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)

bmfarley Feb 27, 2011 7:33 PM

The California High Speed Rail Authority will discuss the high speed alignment from LA to San Diego on Tuesday. Proposed is that the terminal at the airport be studied as part of the EIR/EIS. No stop downtown to be studied.

As I understand, community meetings will be conducted to gather feedback on this proposal???

The reasons why are said to be that there is basically competition for the ROW and a below grade alignment may have hazardous waste or ground water impacts. An above grade alignment had other impacts.

And, apparently, the City has implied that they prefer an airport location.

I think this is wrong. Construction techniques are available that can mitigate such concerns.

eburress Feb 28, 2011 7:03 AM

More wasted money.

202_Cyclist Feb 28, 2011 2:47 PM

eburress:
Quote:

More wasted money.
Right-- because the billions we spend on highway expansions is money well spent and is the perfect result of the free-market. The $300B the United States spends every single year on imported oil is more wasted money. The United States has less than five percent of the world's population but we consume nearly one-fourth of the world's oil: http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplain...=oil_home#tab2

CA's population is now 38M and it is expected to increase to as many as 50M - 60M people by 2050. The alternative to high speed rail is spending tens of billions of dollars on highway expansion. The cost to widen I-5 in San Diego Co, alone is estimated to be $3.3B - $4.5B: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...ase-daily-i-5/ The cost to upgrade Hwy 99 to interstate standards is estimated to cost as much as $26B: http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.d...53/1001/NEWS01

It's also a myth that drivers pay for the cost the roads. Roads are massively subsidized: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/02/cal...ly-subsidized/

eburress Feb 28, 2011 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5181630)
eburress:


Right-- because the billions we spend on highway expansions is money well spent and is the perfect result of the free-market. The $300B the United States spends every single year on imported oil is more wasted money. The United States has less than five percent of the world's population but we consume nearly one-fourth of the world's oil: http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplain...=oil_home#tab2

CA's population is now 38M and it is expected to increase to as many as 50M - 60M people by 2050. The alternative to high speed rail is spending tens of billions of dollars on highway expansion. The cost to widen I-5 in San Diego Co, alone is estimated to be $3.3B - $4.5B: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...ase-daily-i-5/ The cost to upgrade Hwy 99 to interstate standards is estimated to cost as much as $26B: http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.d...53/1001/NEWS01

It's also a myth that drivers pay for the cost the roads. Roads are massively subsidized: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/02/cal...ly-subsidized/


High speed rail isn't an alternative to commuting up and down the 5. High speed rail is an alternative to flying from LA to San Francisco. High speed rail doesn't compete with highways...it competes with airports...and if this state is going to sink billions into something, it ought to be airports.

202_Cyclist Feb 28, 2011 5:52 PM

eburress:
Quote:

High speed rail isn't an alternative to commuting up and down the 5. High speed rail is an alternative to flying from LA to San Francisco. High speed rail doesn't compete with highways...it competes with airports...and if this state is going to sink billions into something, it ought to be airports.
Up to six million passengers (out of 100M) are expected to switch from aviation to high speed rail in the Bay Area - LA market: http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/ne...n20100224b.pdf There will be some induced demand but, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the ridership will be from people currently driving. This is where the greatest travel time savings will be. There will also be a lot of intra-urban travel for people who want convenient, reliable travel compared to wasting hours on Southern California or Bay Area highways.

Also, where do you propose to build a new runway at San Diego or SFO? These airport expansions aren't without costs, either. The current modernization at LAX will cost $5B - $7B.

eburress Feb 28, 2011 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5181803)
eburress:


Up to six million passengers (out of 100M) are expected to switch from aviation to high speed rail in the Bay Area - LA market: http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/ne...n20100224b.pdf There will be some induced demand but, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the ridership will be from people currently driving. This is where the greatest travel time savings will be. There will also be a lot of intra-urban travel for people who want convenient, reliable travel compared to wasting hours on Southern California or Bay Area highways.

Also, where do you propose to build a new runway at San Diego or SFO? These airport expansions aren't without costs, either. The current modernization at LAX will cost $5B - $7B.

