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)

Chapelo Jul 8, 2013 6:43 PM

Brodeo Drive definitely needs a makeover.

Bertrice Jul 11, 2013 12:50 AM

Airport Authority chairman lays out development plans

Posted: Jul 10, 2013 8:25 AM PDT
Updated: Jul 10, 2013 12:57 PM PDT
Video Report By Angelique Lizarde, Reporter - email

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The Terminal 2 expansion at Lindbergh Field will be completely open to the public on Aug. 13, and future airport development plans include a first-ever hookup with the region's trolley system, the chairman of the board of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority said Wednesday.

In a presentation to the City Council's Rules and Economic Development Committee, Robert Gleason said parts of the expanded terminal are already open, with a ribbon-cutting ceremony scheduled for Aug. 8.

The expansion added 10 gates, which are already in use, along with new food and shopping choices for passengers. A bi-level roadway will also be opened for arriving and departing passengers.

Future development will include a connection with the San Diego Trolley at a comprehensive transit center on the north side of the airport. The center being planned by the San Diego Association of Governments, the regional planning agency, would sit along Pacific Highway between Sassafrass and Washington streets, Gleason said.

"As currently envisioned, that project would consolidate the light rail, rail and bus operations to that station," Gleason told the committee members. "Those passengers wishing to access the airport would then cross a pedestrian bridge across Pacific Highway (to) airport property, and we would shuttle those passengers (to the terminals)."

Right now, trolley riders who want to go to Lindbergh Field have to catch a bus from downtown.

A multi-story car rental center would be built right across the street from the transit center, Gleason said. Also on the north side of the airport, Landmark Aviation will construct a new facility for general aviation aircraft, he said.

He said the airport authority is in the midst of planning to replace the gates in Terminal 1, the oldest of the three terminals at Lindbergh Field.

Do you have information about this story to share with News 8? Click Here

http://www.cbs8.com/story/22804663/a...elopment-plans

spoonman Jul 11, 2013 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6193974)
Airport Authority chairman lays out development plans

Posted: Jul 10, 2013 8:25 AM PDT
Updated: Jul 10, 2013 12:57 PM PDT
Video Report By Angelique Lizarde, Reporter - email

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The Terminal 2 expansion at Lindbergh Field will be completely open to the public on Aug. 13, and future airport development plans include a first-ever hookup with the region's trolley system, the chairman of the board of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority said Wednesday.

In a presentation to the City Council's Rules and Economic Development Committee, Robert Gleason said parts of the expanded terminal are already open, with a ribbon-cutting ceremony scheduled for Aug. 8.

The expansion added 10 gates, which are already in use, along with new food and shopping choices for passengers. A bi-level roadway will also be opened for arriving and departing passengers.

Future development will include a connection with the San Diego Trolley at a comprehensive transit center on the north side of the airport. The center being planned by the San Diego Association of Governments, the regional planning agency, would sit along Pacific Highway between Sassafrass and Washington streets, Gleason said.

"As currently envisioned, that project would consolidate the light rail, rail and bus operations to that station," Gleason told the committee members. "Those passengers wishing to access the airport would then cross a pedestrian bridge across Pacific Highway (to) airport property, and we would shuttle those passengers (to the terminals)."

Right now, trolley riders who want to go to Lindbergh Field have to catch a bus from downtown.

A multi-story car rental center would be built right across the street from the transit center, Gleason said. Also on the north side of the airport, Landmark Aviation will construct a new facility for general aviation aircraft, he said.

He said the airport authority is in the midst of planning to replace the gates in Terminal 1, the oldest of the three terminals at Lindbergh Field.

Do you have information about this story to share with News 8? Click Here

http://www.cbs8.com/story/22804663/a...elopment-plans

I would like to see a cut and cover moving walkway or air train installed under the runway. It would not be THAT expensive (compared to running a trolley spur to the airport), and no shuttles would be needed. As someone who travels for business a lot, I will not take a shuttle to a train that may require additional connections, or walking. Way too much trouble. I say this as someone who really wants the trolley to succeed and grow. This is weak, but I guess it's better than nothing??

aerogt3 Jul 11, 2013 6:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6194033)
I would like to see a cut and cover moving walkway or air train installed under the runway. It would not be THAT expensive (compared to running a trolley spur to the airport), and no shuttles would be needed. As someone who travels for business a lot, I will not take a shuttle to a train that may require additional connections, or walking. Way too much trouble. I say this as someone who really wants the trolley to succeed and grow. This is weak, but I guess it's better than nothing??

