Best bit of Leucadia Noir I ever seen! The only difference is, neither the English nor the Nazis woulda paid no $5million for that tunnel, and it was large enough for a train and a drain ditch. The entrances and exits needed more ADA compliance though. And BTW, did they shoot that guy because he was tresspassing?
While we're on the topic, why is the city fixated on making it an underground crossing? Wouldn't an above-ground/overhead crossing be a lot cheaper and leave open the possibility of grade-separation? Has anybody asked NCTD what they would do? And how do make an underground one without disrupting the trains? I would think they might notice somebody tunneling under their tracks and suspend service at some point. And where is our fearless NCTD board-member/Encinitas Council member in all of this?
The tunnel will be how many feet deep under tracks? What happens to the gas line that runs along the tracks? Will the tunnel be above or below the pipeline? How wide is the tunnel? How long is the tunnel?
Smoke and Mirrors. It's all talk. Where is the money coming from? The Downtown streepscape has still yet to be completed. Then there is the Hall property park, Moonlight Beach Master plan, renovations for fire stations 1,3 and 4, Beacons and the Leucadia 101 gentrification project in line for limited funding at a time global economic uncertainty.
Underground Pedestrian tunnels for Leucadia? It's just talk.
I think is foolish for the city to be even considering these pedestrian tunnels. They are way too expensive. It would also make the prospect of lowering the tracks much less likely.
There is already double tracking in parts of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and San Diego. At some point the rest will need to be double tracked. With the soaring price of oil trucking will take a big hit, and there will be more demand for rail shipping. Burlington Northern Santa Fe seems to be running freight trains up and down the coast in larger and larger numbers.
Our foolish representative on the NCTD, Jerome Stocks, seems only concerned about advancing his own political career.
We should set a long term goal of lowering the tracks tied with double tracking. Of course, we can't afford to it on our own. But then we didn't build I-5 on our own either. Help would come from the federal level, and Brian Bilbray should be pushing this very hard.
Many residents and community planning leaders are very concerned about the proposed Draft General Plan, which went to the Mar. 10, 2008 City Council meeting. Our major concerns are these: 1. Lack of balance among the elements. The plan is strong on added development, but weak on dealing with the added burdens. 2. Lack of internal consistency. 3. Lack of adequate project definition,and adequate analysis of impacts. (If the project is so loosely defined that the impacts can't be predicted, how can the City be confident that desired goals will be achieved, and that the plan won't make conditions worse?) 4. Unsubstantiated statements and conclusions. 5. Failure to include provisions which will ensure adequate public facilties at the time of need. 6. Lack of implementation for each goal, with timelines. 7. Cursory coverage of the Theoretical Buildout, according to the El Dorado County case. The EIR does not even attempt to estimate the Theoretical Buildout under the new General Plan, but instead uses the existing General Plan! Under the existing plan, the City could get up to 54% more housing units and 439% more non-residential space. We should be adopting the City of Downzoning. 8. Most serious, the lack of program-level mitigation for most impacts. These include water supply, climate change, transportation, air pollution, parks, loss of affordable housing, etc. a. The EIR states repeatedly that the City cannot know exactly where new development may occur as a result of the new General Plan and subsequent Community Plan amendments, and therefore must defer most analysis and mitigation until later. Also, the City must find that significant unmitigated adverse impacts may occur in all categories. b. The General Plan does not contain needed links between development approvals and adequate facilities. c. The plan proposes to defer mitigation for 10-12 years while community plans are being updated. How could cumulative impacts and citywide impacts be identified with such an approach? d. We believe that the lack of program-level mitigation is completely unacceptable under state General Plan and CEQA laws. 8. The Planning staff and City Council appear to be unconcerned that they are about to unleash a growth-inducing, traffic clogging, park crowding, air polluting General Plan, which is ill-defined, poorly analyzed and lacking in mitigation.
—Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego "A countywide group dedicated to preserving the environment and quality of life through effective growth management
This is especially dismaying when recent reports, such as the ones in Los Angeles, cast doubt on the "smart growth" concept. The LA Times reported that their "urban infill" project have created serious increases in traffic while producing negligible increases in mass transit ridership. Our city is preparing to embark on a 1980-era plan which would induce more growth and development, at a time when we should be focusing on reducing our City's total water and energy usage.
This has got to be the dumbest idea the COE has come up with in years!!
How many millions will be wasted if this comes about??
