SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136300)

peanut gallery May 1, 2009 4:13 AM

I'm getting pretty excited about the station. I like how much more open and light it will be on First and Fremont. It's so dark and dank under the current terminal.

nequidnimis May 1, 2009 2:52 PM

I am sure they'll clean the glass for the first 10 years the Transit Center is open.

sentinel May 1, 2009 5:13 PM

I have a little confession: my biggest architecture fantasy is to see this beautiful, massive Transbay terminal made even more grand and have it be one end of a trans-american high-speed rail line linking up to the another massive, gorgeous HSR terminal in Chicago - how amazing would that be?? Two of the greatest cities in the world with a direct, 2,700 mile high speed rail link that would then also act as main terminals for other rail lines to branch out of...one can only dream..sigh..;)

SFView May 1, 2009 6:22 PM

See "Prediction #5" from The Ladies Home Journal 1900 for year 2000:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=168431

I seems people have be dreaming about this for many years. How about Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York all linked by HSR and ultra grand terminals?

nequidnimis May 2, 2009 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 4227133)
I have a little confession: my biggest architecture fantasy is to see this beautiful, massive Transbay terminal made even more grand and have it be one end of a trans-american high-speed rail line linking up to the another massive, gorgeous HSR terminal in Chicago - how amazing would that be?? Two of the greatest cities in the world with a direct, 2,700 mile high speed rail link that would then also act as main terminals for other rail lines to branch out of...one can only dream..sigh..;)

And how would the duration of the high speed rail trip from SF to Chicago compare to that of the plane trip?

BTinSF May 3, 2009 2:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nequidnimis (Post 4228966)
And how would the duration of the high speed rail trip from SF to Chicago compare to that of the plane trip?

It could provide extraordinary scenery and relaxing comfort for however long it lasts, which you can't say for any plane trip these days.

It's 1857 miles so, if the train could average 200 MPH it would take a bit over 9 hours. If it was slower, you can do the math. But getting there as fast as possible is not the #1 priority for everybody. Certainly not for me.

ethereal_reality May 3, 2009 12:31 PM

I agree. I love sentinel's dream.

kpexpress May 10, 2009 7:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF (Post 4229182)
It could provide extraordinary scenery and relaxing comfort for however long it lasts, which you can't say for any plane trip these days.

It's 1857 miles so, if the train could average 200 MPH it would take a bit over 9 hours. If it was slower, you can do the math. But getting there as fast as possible is not the #1 priority for everybody. Certainly not for me.

Speed has always driven modern architecture, and now, more than ever, people want to get somewhere fast. It's hard enough to get away from the daily grind just to drive up the coast. I feel what you're saying and agree, but I think that "people" in general are idiots and just want their shit fast, cheap, and efficient.

BTinSF May 10, 2009 7:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpexpress (Post 4241762)
Speed has always driven modern architecture, and now, more than ever, people want to get somewhere fast. It's hard enough to get away from the daily grind just to drive up the coast. I feel what you're saying and agree, but I think that "people" in general are idiots and just want their shit fast, cheap, and efficient.

As someone who takes AMTRAK a lot, I can tell you there are enough people who aren't like that to fill up the existing trains. And I can't doubt if those trains could just stick to their snail-like schedules, there'd be a lot more. the chief complaint I hear from fellow passengers isn't how long the schedule says the train is supposed to take but that it takes even longer--many hours longer sometimes. People would flock to any train on a dedicated right of way so it could run on time IMHO--but especially a high speed one.

By the way, since when is flying today "cheap and efficient" (or even all that fast city center to city center)?

pizzaguy May 10, 2009 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF (Post 4241767)
By the way, since when is flying today "cheap and efficient" (or even all that fast city center to city center)?

I hate people like you.

YOU'RE FUCKING FLYING THOUSANDS OF FEET IN THE AIR!

You shouldn't ever complain about human flight. Ever. It's a miracle that we got the fuck up there in the first place. Don't take it for granted.

202_Cyclist May 10, 2009 2:38 PM

^Pizzaguy: aviation is amazing but when delays cost airlines (http://www.airlines.org/economics/cost+of+delays/ ) an estimated $10B in FY08, excluding the value of passenger time, it is reasonable to ask if the aviation system is being used efficiently. Approximately 30% of arrivals in the New York area airports (Newark, LaGuardia, JFK) were delayed last year. At crowded airports such as Newark, O'Hare, and SFO, high speed rail provides a very good alternative to short-haul flights. This is especially true in congested regions where expansion of capacity-constrained airports is not possible.

viewguysf May 10, 2009 7:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF (Post 4241767)
As someone who takes AMTRAK a lot, I can tell you there are enough people who aren't like that to fill up the existing trains. And I can't doubt if those trains could just stick to their snail-like schedules, there'd be a lot more. the chief complaint I hear from fellow passengers isn't how long the schedule says the train is supposed to take but that it takes even longer--many hours longer sometimes. People would flock to any train on a dedicated right of way so it could run on time IMHO--but especially a high speed one.

By the way, since when is flying today "cheap and efficient" (or even all that fast city center to city center)?

There is an ever growing number of people who totally agree with BT's reasoning. To me, being against developing a new form of efficient transportation in favor of sticking with the predominant modes of the times (air and car) defies logic, progressive policies and potentially intelligent solutions to the problems of our times. It also displays an appalling lack of knowledge of both historical and progressive perspectives. This has nothing to do with denying the wonders of flight--I love it and it still amazes me that we can get such big planes into the sky in the first place, even though I understand how it is done.

nequidnimis May 11, 2009 7:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF (Post 4229182)
It could provide extraordinary scenery and relaxing comfort for however long it lasts, which you can't say for any plane trip these days.