How many people currently drive from LA to San Francisco? How many people currently fly from LA to San Francisco?

I didn't say airport expansion was without cost. I said "if this state is going to sink billions into something, it ought to be airports".

bmfarley Mar 1, 2011 1:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 5181844)
How many people currently drive from LA to San Francisco? How many people currently fly from LA to San Francisco?

I didn't say airport expansion was without cost. I said "if this state is going to sink billions into something, it ought to be airports".

Eburress, pardon, but there are a lot of things you are not taking into consideration. Namely, the state is expected to grow from 37 million to almost 60 million by 2050. With that, statewide demand for travel will grow proportionally, however, there is insufficient room for airport expansions or roadway expansions, and, if we did, it would cost 3-4 times te amount than what HSR would cost. And, there are other benefits... Such as more diversification of our infrastructure and a contribution toward weaning ourselves away from foreign oil.

Zorak Mar 1, 2011 2:53 AM

Since we seem to be on the topic of high speed rail, I need to ask something that's been bothering me...

I've looked at the proposed route on www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov and can't understand how this route would translate into "high speed'. If I read this correctly, a train leaving San Diego and bound for San Francisco would make stops at these cities:

Escondido
Murrieta
Riverside
Ontario
City of Industry
LA
Burbank
Sylmar
Palmdale
Bakersfield
Fresno
Gilroy
San Jose
Redwood City
SFO airport
and finally, San Francisco

How does a train making 15 stops compete with a direct flight from San Diego to SFO? And can high speeds be reached if it's stopping every 20-50 miles?

This is a serious question, not an anti-train rant.

spoonman Mar 1, 2011 3:22 AM

As in all things, San Diego gets the shit end on this. The folks in coastal Northern SD and Southern OC thought the train would hurt their property values so they objected to the project and preferred an eastern alignment via Escondido and Inland Empire.

Funny thing is that the train will actually increase property values due to improved accessibility (provided you are not on top of it).

Gas prices were hurting property values in the I-15 inland corridor area even before the recession. The expansion of the 15 has made these commutes easier helping to preserve the attractiveness of those areas. Not saying encouraging people to live farther out is good, but you get the point.

bmfarley Mar 1, 2011 4:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorak (Post 5182459)
Since we seem to be on the topic of high speed rail, I need to ask something that's been bothering me...

I've looked at the proposed route on www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov and can't understand how this route would translate into "high speed'. If I read this correctly, a train leaving San Diego and bound for San Francisco would make stops at these cities:

Escondido
Murrieta
Riverside
Ontario
City of Industry
LA
Burbank
Sylmar
Palmdale
Bakersfield
Fresno
Gilroy
San Jose
Redwood City
SFO airport
and finally, San Francisco

How does a train making 15 stops compete with a direct flight from San Diego to SFO? And can high speeds be reached if it's stopping every 20-50 miles?

This is a serious question, not an anti-train rant.

At least three different layers of service will be provided; express, regional, and local. Only locals would stop at every station. And, some of those stations on your list will not be constructed as they be up to local jurisdictions to support. Gilroy is an example.

bmfarley Mar 1, 2011 4:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 5182498)
As in all things, San Diego gets the shit end on this. The folks in coastal Northern SD and Southern OC thought the train would hurt their property values so they objected to the project and preferred an eastern alignment via Escondido and Inland Empire.

Funny thing is that the train will actually increase property values due to improved accessibility (provided you are not on top of it).

Gas prices were hurting property values in the I-15 inland corridor area even before the recession. The expansion of the 15 has made these commutes easier helping to preserve the attractiveness of those areas. Not saying encouraging people to live farther out is good, but you get the point.

Some people need to get out more and see the world.

spoonman Mar 1, 2011 4:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 5182559)
Some people need to get out more and see the world.

Not sure what that means, but I wish people weren't so worried about the train. When I lived in Queens, living as close to the train as possible was the goal.