An automated subway system is not "THAT expensive" compared to a shuttle over existing tarmac? You seriously typed that? Or am I missing a parody of airport critics?

spoonman Jul 11, 2013 3:59 PM

Either you cannot read, or you are getting yourself worked into a frenzy before understanding people's points, or both. :koko:

I said it was not that expensive as compared to a trolley spur to the airport.

Nerv Jul 11, 2013 5:40 PM

After a line to the UTC area it would be great if the trolley finally gets a airport connection and a line up to balboa park. Both those possible links make great sense.

Bertrice Jul 11, 2013 6:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6194033)
I would like to see a cut and cover moving walkway or air train installed under the runway. It would not be THAT expensive (compared to running a trolley spur to the airport), and no shuttles would be needed. As someone who travels for business a lot, I will not take a shuttle to a train that may require additional connections, or walking. Way too much trouble. I say this as someone who really wants the trolley to succeed and grow. This is weak, but I guess it's better than nothing??

under the runway sounds way expensive. this is your walkable city. you have to walk sometimes. it'll good for locals , the cheap and students/poor but rich guys like you can still take a taxi/limo .

spoonman Jul 11, 2013 8:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 6194732)
under the runway sounds way expensive. this is your walkable city. you have to walk sometimes. it'll good for locals , the cheap and students/poor but rich guys like you can still take a taxi/limo .

I'm not opposed to walking, but walking with luggage is a different story.

I'm not rich. Business travel is paid for by the traveler's company. To that end, taxi service has always been a generally accepted expense, as a cost of travel. If this city wants trolley ridership, they must make taking the trolley SUPER EASY, or business travelers will simply opt to take a taxi. One of you guys just argued the other day that people will travel by the easiest means possible. Making people a take a shuttle to the trolley makes taking the trolley way less attractive.

Here are the steps a rider must take in the proposed plan:
1. Wait for a shuttle
2. Carry your bags up the steps into the shuttle
3. Drive all the way around the airport (while practically passing by downtown)
4. Carry your bags down the steps and off the shuttle
5. Wait for the next train
6. Take the train to it's destination
7. You are at your destination, unless you need to transfer to a bus, and/or walk to your final destination

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that we eliminate as many of these steps as is possible, given a reasonable budget. I suppose what constitutes a reasonable budget is a matter of opinion, but I believe a tunnel combined with a moving walkway is a compromise between a shuttle (least expensive), and building a trolley extension into the airport itself (most expensive).

Here are some airports that have tunnels under the runway; just off the top of my head:

Long Beach - Long Beach has a road (Bellflower Blvd.) which runs under the runway.
LAX - All of the terminals were once connected by underground tunnels. Some still remain. There is also a road (Sepulveda) tunneled under the runway.
Las Vegas - Las Vegas has a road (Paradise) that runs under the runway.
Altanta - All fo the terminals are connected by moving walkway and an Airtrain, which are under the runway. You can use either to get between the terminals.
Chicago O'Hare - See Atlanta, minus the airtrain.

The tunnel would only have to be built half the distance (to about Guantanamo Rd.). An outdoor, covered moving walkway could go the rest of the distance. It's does not take a major feat of engineering, (or vision) to make this work. This is not the same magnitude of project as is boring a hole through a mountain, this is cut & cover.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/p...m/64205414.jpg

SDfan Jul 11, 2013 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6194835)
I'm not opposed to walking, but walking with luggage is a different story.

I'm not rich. Business travel is paid for by the traveler's company. To that end, taxi service has always been a generally accepted expense, as a cost of travel. If this city wants trolley ridership, they must make taking the trolley SUPER EASY, or business travelers will simply opt to take a taxi. One of you guys just argued the other day that people will travel by the easiest means possible. Making people a take a shuttle to the trolley makes taking the trolley way less attractive.

