Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[SLC Projects]

Whats the deal with the blue lights? It looks cool, but is there a point to them?

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Whats the deal with the blue lights? It looks cool, but is there a point to them?

Nope, no other purpose other than to make the bridge look more exciting and inviting.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Nope, no other purpose other than to make the bridge look more exciting and inviting.

Oh ok. I do like it. I like to see downtown more lit up with neon lights. This should add to that.

[xseven]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Whats the deal with the blue lights? It looks cool, but is there a point to them?

I was about to ask the same question.

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Nope, no other purpose other than to make the bridge look more exciting and inviting.

Then, in my opinion, it is a waste of tax-spending dollars. It has no function for public safety, requires continuous maintenance for years to come, demands a power bill for the city to operate, and serves a "more exciting and inviting" feel for the train operators.

I really don't understand the logic. Please, someone enlighten me on this.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Oh ok. I do like it. I like to see downtown more lit up with neon lights. This should add to that.

Neon lights were popular in the 50's - 60's and then in the 80's. I wouldn't count on seeing them appear again in a noticeable way.

Originally Posted by xseven

I was about to ask the same question.



Then, in my opinion, it is a waste of tax-spending dollars. It has no function for public safety, requires continuous maintenance for years to come, demands a power bill for the city to operate, and serves a "more exciting and inviting" feel for the train operators.

I really don't understand the logic. Please, someone enlighten me on this.

Umm Mr. Utilitarian, unless you live in the North Temple area of SLC where everyone voted to bond the money (using property tax increases) to build this decorated bridge that is supposed to up their sales revenue and property value, you have no reason to complain about taxes being "wasted."

[DMTower]

^^^
^^^ My guess is that they are LED lights, which consume next to nothing energy-wise.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by DMTower

^^^
^^^ My guess is that they are LED lights, which consume next to nothing energy-wise.

Your guess is correct. Everything lit up on that bridge is LED and if the whole city switched over to LED we would be able to see the stars in the sky at night! I would also like to add that the viaduct is VERY well lit; it feels very open and safe.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Whats the deal with the blue lights? It looks cool, but is there a point to them?

Perhaps it's suposed to be a representation of City Creek.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Orlando

You guys should definitely check this out! The link has some demo reels of the proposed high-speed rail lines, and other transportation development related 3d stuff. Super cool!!!

http://www.nc3d.com/demo

go to demo reels> 2008 Transportation Demo Reel.

I bumped this post, because it probably got overlooked once those photos were posted. I wish I could post a photo or two, but it won't allow it. But, I really think you should check this out. I think most of you will enjoy this!

[s.p.hansen]

I really enjoyed it!

Video Link

[Orlando]

Thanks for linking the video!

[s.p.hansen]

Some segments of the I-15 CORE project in Utah County are really starting to take their shape.

[CountyLemonade]

Thank goodness they're painting those bridges. I thought they were going to stay that dreary gray color. Looks good. Can't wait for this thing to finally be done; and yet, there will still be much more work to do (I-15 between 12300 South and Lehi remains untouched).

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by CountyLemonade

Thank goodness they're painting those bridges. I thought they were going to stay that dreary gray color. Looks good. Can't wait for this thing to finally be done; and yet, there will still be much more work to do (I-15 between 12300 South and Lehi remains untouched).

I can't wait for I-15 to be one giant solid concrete ribbon with center lighting running from Utah County to South Davis County.

[s.p.hansen]

So here is a follow up on a post I did a little while ago.

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

So I really started pondering today why I-70 didn't go the U.S. 6 Route into Spanish Fork and then I found this really informative website about the history of the Freeway. If you have some time it is well worth a read.

Had 1-70 taken that route it would have plumbed Denver directly into the Wasatch Front; think about how many more people would have identified Utah with civilization vs. Cove Fort .

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/covefort.cfm

Basically I think it's time to lobby for I-84 to connect to Denver by having it take US 40 through Utah into Colorado and then take Colorado State HWY 64 to I-70.
It would be nice if we could just get a ton of money to widen I-70 from Denver to Glenwood Springs and then build a nice interchange between the towns of Rile and Silt Colorado and widen the road up the route I have marked in red on the last two images.

This is also probably the best option for high speed rail connecting Denver to Salt Lake City (if such a feat was ever an option), because it would connect our two major cities to major ski resorts on both ends.

[WASDEN]

The last time I drove US 40 from Salt Lake to Steamboat there was hardly enough traffic to justify a road- let alone a freeway which would be a massive waste of money. The last thing this state or the nation needs is more catering to the automobile. I shudder at the thought of US 40 turned freeway through Strawberry reservoir and other less developed areas cutting a larger swath of death by asphalt. What does need to happen is US 6 through the Price area needs to be a divided highway the whole way to I-70. This is a very busy stretch and its freaky dangerous the number of drivers plowing into oncoming traffic to pass the numerous semi trucks.

[s.p.hansen]

I-80 and I-70 were made to increase the utility of the East Coast and West Coast. The Mountain West it growing fast and new considerations need to be made.

Denver was small at the time and got bypassed by I-80 and Salt Lake City was small and got bypassed with I-70. I totally understand that most the people using I-70 are doing the LA to Denver route, but a California Bay Area route to Denver (a route that basically doesn't officially exist), seems useful as well.

Look at any midsized city in the Midwest and East and their connectivity with Freeways. Now consider the fact that the State of Utah will have about 4.2 million people here in 20 years with over 80% of those people living in Wasatch Front Metro. Denver will continue to grow as will Boise. I think it's strange that three of some of the fastest growing metros in the US aren't better connected. Extending I-84 from Boise to Denver alleviates that problem. Let's not settle for Price and pick a route that actually goes through a place people would like to travel. I don't think state freeway inter-connectivity is what makes cars bad (I actually think that is when they are most useful), it's tons of belt loops and expansions in cities that tend to destroy urban life.

When I go to Denver I end up taking I-80 a lot of the time, because it's not dangerious and you can SPEED. In short, I say starve out Wyoming and share the East-West freight that normally travels through Utah via I-80 with Denver.

[redzeppelin]

I think that SP's idea was that if US40 were turned into a freeway, then perhaps the truck traffic on US6 would go that route, ultimately improving the safety of US6. I've never driven US6/I70 beyond Grand Junction, and I've never driven US40 past Strawberry, so I don't consider myself able to give an informed opinion on this issue. I've only driven to Denver via the I80/US287/I25 route. If you check directions on Google to drive between the respective airports (SLC to DEN), the I80 route is the exact same distance (530 miles) as the US40 route, which appears more direct, but has a lot more topography to deal with.

I totally agree that they can't make US6 safe enough. Any improvement there is welcome.

I do like the idea of US40 as a rail corridor, but the existing infrastructure and more favorable geography through Spanish Fork is hard to ignore.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I can't wait for I-15 to be one giant solid concrete ribbon with center lighting running from Utah County to South Davis County.

Me too. I would to see it go from as far south as Payson and as far north to Bringham City.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by redzeppelin

I think that SP's idea was that if US40 were turned into a freeway, then perhaps the truck traffic on US6 would go that route, ultimately improving the safety of US6.

Bingo! My assertion is that virtually all freight / people traveling between Denver to SLC would move to that route; it would connect the Northwest and Northern California to Denver and that would be hugely popular. If we went the HWY 6 route the connection between I-70 and I-80 would be much less efficient and it would bottle up more traffic (North-South) through the Wasatch Front.