Actually any council member that votes to fund this cockamamie idea should be run out of town on a rail, not that they shouldn't be already run out of town for gross incompetence.
Wasting even 1 hour of staff time on this idiotic idea is 1 hour too many.
Now the questions-- Who came up with this idea?? Which council member(s) supports this idea?? And most importantly WHY??
The city is so deeply in debt, with millions committed to future projects, I can only imagine that this is some sort of ruse to confuse the citizens of Leucadia and draw them away from the real problems that face the community of Leucadia.
A train that kills 2-3 people per year every year. Flooding. Lack of any sort of sidewalks on north 101. A scorched earth policy regarding center medians. (credit to JP for the terminology) Lack of any water for citizen paid for plants and flowers. Speeding up and down the 101. The list of endless.
What we don't need is another useless study that will sit on a shelf when we can't pay for the programs and needs we have now. Nope, this is a no brainer people, kill this idea before it gains any ground and reproduces. Stupid ideas breed and produce more stupid ideas.
RSPB PS-the sidewalks in downtown are starting to look pretty ugly. Too much gum residue, time to clean those sidewalks with a steam cleaner. Where's DEMA when you need them???
The City should not be wasting public funds on gum residue. Seems that the adjacent businesses need to invest in a putty knife to keep the area looking good for their customers. Most of the gum is near the bars. Maybe the City should ban chewing gum.
GREAT IDEA! Let's pay to create a home for the homeless. We could pay to line the tunnels with comfy benches for them to sleep on. And another great idea: add some really dark corners for theives to hide in so when vulnerable suspects use the tunnels they can easily be surprised!
I hope you all get the hint of sarcasm... I'm not trying to be negative about the people who live in our community because I know some many AMAZING people, but I've also learned through the 15 years I've been a resident, that there are those kind of creeps out there. Those people who have no problem pushing down an elderly woman and stealing her purse. Or kidnapping an innocent teenage girl.
Oh God - I could not stop laughing rolling around on the floor watching that video.
ReplyDeleteFreakin' Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!
Best bit of Leucadia Noir I ever seen! The only difference is, neither the English nor the Nazis woulda paid no $5million for that tunnel, and it was large enough for a train and a drain ditch. The entrances and exits needed more ADA compliance though. And BTW, did they shoot that guy because he was tresspassing?
ReplyDeleteWhile we're on the topic, why is the city fixated on making it an underground crossing? Wouldn't an above-ground/overhead crossing be a lot cheaper and leave open the possibility of grade-separation? Has anybody asked NCTD what they would do? And how do make an underground one without disrupting the trains? I would think they might notice somebody tunneling under their tracks and suspend service at some point. And where is our fearless NCTD board-member/Encinitas Council member in all of this?
ReplyDeleteThe tunnel will be how many feet deep under tracks? What happens to the gas line that runs along the tracks? Will the tunnel be above or below the pipeline?
ReplyDeleteHow wide is the tunnel?
How long is the tunnel?
Smoke and Mirrors. It's all talk. Where is the money coming from? The Downtown streepscape has still yet to be completed. Then there is the Hall property park, Moonlight Beach Master plan, renovations for fire stations 1,3 and 4, Beacons and the Leucadia 101 gentrification project in line for limited funding at a time global economic uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteUnderground Pedestrian tunnels for Leucadia? It's just talk.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteNot just talk. The taxpayer is spending money on this talk. A lot of money.
I think is foolish for the city to be even considering these pedestrian tunnels. They are way too expensive. It would also make the prospect of lowering the tracks much less likely.
ReplyDeleteThere is already double tracking in parts of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and San Diego. At some point the rest will need to be double tracked. With the soaring price of oil trucking will take a big hit, and there will be more demand for rail shipping. Burlington Northern Santa Fe seems to be running freight trains up and down the coast in larger and larger numbers.
Our foolish representative on the NCTD, Jerome Stocks, seems only concerned about advancing his own political career.
We should set a long term goal of lowering the tracks tied with double tracking. Of course, we can't afford to it on our own. But then we didn't build I-5 on our own either. Help would come from the federal level, and Brian Bilbray should be pushing this very hard.
I say NO to the tunnels.
Many residents and community planning leaders are very concerned about the proposed Draft General Plan, which went to the Mar. 10, 2008 City Council meeting.
ReplyDeleteOur major concerns are these:
1. Lack of balance among the elements. The plan is strong on added development, but weak on dealing with the added burdens.