HurricaneHugo Mar 1, 2011 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley (Post 5180971)
The California High Speed Rail Authority will discuss the high speed alignment from LA to San Diego on Tuesday. Proposed is that the terminal at the airport be studied as part of the EIR/EIS. No stop downtown to be studied.

As I understand, community meetings will be conducted to gather feedback on this proposal???

The reasons why are said to be that there is basically competition for the ROW and a below grade alignment may have hazardous waste or ground water impacts. An above grade alignment had other impacts.

And, apparently, the City has implied that they prefer an airport location.

I think this is wrong. Construction techniques are available that can mitigate such concerns.

The station should be in downtown damnit.

HurricaneHugo Mar 1, 2011 6:08 PM

And in other news, the City approves 4 billion in redevelopment spending.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...ment-spending/

The San Diego City Council approved $4.1 billion in redevelopment projects Monday — possibly the largest defensive move by a California city against proposed state elimination of redevelopment agencies.

Notable projects:

"The projects, contained in a 72-page list, include mundane neighborhood improvements such as repairs to sidewalks to more than $1 billion in affordable housing to $16 million to design three covers or lids over Interstate 5 to bridge the gap between downtown and Balboa Park. The projects could be dropped, changed or added to and could be built only when funds become available.

It does not include the proposed $800 million Chargers stadium in East Village. But it does earmark $150 million for acquiring the city block at 14th and K where the stadium might go and cleaning up toxic wastes left from its current use as the city bus yard."

kpexpress Mar 4, 2011 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 5183081)
The station should be in downtown damnit.

I completely agree! I had to add the word "completely" in order for the forum to allow me to post - message was too short without.

Miklo Velka Mar 4, 2011 4:24 PM

Quote:

Not sure what that means, but I wish people weren't so worried about the train. When I lived in Queens, living as close to the train as possible was the goal.
Exactly! The train is such a good opportunity for CA. I am from France and high speed rail takes me from my city ( Tours ) to Paris in one hour instead of 2.30 to get to the suburbs, plus tolls, etc. All that for around $140 round trip. Even the cities themselves don't have very good transportation system, this is a great first step to loose the car habit. Rail transportation is a great alternative to cars and highways. The trolley line should be expanded until north county, just like it goes all the way to Santee.

mello Mar 4, 2011 7:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miklo Velka (Post 5187293)
Exactly! The train is such a good opportunity for CA. I am from France and high speed rail takes me from my city ( Tours ) to Paris in one hour instead of 2.30 to get to the suburbs, plus tolls, etc. All that for around $140 round trip. Even the cities themselves don't have very good transportation system, this is a great first step to loose the car habit. Rail transportation is a great alternative to cars and highways. The trolley line should be expanded until north county, just like it goes all the way to Santee.

I agree the trolley should first be expanded through Hillcrest, North Park, and in to City heights etc. the most densely populated places in the County. Then some kind of extension in to North County should be devised.

The problem with going North is geography. So many canyons and hills, streets are not on a grid at all. It is going to be a big challenge to make light rail efficient in either coastal or inland North County.

HurricaneHugo Mar 4, 2011 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miklo Velka (Post 5187293)
Exactly! The train is such a good opportunity for CA. I am from France and high speed rail takes me from my city ( Tours ) to Paris in one hour instead of 2.30 to get to the suburbs, plus tolls, etc. All that for around $140 round trip. Even the cities themselves don't have very good transportation system, this is a great first step to loose the car habit. Rail transportation is a great alternative to cars and highways. The trolley line should be expanded until north county, just like it goes all the way to Santee.

Ridiculous that France built the TGV system...in 1980...

We'll be lucky to have our line running by 2020...

laguna Mar 5, 2011 12:53 AM

Trains, both light rail and high speed are cool!

Only a few problems:

Few people want to ride them.
Very expensive and intrusive to build.
Governments are beyond broke and can't afford to build them or subsidize them after they are built.

This constant comparison to Europe and third world countries that have rail systems has been argued for years and the differences make the comparisons moot.
So quit rehashing the same crap-you are boring.

HurricaneHugo Mar 5, 2011 1:49 AM

I forgot that freeways and airports are completely free.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 PM.

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