Here are the steps a rider must take in the proposed plan:
1. Wait for a shuttle
2. Carry your bags up the steps into the shuttle
3. Drive all the way around the airport (while practically passing by downtown)
4. Carry your bags down the steps and off the shuttle
5. Wait for the next train
6. Take the train to it's destination
7. You are at your destination, unless you need to transfer to a bus, and/or walk to your final destination

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that we eliminate as many of these steps as is possible, given a reasonable budget. I suppose what constitutes a reasonable budget is a matter of opinion, but I believe a tunnel combined with a moving walkway is a compromise between a shuttle (least expensive), and building a trolley extension into the airport itself (most expensive).

Here are some airports that have tunnels under the runway; just off the top of my head:

Long Beach - Long Beach has a road (Bellflower Blvd.) which runs under the runway.
LAX - All of the terminals were once connected by underground tunnels. Some still remain. There is also a road (Sepulveda) tunneled under the runway.
Las Vegas - Las Vegas has a road (Paradise) that runs under the runway.
Altanta - All fo the terminals are connected by moving walkway and an Airtrain, which are under the runway. You can use either to get between the terminals.
Chicago O'Hare - See Atlanta, minus the airtrain.

The tunnel would only have to be built half the distance (to about Guantanamo Rd.). An outdoor, covered moving walkway could go the rest of the distance. It's does not take a major feat of engineering, (or vision) to make this work. This is not the same magnitude of project as is boring a hole through a mountain, this is cut & cover.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/p...m/64205414.jpg

Unfortunately, I think this idea may a bit too "complicated" for San Diego. How about more lanes on Harbor Drive? At least this latest proposal will add another parking garage.


:sarcasmalert:

Streamliner Jul 12, 2013 12:27 AM

Regarding the airport proposal:

The problem with this plan is that it doesn't really resolve the transit access issues that much.

Currently, to get on the Trolley, you can take a bus (The Flyer #992) from the main terminals to Santa Fe Depot where you can hop on the Green, Blue, or Orange lines. Under the new scenario, you still have to take a shuttle (a bus), from the Terminals to Middletown station for the Green Line. The only difference is that you're on the airport grounds during your bus ride instead of Harbor Drive, and you are farther from downtown when you do start your Trolley trip.

I feel like when people talk about a Trolley stop at the airport, they imagine stepping off a train and walking to the airport. If we are going to end up using a shuttle, shouldn't we first try and make The Flyer work better?

Leo the Dog Jul 12, 2013 6:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 6195142)
Regarding the airport proposal:

The problem with this plan is that it doesn't really resolve the transit access issues that much.

Currently, to get on the Trolley, you can take a bus (The Flyer #992) from the main terminals to Santa Fe Depot where you can hop on the Green, Blue, or Orange lines. Under the new scenario, you still have to take a shuttle (a bus), from the Terminals to Middletown station for the Green Line. The only difference is that you're on the airport grounds during your bus ride instead of Harbor Drive, and you are farther from downtown when you do start your Trolley trip.

I feel like when people talk about a Trolley stop at the airport, they imagine stepping off a train and walking to the airport. If we are going to end up using a shuttle, shouldn't we first try and make The Flyer work better?

I recently traveled in June and I took the trolley to the bus to the airport. What a fucking joke that was. It's even worse when you come back. Waiting on the curb for the bus after a long flight is terrible. The time it takes to get to Santa Fe Depot was 15+ minutes (which seems like an eternity with all the morons boarding and not having their fare ready), then the wait time for the trolley was lengthy bc it was Sunday. The longest leg of travel was once I got back to SD.

Cabs for me from here on out.

The current system is absolutely terrible.

aerogt3 Jul 12, 2013 7:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6194511)
Either you cannot read, or you are getting yourself worked into a frenzy before understanding people's points, or both. :koko:

I said it was not that expensive as compared to a trolley spur to the airport.

No, I can read, I just figured I would make the most logical comparison rather than a nonsense one. Typically you compare the cost of transit options with alternatives. I've never seen someone consider "offramp A vs offramp B" by comparing the offramp cost to the total $10 billion highway budget, probably because that would be completely idiotic? That said, your tunnel would not be a "small" cost even compared to the total airport connection budget.