It's 1857 miles so, if the train could average 200 MPH it would take a bit over 9 hours. If it was slower, you can do the math. But getting there as fast as possible is not the #1 priority for everybody. Certainly not for me.

Wouldn't do for those like me who barely get ten days vacation a year.

sammyg May 12, 2009 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaguy (Post 4241873)
I hate people like you.

YOU'RE FUCKING FLYING THOUSANDS OF FEET IN THE AIR!

You shouldn't ever complain about human flight. Ever. It's a miracle that we got the fuck up there in the first place. Don't take it for granted.

The point isn't that flying is a technological marvel, because cars and trains are as well. The point is that your "miracle" is neither CHEAP nor EFFICIENT in terms of transporting people from place to place.

At speeds of 225 mph, a ~ 9 hr trip compares pretty well to a SF-Chicago flight (half an hour to 45 minutes to get to SFO, showing up at least an hour early for security and check-in, 5 hours in the air, 45 minutes to an hour to get to the Loop). Based on European trains, it would cost about 2/3 as much, and would be more comfortable with more space, a dedicated dining car, etc.

This is of course assuming that Amtrak provides the same level of service as the European rail networks.

Surefiresacto May 12, 2009 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyg (Post 4245667)
At speeds of 225 mph, a ~ 9 hr trip compares pretty well to a SF-Chicago flight (half an hour to 45 minutes to get to SFO, showing up at least an hour early for security and check-in, 5 hours in the air, 45 minutes to an hour to get to the Loop). Based on European trains, it would cost about 2/3 as much, and would be more comfortable with more space, a dedicated dining car, etc.

I am not against high speed rail, but it seems like you are assuming that there will be no commute to the station and no waiting prior to boarding.

Pizzuti May 13, 2009 7:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaguy (Post 4241873)
I hate people like you.

YOU'RE FUCKING FLYING THOUSANDS OF FEET IN THE AIR!

You shouldn't ever complain about human flight. Ever. It's a miracle that we got the fuck up there in the first place. Don't take it for granted.

Uh, I hope you're just trying to be cute. Just because something is miraculous doesn't mean it doesn't have some costly effects and it doesn't mean there isn't something better out there.

Chemotherapy is a miracle but it still makes you feel like crap and puke and waste away, and if you can avoid it by surgically removing the whole tumor, any doctor will tell you to avoid it.

Nuclear energy is a miracle but that doesn't mean people are going to be stoked to live nextdoor to a nuclear power plant or a missile silo. Ask the (former) residents of Pripayat how they feel about it.

Antibiotics are a miracle but they still give you diarrhea and stop working if you use them too much, and help create antibiotic-resistant superbugs when too many antibiotics get out into the environment. And they don't work on all pathogens.

Genetic engineering is a miracle but there is still risk in building superplants that they could outcompete native species and disrupt ecosystems.

Same for flight; it's a miracle, but sending millions of passengers thousands of feet in the air each year to take routine trips releases tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It takes a LOT of energy to lift a 100-ton aircraft 25,000 feet into the sky and keep it there for several hours. And airports are rarely close to downtown.

BTinSF May 13, 2009 8:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaguy (Post 4241873)

You shouldn't ever complain about human flight.

I'll stop complaining about commercial flight when somebody figures out a viable business model for it. I have repeatedly read that the total profit of all airlines over the period since the first began flying is less than zero--a loss. That means that either airlines have to cut corners severely or the prices eventually have to go up. We need alternatives, not just for people like me who prefer some other way to get from point a to point b but also for those who like to fly, because the present system is a failure. It's even possible that flying for the masses simply cannot be done at a price point the masses are willing or able to pay.

peanut gallery May 15, 2009 11:48 PM

Here's a look ahead to next steps on the temporary terminal. This just landed in my inbox:

Quote:

We have recently completed pouring the foundations for the two buildings on the site. You will begin to see more activity on the site as we move forward with the pouring of the new curb and gutter along Folsom and Main streets and along the east half of the sidewalk on Howard Street. Upon completion, the existing pedestrian detour will be moved and the current MUNI stop will be re-established near the corner of Howard and Main streets.

This week, the modular structures of the AC Transit and Security buildings began to arrive and they will be set up next week. The Greyhound modules are scheduled to arrive early next week.

BTinSF May 22, 2009 6:18 PM

Quote:

City to SoMa Developers: Help Us Pay for Transbay Center

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2009_05...itdistrict.jpg
[Blue marks the Transit Center]

The multibillion-dollar Transbay Transit Center needs money to get built, and to help rake in that money, the city's proposing up to $850 million in extra development fees for building in SoMa's Transit Center District. Under the plan (fees would be spread out over a period of 20 years), there would be a $35 per square foot surcharge, plus other miscellaneous fees for transit, affordable housing, what have you. The city's aiming to steer the next wave (fingers crossed!) of development toward office, rather than condo, development to accommodate job-growth projections. But the fees would affect everyone in the district, which is bounded by Market, Steuart, Folsom, and Hawthorne (and where Hawthorne would be if it continued all the way to Market). Might the plan strangle new development in this economic climate? One developer says, "This (transit district) plan was not ill-conceived, but right now it can't be done." Aww, that's just loser talk.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...eader_comments

peanut gallery Jun 2, 2009 6:05 PM

Looks like they're using pre-fab for the temporary terminal structures:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3385/...744cb56f_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2457/...5be32a0b_b.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.