2. Lack of internal consistency.
3. Lack of adequate project definition,and adequate analysis of impacts. (If the project is so loosely defined that the impacts can't be predicted, how can the City be confident that desired goals will be achieved, and that the plan won't make conditions worse?)
4. Unsubstantiated statements and conclusions.
5. Failure to include provisions which will ensure adequate public facilties at the time of need.
6. Lack of implementation for each goal, with timelines.
7. Cursory coverage of the Theoretical Buildout, according to the El Dorado County case. The EIR does not even attempt to estimate the Theoretical Buildout under the new General Plan, but instead uses the existing General Plan! Under the existing plan, the City could get up to 54% more housing units and 439% more non-residential space. We should be adopting the City of Downzoning.
8. Most serious, the lack of program-level mitigation for most impacts. These include water supply, climate change, transportation, air pollution, parks, loss of affordable housing, etc.
a. The EIR states repeatedly that the City cannot know exactly where new development may occur as a result of the new General Plan and subsequent Community Plan amendments, and therefore must defer most analysis and mitigation until later. Also, the City must find that significant unmitigated adverse impacts may occur in all categories.
b. The General Plan does not contain needed links between development approvals and adequate facilities.
c. The plan proposes to defer mitigation for 10-12 years while community plans are being updated. How could cumulative impacts and citywide impacts be identified with such an approach?
d. We believe that the lack of program-level mitigation is completely unacceptable under state General Plan and CEQA laws.
8. The Planning staff and City Council appear to be unconcerned that they are about to unleash a growth-inducing, traffic clogging, park crowding, air polluting General Plan, which is ill-defined, poorly analyzed and lacking in mitigation.
—Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego
"A countywide group dedicated to preserving the environment and quality of life through effective growth management
Tom also said:
ReplyDeleteThis is especially dismaying when recent reports, such as the ones in Los Angeles, cast doubt on the "smart growth" concept. The LA Times reported that their "urban infill" project have created serious increases in traffic while producing negligible increases in mass transit ridership. Our city is preparing to embark on a 1980-era plan which would induce more growth and development, at a time when we should be focusing on reducing our City's total water and energy usage.
But at least it will make all Jerome Stocks buddies a whole lot of money!
ReplyDeleteWho care about water or crowded conditions when you can make so much profit at others expense!
This has got to be the dumbest idea the COE has come up with in years!!
ReplyDeleteHow many millions will be wasted if this comes about??
Actually any council member that votes to fund this cockamamie idea should be run out of town on a rail, not that they shouldn't be already run out of town for gross incompetence.
Wasting even 1 hour of staff time on this idiotic idea is 1 hour too many.
Now the questions-- Who came up with this idea?? Which council member(s) supports this idea?? And most importantly WHY??
The city is so deeply in debt, with millions committed to future projects, I can only imagine that this is some sort of ruse to confuse the citizens of Leucadia and draw them away from the real problems that face the community of Leucadia.
A train that kills 2-3 people per year every year.
Flooding.
Lack of any sort of sidewalks on north 101.
A scorched earth policy regarding center medians. (credit to JP for the terminology)
Lack of any water for citizen paid for plants and flowers.
Speeding up and down the 101.
The list of endless.
What we don't need is another useless study that will sit on a shelf when we can't pay for the programs and needs we have now.
Nope, this is a no brainer people, kill this idea before it gains any ground and reproduces. Stupid ideas breed and produce more stupid ideas.
RSPB
PS-the sidewalks in downtown are starting to look pretty ugly. Too much gum residue, time to clean those sidewalks with a steam cleaner. Where's DEMA when you need them???
The City should not be wasting public funds on gum residue. Seems that the adjacent businesses need to invest in a putty knife to keep the area looking good for their customers. Most of the gum is near the bars. Maybe the City should ban chewing gum.
ReplyDeleteDidn't the settlement with the Surfriders require that the city steam clean the sidewalks a few times a year?
ReplyDeleteGREAT IDEA! Let's pay to create a home for the homeless. We could pay to line the tunnels with comfy benches for them to sleep on. And another great idea: add some really dark corners for theives to hide in so when vulnerable suspects use the tunnels they can easily be surprised!
ReplyDeleteI hope you all get the hint of sarcasm... I'm not trying to be negative about the people who live in our community because I know some many AMAZING people, but I've also learned through the 15 years I've been a resident, that there are those kind of creeps out there. Those people who have no problem pushing down an elderly woman and stealing her purse. Or kidnapping an innocent teenage girl.
I don't think tunnels are the best solution....