An air train would cost a LOT of money. The one at SFO, which is ABOVE GROUND, cost 430 MILLION. Obviously it's 5-6 times larger than one that would serve your purpose, but safe to say it is not cheap. It would cost thousands of times more than comparable shuttle service, and probably more than the entire rest of the project.

aerogt3 Jul 12, 2013 7:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6194835)
Here are the steps a rider must take in the proposed plan:
1. Wait for a shuttle
2. Carry your bags up the steps into the shuttle
3. Drive all the way around the airport (while practically passing by downtown)
4. Carry your bags down the steps and off the shuttle
5. Wait for the next train
6. Take the train to it's destination
7. You are at your destination, unless you need to transfer to a bus, and/or walk to your final destination

Here are the steps a rider must take under your vastly more expensive proposal. One which was probably considered and rejected for very good reasons:

1. Carry bags up or down to airtrain (it's not at terminal level like the shuttle)
2. wait for shuttle
3. lose time stopping at each terminal since direct air train to each terminal not possible
4. save time lost at each terminal via direct route
5. carry bags off air train and up to trolley platform
6. take train to destination
7. you are at your destination, unless you need to transfer to a bus, and/or walk to your final destination

The only "advantage" to your system is construction jobs and WAY more money. Have you ever taken an airport bus like this? There are no "stairs" to climb - it's no harder to board one of these than it is a train.

Alternatively, your other proposal is to have a moving walkway in which you spend just as much time walking as you would on a bus (this is a mile walk more or less).

Yes, the ideal solution would be a direct trolley stop under the terminals or right along harbor drive, but that's only going to happen with a line going to OB/sea world/PB, etc. In the meantime, this proposal provides the best connection per dollar spent. Yours is 1% better at triple the cost.

spoonman Jul 12, 2013 7:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6195492)
No, I can read, I just figured I would make the most logical comparison rather than a nonsense one. Typically you compare the cost of transit options with alternatives. I've never seen someone consider "offramp A vs offramp B" by comparing the offramp cost to the total $10 billion highway budget, probably because that would be completely idiotic? That said, your tunnel would not be a "small" cost even compared to the total airport connection budget.

An air train would cost a LOT of money. The one at SFO, which is ABOVE GROUND, cost 430 MILLION. Obviously it's 5-6 times larger than one that would serve your purpose, but safe to say it is not cheap. It would cost thousands of times more than comparable shuttle service, and probably more than the entire rest of the project.

If you read the posts above, even the most ardent supporters of transit have given up on your shuttle.

If you want trolley ridership to the airport, it will take a greater investment to improve the ease of use. Your unwillingness to see that places you in good company in this city.

aerogt3 Jul 12, 2013 7:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6195502)
If you read the posts above, even the most ardent supporters of transit have given up on your shuttle.

If you want trolley ridership to the airport, it will take a greater investment to improve the ease of use. Your unwillingness to see that places you in good company in this city.

There is no support for your unrealistic, costly tunnels. And they're just as inconvenient as an improved bus connection.

Quote:

If you want trolley ridership to the airport, it will take a greater investment to improve the ease of use. Your unwillingness to see that places you in good company in this city.
That's obvious and everyone sees that. The problem is that your ideas require WAY more investment and DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE ease of use.

spoonman Jul 12, 2013 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerogt3 (Post 6195503)
There is no support for your unrealistic, costly tunnels. And they're just as inconvenient as an improved bus connection.

The airport does support tunnels. The city is planning to move the terminals to the North side of the airport (long term), in which they are planning to build tunnels under the runway to gates on the south side. So yes, there is support for the idea of tunnels. We should build it now, so it can be used before AND after the terminals are relocated.

aerogt3 Jul 12, 2013 8:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 6195509)
The airport does support tunnels. The city is planning to move the terminals to the North side of the airport (long term), in which they are planning to build tunnels under the runway to gates on the south side. So yes, there is support for the idea of tunnels. We should build it now, so it can be used before AND after the terminals are relocated.

