santee.

It makes the best possible location yes, because of the space. But I just don't see East Miramar happening for the above reason.

yerfdog Nov 10, 2008 7:53 PM

I agree East Miramar could be problematic. That is definitely pretty mountainous terrain, and I doubt Santee would want a major airport just northwest of there.

What about down in Southeast SD county, closer to the border?

bushman61988 Nov 10, 2008 8:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yerfdog (Post 3903222)
I agree East Miramar could be problematic. That is definitely pretty mountainous terrain, and I doubt Santee would want a major airport just northwest of there.

What about down in Southeast SD county, closer to the border?

The East Miramar Site was ruled out because of the mountainous terrain. I'm not sure exactly what the problem was, whether it was unlevel land, or the dangerous approach over the eastern mountains.

I know for sure the Otay Border airport was ruled out because there was almost no way that the airplanes coming from the East could safely land over all the high mountains only a few miles east.

staplesla Nov 10, 2008 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yerfdog (Post 3903222)
I agree East Miramar could be problematic. That is definitely pretty mountainous terrain, and I doubt Santee would want a major airport just northwest of there.

What about down in Southeast SD county, closer to the border?

I understand the problems landing from the east, but runways running north/south would alleviate the problem. I've worked on this very thing for airports in Asia and leveling the area needed isn't as complicated as it sounds. We do it on a smaller scale for highways.

My only frustration is that if we don't do something within the next 10 years sprawl will take over the entire area and the only options will be Miramar, or something off-shore which will be very expensive.

Fusey Nov 10, 2008 10:18 PM

I'm no expert when it comes to flight patterns, but wouldn't a north-south alignment conflict with planes from Montgomery Field?

staplesla Nov 11, 2008 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 3903496)
I'm no expert when it comes to flight patterns, but wouldn't a north-south alignment conflict with planes from Montgomery Field?

No. Montgomery Field is actually closer to Miramar and there are no current problems. Also, many cities have much larger airports near each other; i.e., Dallas has DFW airport, and Love Field fairly close and both are much busier than SD Int'l airport and certainly Montgomery Field; NYC has Laguardia and JFK basically on either side of Queens.

SDCAL Nov 11, 2008 1:39 AM

why not have another vote on Miramar?

I think the previous campaign in favor of moving the airport was poorly conducted. Maybe now with the economic downturn people would be more concerned with economic over convinience of a small airport right near downtown

Other propositions get voted on over and over, look at Prop 4, and abortion issue, it has been included in and failed the last 3 elections

Fusey Nov 11, 2008 2:18 AM

Any time massive spending is involved locally it can be political suicide. Imagine if Bloomberg tried getting the football stadium built for the Jets after it was rejected. As far as I know that abortion measure that keeps on popping up is from anti-abortion groups, rather than someone with a notable position in government.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:51 AM.

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