Is the “Vision” unrealistic for Bay Park & Bay Ho?

[afx114]

[quote=AN]Mira Mesa is planning for exactly that when the trolly extend from UTC through Mira Mesa on Carroll Canyon. That area will be mix use and dense.[/quote]

Interesting, I hadn’t heard of that. Where can I find some more info? Best I found was this: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/miramesa/pdf/carrollcanyon.pdf

[an]

[quote=spdrun]The problem with trolleys in SD is that they’re great for getting to downtown or to the border, but jobs are sufficiently spread out that they sort of suck for commuting.

Will the trolley system ever be extended to:
(a) the airport
(b) the beach cities?[/quote]
I disagree about jobs. The major job centers are UTC/Sorrento Valley/Carmel Valley and Rancho Bernardo. Just look at the traffic pattern. If you have a trolley to go east/west, that would greatly reduced the current traffic on Mira Mesa, Miramar, and 56. If you have the trolley to go from Oceanside to downtown, you’d also greatly reduce the traffic on the I-5. You don’t need to satisfied everyone. You just need to satisfy the majority purely by observing the traffic pattern.

[an]

[quote=afx114][quote=AN]Mira Mesa is planning for exactly that when the trolly extend from UTC through Mira Mesa on Carroll Canyon. That area will be mix use and dense.[/quote]

Interesting, I hadn’t heard of that. Where can I find some more info? Best I found was this: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/miramesa/pdf/carrollcanyon.pdf[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Trolley then search for Mira Mesa. The project is plan for completion in 2030. They’re planning to start development of Stonecreek soon and that master plan will take 20 years till completion. The Carroll Canyon master plan is underway. Phase I seems to be underway or near completion. Here’s a more detailed documentation of the Carroll Canyon master plan: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/miramesa/pdf/carroll_canyon_master_plan_1994.pdf. It seems like the Carroll Canyon and Stonecreek master plans are adjacent to each other.

[spdrun]

If you have the trolley to go from Oceanside to downtown, you’d also greatly reduce the traffic on the I-5.

Oceanside to Union Station, SD is almost 40 miles — more of a suburban train line. Far too long to be sitting on a trolley that does at most 50 mph, probably 35-40 mph with stops. Better to dual track the existing coast line from O’side, electrify it at 25kV, and run regular electric multiple-unit railcars.

Something like a Silverliner V would work and is already approved for US rail lines…

[livinincali]

[quote=AN][quote=afx114]No one is talking about high-rises. This is simply about raising the height limit to 60 feet (instead of 30 where it is now). And it’s only for a single vacant lot right next to the station.

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/04/21/the-height-of-trolley-tensions/

Mountain, meet molehill.[/quote]Understood. I was just making about about the OP’s desire for more affordable housing. If he/she really want affordable housing, then he/she should be pushing for a lot more density and a lot more supply. What we have here will not make a dent on price/supply. I actually support more density housing around these trolly stops. Mira Mesa is planning for exactly that when the trolly extend from UTC through Mira Mesa on Carroll Canyon. That area will be mix use and dense.

60′ will mean about 4-5 story condos. That doesn’t sound sound too crazy.[/quote]

60′ at that location is fairly high. There’s quite a few view houses up the hill that are potentially impacted. There’s already 30′ condos down there so it’s reasonable to assume that another 30′ condo wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Now the problem is they’ll likely build the 30′ condo and not plan well for the parking situation. That area already has a pretty bad parking situation because of the other condos and apartments that didn’t plan for the parking demand. It’s naive to assume that just because you have a trolley stop that people aren’t going to bring their cars and demand a place to park them.

[afx114]

[quote=livinincali]It’s naive to assume that just because you have a trolley stop that people aren’t going to bring their cars and demand a place to park them.[/quote]

I think the assumption goes the other way… make it difficult for people to find parking and they are more likely to take transit.

[RoyceKemp]

What I get from the Regional Plan Vision is that City Planners are pursuing ways to utilize land and resources more efficiently, to handle the growing demands of the population. As infill consumes the remaining undeveloped land we must segue from a primarily suburban County and evolve into more urban landscapes. Multi-family (i.e. condos) and multi-use development is precisely the way to achieve that. Obviously, going vertical will be inevitable but for now, the views are too precious. Extending and improving mass-transit systems will help too. Coaster ridership has more than tripled since inception, it takes time for people’s behaviors to adjust. Adding the trolley from DT to UTC will have a tremendously positive impact for San Diego. Our major universities (UCSD, SDSU, and USD to some degree) will be accessible via trolley, re-thinking where students consider living to attend these institutions.

If I had it my way, we’d raze Clairemont and do it all over again.

[Essbee]

I’d like to raze Clairemont and start over again, too. However, I prefer something like a 4S or Del Sur style development with great schools to match.