It all comes down to cost..... The shuttle and everything to support it is already going to be built and paid for by the rental car facility. Adding a connection to the trolley is then a "few million dollars" for a pedestrian bridge. The point is, this is not a long term solution. It's a quick fix designed to improve current transit times - replacing a long bus to downtown that cannot be timed with trolley departures (public roads), to a short airport shuttle that can be. For a few million dollars, that's a good deal. Is it as good as a direct trolley line under harbor drive? No, but its a few million dollars. Not many hundred million.

A tunnel is vastly more expensive, and doesn't really offer any benefits. It's the same 7 steps you outlined in your previous post - just replace the word "tunnel" with "bus." In the event that the tunnel is purely pedestrian, this is actually WORSE than the shuttle - no one wants to roll luggage down a 1.5 mile walkway - even if it's moving. There is a distance at which it makes sense to walk vs. board a shuttle, surely. But when you are carrying luggage, that distance is much shorter than the 1.5 miles separating terminal 2 from the trolley.

And the new terminal location is different from the trolley station location - I doubt the tunnels would be the same. And even so - why spend a lot of money on a tunnel for no real benefit, on the HOPE that the airport gets expanded that way in 20 or 30 years, when you can get the same benefit in a shorter time for 2 or 3 million?

Nerv Jul 12, 2013 5:19 PM

Saw this recently:







As the Chargers keep waiting for the powers-that-be in San Diego to fuel the effort to build a new stadium, the latest story on the effort reveals the biggest reason why the project is going nowhere.

Actually, it’s 700 million reasons.

Chargers chief marketing officer Ken Derrett recently spoke at a local event, lauding the economic benefits of having an NFL team in town. The article regarding Derrett’s remarks published by U-T San Diego reveals the loose funding formula.

Derrett points out that the NFL contributed $200 million to the construction of the new 49ers stadium and that owner Dean Spanos could kick in another $100 million. Jonathan Horn of U-T San Diego writes that “leaves a gap” for the rest.

Yes it does. A $700 million gap.

“I think that’s the discussion and debate that has gone on, and there should be more of it,” Derrett said. “Where will that money come from? I mean, we’ve all seen what has gone on with the discussion and debate around the Convention Center project and I think many other cities in North America have found ways to work with the tourism authorities on some kind of a tax [on hotels or car rentals]. We’re not there yet, I think we’ve got to see how things unfold these next six months.”

The Chargers have been remarkably patient, especially since they have a buyout that gets smaller and smaller each year at Qualcomm Stadium. Of course, it’s easy to be patient when there’s really nowhere else to go.

Los Angeles is the most viable option, but there’s no viable option in L.A. for a new stadium, yet. With the Rams suddenly available to move anywhere after the 2014 season and the Raiders dealing with a venue that recently resembled Andy Dufresne’s “500 yards of sh-t-smelling foulness I can’t even imagine,” the Chargers eventually won’t be stuck in a bad stadium in San Diego. They’ll be stuck there while competing with the Rams and/or the Raiders in a brand-new building in L.A.

So the Chargers need to leverage L.A. into a new stadium now, or they need to spearhead the construction of a new stadium in Los Angeles and move there.




This means the cost is at a billion+ dollars total. Am I wrong but I thought the smaller stadium they had been suggesting in downtown was going to cost several hundred million less than the figure they now cite or were they just playing with the figures? I see how a stadium can cost a billion+ today but I would expect something larger for what they are suggesting downtown with that figure. Maybe a 85,000-100,000 seat monster. I think they said a downtown stadium wasn't even 70,000 seats....:shrug:

SDfan Jul 12, 2013 5:30 PM

High-rise News:

http://www.downtownsandiego.org/carr...lage-parcel-c/

I'm a bit disappointed in the single tower, but at least it's better than a parking lot.

Streamliner Jul 12, 2013 6:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 6195873)
High-rise News:

http://www.downtownsandiego.org/carr...lage-parcel-c/

I'm a bit disappointed in the single tower, but at least it's better than a parking lot.

The tower doesnt seem iconic enough for the site. But you're right, it's better than what's there.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:05 AM.

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