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)

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.

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.

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)
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.

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)
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.

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)
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.

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

Hey everyone, just wanted to share some photos I took the past couple of days. Nothing too amazing, because they're only with my iPhone, but I haven't seen any pictures in this thread in a little while.

Vantage Pointe
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2676/...8a556ace53.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2570/...816bfcc2aa.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/...35b644fe22.jpg

Ten Fifty B
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/...d07bda2f56.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/...dd34f4dce4.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2582/...502ba3085b.jpg

Nine Five Place?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2445/...4c75eba41b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3508/...765f27968c.jpg

Don't know the name of this one, but I really like it
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2612/...d4f5ba01df.jpg

Here's the view from my balcony
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2423/...b45e3fecc3.jpg

Random photo of the Irvine Police in Downtown San Diego?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/...a1ef45aac6.jpg

Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3461/...6aaa3916a2.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/...3123cd4f37.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/...137797776e.jpg

Ever wondered how they transport the Oracle?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3430/...da047afa07.jpg

Hope you enjoyed them. If you guys have any requests for some other pictures, let me know, I have a lot of free time on my hands. =)

Derek Sep 4, 2009 7:59 AM

Nice pics!

brantw Sep 5, 2009 12:18 AM

This is one of my favorite views of downtown. It seems the most dense, here.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/...6c793a3d7d.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2569/...0dc331dc80.jpg

The Broadway Pier Cruiseship Terminal - Nothing much going on here, yet. They are dismantling the existing structure.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/...c0c69b05df.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/...7679ecb83b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2486/...11a111f82a.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3425/...3310b47d35.jpg

Faia by Jonathan Segal in Little Italy - This building is pretty cool.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/...927c0e81d7.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2609/...ca3f571112.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/...a9e4bab3f4.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/...5245ac76c6.jpg

Future Commercial Development Lane Field - Who knows when this will get started.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2573/...db51463da2.jpg

Breeza
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3474/...347aefcd33.jpg

Bayside by Bosa - Not sure if I like the color of this. It's a huge building, though.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2526/...4bec20bdac.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2507/...82358137d8.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/...b22638e64e.jpg

More to come, next week!

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)
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?

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)
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?

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)
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.

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

mello Sep 8, 2009 9:29 PM

Observations on first time back to SD in 1.5 years
 
Finally got back to visit family and friends after a year in Korea and 7 months in NYC. Well I must say that the skyline is looking pretty decent. I saw it from the air maybe 8000 feet or so after take off and you know what, it looked respectable. Not Miami, not Vanouver but pretty decent. I think Vantage Pointe and the buildings along Market and the Hilton have done a lot to make SD look like an actual "city" from the air.

From other angles Vantage Pointe is a nice new Eastern "anchor" for the skyline. Having been living in NY I was curious to compare the Jersey City skyline to downtown SD and SD definitely blows it away.

Other impressions: Space for Rent/Commercial Space available signs everywhere! WOW! My dentists office parking lot off of Executive way in UTC was a ghost TOWN and this was on Thursday not Friday. I couldn't believe all of the empty office space and parking lots all over North County.

I also noticed more people walking then I remembered. Looks like kiddies aren't getting cars at 16 and 18 like they used to. And all the empty lots and dirt look pretty funky when you come from an East Coast perspective and you are accustomed to big shade trees in many areas. Overall it still seems like a nice place but tell me where I can get a job paying over 30 k per year???

New poll for everyone- How many people do you know who are 35 years old or younger and make over 35k per year in San Diego county?

bmfarley Sep 9, 2009 3:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marina_Guy (Post 4438660)
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?


Part 3

Yes, streetcar systems are nice.

Technically, I think a streetcar could be designed to make it up to Hillcrest. However... with the cost of laying track, building stations, running trains... the function of moving lots of people should be considered. Although I use to live in Banker's Hill, I am uncertain sufficient demand exists to provide a good argument for spending $50m to $100m per mile to build something like that. That is excluding the likely possibility to need to provide a maintenance and storage yard for streetcars... let alone locate a nearby site for one.

If a new system, or extension of an existing system, could successfully prove/argue that there would be sufficient demand and user benefit... then the Feds may provide up to 50% of the construction cost. The other half would be a state/local responsibility.

That seems like an uphill battle, pardon the pun.


