Salt Lake Transit News Thread - Page 79

delts145 · #**1561** Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 1:20 PM**

Streetcars could be taking Ogden commuters to Weber State - Transportation » But bus rapid transit comes in at about half the $100M cost.

By Brandon Loomis
The Salt Lake Tribune

Ogden » Residents here are eager to bring rail transit through town and hope it will help shape up parts of the city while linking FrontRunner riders to Weber State University.

The Utah Transit Authority is floating options -- generally either electric streetcars or bus rapid transit, both of which would mostly travel in their own lanes -- and expects to pick one by January.

Streetcars were the popular pick among dozens who attended an open house Thursday at Weber State.

"There's lots of potential ridership for something that's seen as more sexy than buses," said Alice Mulder, an assistant professor of geography at WSU who hopes to ride the train to work.

There could be 5,000 riders who would hop aboard daily -- either from downtown or from commuter-rail trains -- on their way to school or McKay-Dee Hospital, said Barry Banks, manager for project consultant WilburSmith Associates.

Streetcars are much like the TRAX light-rail trains that serve the Salt Lake Valley but are cheaper, in part, because they are low to the ground and require no platform construction. They would stop every four blocks or so, making their trips quicker than regular buses even if they travel partly in lanes of vehicle traffic.

Bus rapid transit uses buses that are mostly isolated in their own lanes, speeding their trips.

A five-mile streetcar line for Ogden would cost about $100 million and be funded through existing sales taxes and federal grants, Banks said. Bus rapid transit would cost half of that or less, depending on the design and corresponding traffic signals.

Mulder believes WSU students would get out of their cars if they have the choice of riding either the streetcars or a combination of FrontRunner and streetcars. Most of them come from Ogden or Davis County, she said, and now find it quicker to drive.

She favors a route that heads east out of downtown on 26th Street and then south on Harrison Boulevard, because that would bring the streetcar past the largest number of potential riders and commercial areas that need revitalization.

Other options include heading south on Washington Boulevard and then east on either 30th Street or 36th Street.

Bountiful resident Jeremy Holt said he would ride FrontRunner and streetcars or rapid buses to work at McKay-Dee -- if given the chance. He tried FrontRunner for a couple of months when it opened last spring, but didn't like spending a half hour on a crowded bus going the rest of the way.

"I can drive here from Bountiful in a half hour," he said.

UTA is accepting public comments until April 30.

Streetcars or rapid buses to Weber State
» 5.1 miles from downtown FrontRunner station.

» $20 million per mile for electric streetcars on rails.

» $5 million to $10 million per mile for rapid buses and lanes.

» Decision this summer.

» Decision next winter on federal funding, to cover half the cost.

cololi · #**1562** Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 1:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevena07

I have an insider with Salt Lake City, she said the City Council decided to go with concrete on North Temple.

I dont know if this was discussed before.

I don't know who your insider is, but they are wrong. The Council has not made any decisions. In fact they directed city staff to give them estimates on other options, including pavers, stamped concrete, landscaping, a mix of different types of treatments, etc.

I think they are very likely to choose concrete until the 215 underpass and go ballast from their to the airport. Which is fine, because past 2400 W the tracks are not in a roadway.

Urban_logic · #**1563** Posted **Mar 29, 2009, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Why do you live out there then? Why not move downtown?

Because it is beautiful and much quieter. No offense, I love down town, I just wouldn't want to live there. I like living outside of it, but near it. It's close enough to travel to when I want to, but far enough away for comfort. Plus, I don't go down town that much anyways. Everything I need is out here, I'm just saying that when I do go down town for whatever reason, it would make it easier by car. I usually ride the rails anyway, so the TRAX line will suffice for me. This freeway will probably help cut down on emissions because it will take thousands of stop light-idling cars off the surface streets and get them moving at a much more fuel-efficient speed. It will also help gridlock on the surface streets because people won't be using streets like 78th South, 90th South, 106th South, etc as commute routes to down town. Through in TRAX, and I'm seeing much improvement in traffic congestion in the near future.

Green Bro · #**1564** Posted **Mar 29, 2009, 8:50 PM**

Hey this might be completely off subject, but wht doesn't Park City have a commercial airprort?