We sort of talked about it here a couple of years ago… (my, how time flies!):
http://www.piggington.com/the_future_of_san_diego

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]

If you have the trolley to go from Oceanside to downtown, you’d also greatly reduce the traffic on the I-5.

Oceanside to Union Station, SD is almost 40 miles — more of a suburban train line. Far too long to be sitting on a trolley that does at most 50 mph, probably 35-40 mph with stops. Better to dual track the existing coast line from O’side, electrify it at 25kV, and run regular electric multiple-unit railcars.

Something like a Silverliner V would work and is already approved for US rail lines…

[/quote]

They already have the Coaster that goes from North County to SD.

http://www.gonctd.com/coaster

The problem is getting to and from the stations; and schedules have to become more convenient. Something the Agenda 21 folks can’t seem to wrap their heads around…that and the fact that “Smart Streets” are a complete and utter disaster. You can’t force Americans out of their cars, for the most part, and any attempts to do so will result in forceful opposition. While I applaud attempts to make mass transit more convenient (and biking safer), it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to dump their cars in favor or buses, trains, and bikes. And putting bike lanes in the middle of traffic lanes is insane.

[spdrun]

I know the Coaster exists. My point was that it would make more sense to dual-track and electrify the existing line, running more frequent trains vs converting it into a tram line. Coaster is actually one of the places where commuter trains make sense in SD, since development along the coast tends to be somewhat linear.

[afx114]

[quote=CA renter]You can’t force Americans out of their cars, for the most part, and any attempts to do so will result in forceful opposition. While I applaud attempts to make mass transit more convenient (and biking safer), it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to dump their cars in favor or buses, trains, and bikes.[/quote]

Population will grow, so what’s the other solution then? 60-lane highways to accommodate all the cars? Maybe triple-decker 40-lane highways? That thinking is no longer sustainable. The era of adding more lanes is over.

No one is asking “everyone” to dump their cars, but clearly there need to be other options.

[an]

[quote=afx114][quote=CA renter]You can’t force Americans out of their cars, for the most part, and any attempts to do so will result in forceful opposition. While I applaud attempts to make mass transit more convenient (and biking safer), it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to dump their cars in favor or buses, trains, and bikes.[/quote]

Population will grow, so what’s the other solution then? 60-lane highways to accommodate all the cars? Maybe triple-decker 40-lane highways? That thinking is no longer sustainable. The era of adding more lanes is over.

No one is asking “everyone” to dump their cars, but clearly there need to be other options.[/quote]Agree, population will grow. SD is lucky in that we don’t have to learn the hard way. Just look at LA and other major metro areas with similar size to LA. I would HATE living in LA, so I hope SD doesn’t become LA. We need to start growing more smartly now. Decide where the major job centers are, then build public transit to get to those areas. Luckily, it seems like SD’s city planning is already doing just that with the trolley system.

[spdrun]

Self-drivin’ cars, BABY! If cars can drive 5′ from each other under computer control, and crash less (thus can be smaller with smaller crumple zones), highway density can be increased. This is only 50% tongue in cheek.

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114][quote=CA renter]You can’t force Americans out of their cars, for the most part, and any attempts to do so will result in forceful opposition. While I applaud attempts to make mass transit more convenient (and biking safer), it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to dump their cars in favor or buses, trains, and bikes.[/quote]

Population will grow, so what’s the other solution then? 60-lane highways to accommodate all the cars? Maybe triple-decker 40-lane highways? That thinking is no longer sustainable. The era of adding more lanes is over.

No one is asking “everyone” to dump their cars, but clearly there need to be other options.[/quote]

I’m all for mass transit, separate bike lanes, and also support mixed-use development*, but some planners DO want people to dump their cars, altogether. That’s just not feasible for most people.

I also think we need to have clusters of villages that are fairly self-contained, with very easy-to-use mass transit running between them, with local transportation readily available at terminal points.

*Regarding mixed-use development, the urban planners seem to have missed the mark on this. They build $700K condos over businesses where the most a person can make is $9/hr. You have to build housing *for the jobs* that are there, or have commercial/industrial zoning for the type of housing that surrounds the area. By doing what they are doing now, they are still forcing people to commute to work. It’s a problem with for-profit development and trying to get maximum dollar for each piece of land. All too often, maximum profit doesn’t coincide with maximum benefit.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]Most Americans are conditioned to prefer single-family, but condos in the right area and with a fairly normal HOA are actually an awesome thing. [/quote]

I agree. And the condos of the last couple of decades are much better then the older one from the 1970s when they became popular.

I personally would prefer no HOAs at all. I’m partial to rowhouses like in Georgetown or other towns on the East. Nice with a rooftop terrace.

But I think cities and the planning people like HOAs because they can push infrastructure maintenance costs to private HOAs.

Property prices have risen much faster than inflation and population. Seems like localities are getting more property tax revenue and doing less than in the past.

[Author]

Posts