Regarding airport connection... The Trolley already goes to the airport. The problem is... the airport terminals are not located to provide an easy connection to the Trolley. But... kidding aside, when the extension to Old Town was being examined an effort looked at an alignment to/through the airport. I am not familiar with the precise alignment; however, challenges existed with remaining below a certain height... and clearing the Coast Guard taxiway. Did you know Coast Guard planes have the ability to taxi across Harbor? It's 700-800 feet west of Laurel and Harbor. Anyway, it seems if water intrusion could be managed that going below that taxiway could have been a possibility.... if it were examined? Anyway, the Old Town alignment included a station at Palm St. for the possibility that the airport relocated terminals to the east side of the runways. So, maybe I was not kidding? Either way, if a new alignment were added to the Trolley system, a larger question involves how to tie it into the existing network (where do airport trains go to, or come from... and then blend safely in with other trains?)

Marina_Guy Sep 9, 2009 4:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 4446523)
Part 3

Regarding airport connection... The Trolley already goes to the airport. The problem is... the airport terminals are not located to provide an easy connection to the Trolley. But... kidding aside, when the extension to Old Town was being examined an effort looked at an alignment to/through the airport. I am not familiar with the precise alignment; however, challenges existed with remaining below a certain height... and clearing the Coast Guard taxiway. Did you know Coast Guard planes have the ability to taxi across Harbor? It's 700-800 feet west of Laurel and Harbor. Anyway, it seems if water intrusion could be managed that going below that taxiway could have been a possibility.... if it were examined? Anyway, the Old Town alignment included a station at Palm St. for the possibility that the airport relocated terminals to the east side of the runways. So, maybe I was not kidding? Either way, if a new alignment were added to the Trolley system, a larger question involves how to tie it into the existing network (where do airport trains go to, or come from... and then blend safely in with other trains?)

How about a line down Harbor Drive into Pt Loma?


A street car system along the North Embarcadero would be a nice addition.

We do need to figure out how to better link downtown with Hillcrest and Balboa Park. To me this should be a huge priority.

brantw Sep 9, 2009 5:05 AM

Park & Island - Anybody know what this project is called?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2534/...e9c85cee3c.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/...f0bd5774cd.jpg

Smart Corner - Really not a good part of town. I walked through here at about 12:00 noon as saw people drinking from Bacardi bottles.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/...971579048a.jpg

Future home of the San Diego library - Nothing going on =(
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2534/...0aeb29fe67.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2568/...c64b2ff653.jpg

Unfortunately, I think this is really it for the new construction. Things seemed to have really slowed down for now...

dl3000 Sep 9, 2009 5:36 AM

Thanks for all the photo updates. Agreed on Smart Corner.

Derek Sep 9, 2009 6:09 AM

IMO, it actually seems like things have been picking up a little bit...

glowrock Sep 9, 2009 6:38 AM

San Diego's certainly a wonderful, wonderful city. The new construction over the last 5-10 years has been simply astounding as well! There are a few problems, though.

1) Nearly all of the new construction has been hotel or residential, almost no commercial/office space. In other words, where the hell are people supposed to work?

2) The trolley doesn't connect up through Balboa Park. Huge issue, especially for tourists wanting to get to the museums and the zoo. Of course a huge issue for the locals as well!

3) The amount of for lease, for rent, and for sale signs is simply astounding, even in the Gaslamp environs, though predominately a block or two east of there.

All of that being said, I was just in town for a whopping day and a half, and had a blast. Walked all over Gaslamp, Seaport Village, Horton Plaza, some of the rest of Downtown, etc... Also took the trolley to Old Town, and then saw the zoo the next morning. Stayed in an awesome hotel Saturday night (Hilton Gaslamp), talk about a great location!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Derek Sep 9, 2009 8:04 PM

There's a few commercial projects that haven't got off the ground yet. The big one being 700 W Broadway.

Fusey Sep 10, 2009 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 4446794)
1) Nearly all of the new construction has been hotel or residential, almost no commercial/office space. In other words, where the hell are people supposed to work?

I have lived in downtown for the last two years and worked in Mission Valley and Sorrento Valley. When I did construction (around 2002-2004) I lived in Mission Valley and commuted downtown. Go figure. :haha:


Quote:

2) The trolley doesn't connect up through Balboa Park. Huge issue, especially for tourists wanting to get to the museums and the zoo. Of course a huge issue for the locals as well!
There are buses that service both, but tourists generally find rail easier. I agree with you, though. One of the trolley's biggest problems is that it only hits a couple of tourist spots (Gaslamp, Qualcomm Stadium, etc.).

Quote:

3) The amount of for lease, for rent, and for sale signs is simply astounding, even in the Gaslamp environs, though predominately a block or two east of there.
Those won't fill up until all of those condos do. There's simply little retail demand at the moment. There have been some minor improvements, like finally getting a decent hardware store, but that's about it.

brantw Sep 10, 2009 5:33 PM

Looking south on India St. from my balcony
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/...3b4248c598.jpg

Looking north
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/...c3d3353222.jpg

bmfarley Sep 11, 2009 2:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fusey (Post 4449248)
There are buses that service both, but tourists generally find rail easier. I agree with you, though. One of the trolley's biggest problems is that it only hits a couple of tourist spots (Gaslamp, Qualcomm Stadium, etc.).


Tourists do not make up a large portion of transit ridership. Nor do the presence of them make a transit line successful or not. Train lines are expensive and should be designed to carry the main market during periods of the day when congestion is at its peak times. That period of day is during commute times and the market includes employees and sometimes school kids; they each travel during the morning commute times. However, school transportation is seasonal.

The zoo is an example. It's open 9am 'til sunset and attendance is influenced by the seasons of the year. I find it hard to take seriously any proposal to build a train line for the purpose of serving the zoo.

If a line when up to Hillcrest/Mid-City or beyond, and served a sufficient number of commute period users... and happened to run by the zoo, we'd might have a winner.

spoonman Sep 11, 2009 2:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brantw (Post 4446699)

This is the new building for the Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

http://www.lajollacapitalpartners.co...L-Downtown.jpg

glowrock Sep 11, 2009 5:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 4450252)
Tourists do not make up a large portion of transit ridership. Nor do the presence of them make a transit line successful or not. Train lines are expensive and should be designed to carry the main market during periods of the day when congestion is at its peak times. That period of day is during commute times and the market includes employees and sometimes school kids; they each travel during the morning commute times. However, school transportation is seasonal.

The zoo is an example. It's open 9am 'til sunset and attendance is influenced by the seasons of the year. I find it hard to take seriously any proposal to build a train line for the purpose of serving the zoo.

If a line when up to Hillcrest/Mid-City or beyond, and served a sufficient number of commute period users... and happened to run by the zoo, we'd might have a winner.

I agree that a train line needs to be built up through Hillcrest, but I also think a connection into Balboa Park is essential. It's not just the zoo, it's all of the museums there, plus the fact that tens of thousands of people use Balboa Park every day just as a park, and not necessarily as a tourist attraction. Besides, the line could connect up back in Mission Valley, basically completing a loop.

Aaron (Glowrock)

IconRPCV Sep 11, 2009 7:33 PM

I think the best alignment would be to put the trolley line in the median of the 163 and then connecting into the existing green line at the Fashion Valley Mall thus making a loop. This would have a minimal impact on the existing uptown communities. Stops could be at The Prado, Robertson or University Ave., somewhere in the UCSD medical center area, and then at Hotel Circle, before connecting into the green line at the transit center.

SDfan Sep 11, 2009 7:44 PM

I don't think any trolley lines are going to be pushed through balboa or the upper neighborhoods. The bus system is actually pretty efficent in those areas, and I know because I take them to sdsu through there. Granted, something odd happens everyday. The other day a police officer shoved a drunken man on the bus saying the ride was "courtesy of Jerry Sanders". So I guess its best the tourists stay off our transit system.

The only way I could see a trolley running through those areas would be if they were underground. That would be a sight...and highly unlikely.

glowrock Sep 11, 2009 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IconRPCV (Post 4451388)
I think the best alignment would be to put the trolley line in the median of the 163 and then connecting into the existing green line at the Fashion Valley Mall thus making a loop. This would have a minimal impact on the existing uptown communities. Stops could be at The Prado, Robertson or University Ave., somewhere in the UCSD medical center area, and then at Hotel Circle, before connecting into the green line at the transit center.

I agree with this. Less impact on the neighborhoods, and it certainly completes a loop, as well as allows tourists car-free access to Balboa Park via The Prado...

Aaron (Glowrock)

Fusey Sep 12, 2009 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 4451407)
So I guess its best the tourists stay off our transit system.

I think it depends on the transit line. I've never had any issues on the Coaster (then again it is more expensive to use). My worst experiences have been on the Orange Line and the #30 bus. Compared to Sacramento Regional Transit, though, SDMTS is heaven on Earth. When I lived in Sac I stopped riding light rail due to the violence that came through those trains.

voice of reason Sep 12, 2009 1:53 AM

I have never understood the reasoning behind peoples desire to expand the light rail service to areas already serviced by city buses. The buses are most often not even close to full. The light rail never pays for itself and is not even close to capacity. Light rail systems are exponentially more expensive than buses. Proponents always point to some other city or foreign countries system and proclaim the potential for our city. Well we already have a system and it is a tax money sucking toy. Only children want more toys.

dl3000 Sep 12, 2009 6:07 AM

Its not a toy. It moves people. you can't make more freeways so there is only one choice and that is to accommodate something other than the car, like your feet. its a matter of capacity. im sure you havent been on said buses to see how allegedly "empty" they are. light rail has a higher capacity and is immune to automobile traffic. sounds like a great deal. besides, the alignments under study are there to serve those without cars such as students at the universities and areas with nightlife that are crowded and driving is not an option if you drink. plus you may not believe this but people do commute on them even in this city. for your information, no public infrastructure and services pay for themselves. do the police forces pay for themselves? no. then why have them? they offer a service for a fee purely in tax dollars. freeways? a means to a destination. funded by: tax dollars. why would light rail be any different? its costs are merely supplemented by a fare no different than toll roads or gas tax.

bmfarley Sep 12, 2009 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4451969)
I have never understood the reasoning behind peoples desire to expand the light rail service to areas already serviced by city buses. The buses are most often not even close to full. The light rail never pays for itself and is not even close to capacity. Light rail systems are exponentially more expensive than buses. Proponents always point to some other city or foreign countries system and proclaim the potential for our city. Well we already have a system and it is a tax money sucking toy. Only children want more toys.

You should change your uyser name.

bmfarley Sep 12, 2009 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 4451210)
I agree that a train line needs to be built up through Hillcrest, but I also think a connection into Balboa Park is essential. It's not just the zoo, it's all of the museums there, plus the fact that tens of thousands of people use Balboa Park every day just as a park, and not necessarily as a tourist attraction. Besides, the line could connect up back in Mission Valley, basically completing a loop.

Aaron (Glowrock)

If a line ever goes north from downtown, and an alignment could have a station serving Balboa Park and the museums, I'd agree with you; it would be essential. However, my reasoning would be for political purposes mostly, rather than that they were sufficient regular consistent demand. I am skeptical that there would be sufficient regular demand there; Summer Saturday and Sunday afternoons when the weather is good is too small a window for demand.

If I were a benevolent dictator, I'd run a line in a subway alignment from the Harbor/Gaslamp, up 5th or 6th Avenue... all the way up to University or Washington... then turn east toward I-15 or continue into Mission Valley. At Balboa Park, I could imagine a subway station at 6th/Laurel... providing a perfect nice walk into the park and museum area.

Subway stations are looking very nice with recent designs. See these flickr images from bigbend700 of the

LA Metro Soto station:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3126731...7622097195247/

Soto favorite:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2530/...5c6da2b282.jpg
From Flickr, by bigbend700



LA Metro Mariachi station:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3126731...7622201234786/

My Mariachi favorite:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2432/...f6da684032.jpg.
From Flickr, by bigbend700

Check out the LA Transportation thread on page 8; here... for more pics of the above.

voice of reason Sep 12, 2009 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 4452254)
Its not a toy. It moves people. you can't make more freeways so there is only one choice and that is to accommodate something other than the car, like your feet. its a matter of capacity. im sure you havent been on said buses to see how allegedly "empty" they are. light rail has a higher capacity and is immune to automobile traffic. sounds like a great deal. besides, the alignments under study are there to serve those without cars such as students at the universities and areas with nightlife that are crowded and driving is not an option if you drink. plus you may not believe this but people do commute on them even in this city. for your information, no public infrastructure and services pay for themselves. do the police forces pay for themselves? no. then why have them? they offer a service for a fee purely in tax dollars. freeways? a means to a destination. funded by: tax dollars. why would light rail be any different? its costs are merely supplemented by a fare no different than toll roads or gas tax.

Solution.

Buy more buses.

Problem solved.

Class dismissed.

Fusey Sep 13, 2009 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000 (Post 4452254)
light rail has a higher capacity and is immune to automobile traffic.

Except downtown where it's faster to ride a bike than take the trolley. Of course downtown San Diego has no bike lanes. :haha:

bmfarley Sep 13, 2009 12:23 AM

For the uninformed, light-rail costs less to operate on a per rider basis than buses.

tdavis Sep 13, 2009 4:02 AM

Feasibility/costs of rail in comparison to busing
 
Many on here don't seem to know much about the feasibility/costs of rail in comparison to busing. I work in transit oriented development for projects around the U.S. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Rail lines receive more passengers than the bus routes they replace.

2. Rail lines tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.

3. Buses, are susceptible to potholes and height irregularities in the pavement. Rail lines ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps. The maintenance is less for rail than replacing shocks/tires on buses.

4. Mapmakers include rail lines lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map. TOD is extremely beneficial to bringing in tax dollars to the city. Development will follow a train station, but not a bus stop. Rails don't pick up and move any time soon. Once a rail system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.

5. The upfront costs are higher for rail and higher than buses-but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.

6. Once purchased (albeit at high cost) rail liness are cheaper to maintain and last a whole lot longer (case in point, rail lines discarded in the US in the '40s, have been snapped up by the Yugoslavs, and are still running). Buses have a lifespan of 9-12 years.

7. Rail lines create more walkable streets.

IconRPCV Sep 13, 2009 6:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voice of reason (Post 4453023)
Solution.

Buy more buses.

Problem solved.

Class dismissed.

I am an example of someone that would take a trolley up to Hillcrest to goto dinner or to Whole Foods or Trader Joe's to go shopping, but WOULD NOT take a bus.

I can't tell you how many ties I have been up in Hillcrest and have had too many to drink so I take a taxi home, I wished there were a trolley so that I had an alternative to that.

kpexpress Sep 13, 2009 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdavis (Post 4453448)
Many on here don't seem to know much about the feasibility/costs of rail in comparison to busing. I work in transit oriented development for projects around the U.S. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Rail lines receive more passengers than the bus routes they replace.

2. Rail lines tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.

3. Buses, are susceptible to potholes and height irregularities in the pavement. Rail lines ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps. The maintenance is less for rail than replacing shocks/tires on buses.

4. Mapmakers include rail lines lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map. TOD is extremely beneficial to bringing in tax dollars to the city. Development will follow a train station, but not a bus stop. Rails don't pick up and move any time soon. Once a rail system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.

5. The upfront costs are higher for rail and higher than buses-but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.

6. Once purchased (albeit at high cost) rail liness are cheaper to maintain and last a whole lot longer (case in point, rail lines discarded in the US in the '40s, have been snapped up by the Yugoslavs, and are still running). Buses have a lifespan of 9-12 years.

7. Rail lines create more walkable streets.

Not to mention adding more sustainable land values to transit areas. Plus rail lines are more consistent with their schedules and people tend to trust them over buses and plan accordingly.

Filambata Sep 14, 2009 12:04 AM

Curitiba's Bus System
 
Curitiba, Brazil, has a very nice bus system that is recognized by the planning and green community all over the world as a first-class model. The link below to an article is a good read. Plus, just do a Google search on Curitiba.

http://urbanhabitat.org/node/344

HurricaneHugo Sep 14, 2009 6:25 AM

I work for UCSD's Shuttle Services and it's annoying to work as a dispatcher because we usually have about 5 break down each day lol.

By break down I mean they're still usable but it's recommended to take them off line for repairs.

SDfan Sep 14, 2009 6:44 PM

Based on my own experiences, the trolley line does feel safer, but by no means was it more dependable then the bus route I take now. They are about the same. Both have long waits at times. Both stop for one reason or another in the middle of rush hour. Both have loons annoying passangers. And if you're going to use transit anywhere in San Diego you have to be willing to give up large amounts of your time to use it. It goes against our instant mobility instincts we as San Diegans are used to with cars.

As for the coaster, its definetly more of a long distance commuter who rides. Your less likely to get a homeless man heading from Old Town to Oceanside then one whos trying to get from North Park to downtown.

As to whoever proposes a subway line in this city, I'll be more then willing to pay an extra half-cent tax to get that done. There are only so many carpool lanes you can add to the five and fifteen before there isn't any space between the two freeways left...

Can you imagine if all of our major freeways looked like the 5-805 merge? *shutter*


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:33 AM.

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