Cities in Colorado such as Aspen, Montrose/Telluride, Gunnison/Butte, and in Wyoming, Jackson has one as well.

I know SLC Int'l is not too far but, it's growing and I think eventaully that Park City could handle its own commercial airport.

wrendog · #**1565** Posted **Mar 29, 2009, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Bro

Hey this might be completely off subject, but wht doesn't Park City have a commercial airprort?

Cities in Colorado such as Aspen, Montrose/Telluride, Gunnison/Butte, and in Wyoming, Jackson has one as well.

I know SLC Int'l is not too far but, it's growing and I think eventaully that Park City could handle its own commercial airport.

All those cities in Colorado are not within 40 minutes of an international airport. Park City will never have it's own commercial airport, where would they put it? No reason to have one.

Urban_logic · #**1566** Posted **Mar 29, 2009, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrendog

All those cities in Colorado are not within 40 minutes of an international airport. Park City will never have it's own commercial airport, where would they put it? No reason to have one.

I agree. Denver's airport is way out on the prarie - like 30-40 miles from the mountains and another 20-30 from the resorts. It makes sense for those resorts, that are hours away, to have their own airports. SLC, on the other hand, is right up against the mountains with the airport only a 15-20 minute drive from the mountains with another 20-30 minutes to the resorts. You can make it to any of SLC's resorts within an hour to an hour and a half tops. It would be a waste of money to build airports at these resorts and would just bring in noisy air traffic to the otherwise peaceful resort towns. This is one thing that I fovor a lot more about SLC over Denver. Denver may be bigger and have more people in its arbitrary "city limits" *caugh, Den2012, caugh*, but SLC is much more accessible to the resorts and mountains. SLC is in the mountains, Denver is by them. It also makes for much more dramatic scenery being sorounded by mountains. Denver is practicaly a Mid-Western city - it just happens to be near the mountains. SLC is truly in the mountains. Any direction you drive in the SLC area, you can see mountains - even toward the Great Salt Lake you see mountains beyond it. Then, if and when Rio Tinto builds that resort in the Oquirrhs, SLC can boast resorts sorounding the city (not just in one direction from the city). SLC has a much more intimate relationship with the mountains than Denver does. I like that

John Martin · #**1567** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 12:07 AM**

Resorts in the Oquirrhs? Huh, that's weird. I always thought they were too steep (or not wide enough.. or something like that...). That'd be interesting.

Stenar · #**1568** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrendog

All those cities in Colorado are not within 40 minutes of an international airport. Park City will never have it's own commercial airport, where would they put it? No reason to have one.

Heber City has an airport that most of the celebrities fly private jets into for Sundance so they can be more private than going through SLC International.

The Heber airport is 18 miles away. SLC International is 36 miles from Park City.

skyguy414 · #**1569** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 2:06 AM**

Yeah, Park City doesn't need an airport. There isn't much open land (developable land) that is large enough and free from terrain and other obstacles, not to mention all of the environmental concerns which would pop up. People threw a fit a few years ago when the FAA proposed routing planes inbound to SLC over Park City at 15,000 feet (they later changed their minds). You can only imagine how people would react to planes taking off and landing there.

You can drive from the SLC airport to Park city (or several other large resorts) within 30-40 minutes. It is one of Utah's bigger selling points for skiers...the close proximity to a large airport. I'd much rather fly into a large airport and have access to hundreds of non-stop flights to over one hundred cities than fly into a small, remote airport with only a few flights a day to just a few cities.

Plus, if you are rich enough, you can charter your own plane and land at the Heber City airport.

Vail, Aspen, Gunnison, etc. have their own airports because they are very remote. It can take over 4 hours to drive from Denver to Aspen, for example.

Urban_logic · #**1570** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 4:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Martin

Resorts in the Oquirrhs? Huh, that's weird. I always thought they were too steep (or not wide enough.. or something like that...). That'd be interesting.

Yeah it would!!

I'd never heard that about the slopes before, this is just something being dreamed up by Kennecott Land with it's West Bench Plan. Not sure if it will happen, but I hope so. They also want to put in a full-scale university. Also not so sure about that, but hopeful

In regards to the slopes, maybe they can alter the landscape

I mean, it would be rather difficult if it wasn't steep enough, but if its too steep, I suppose they could do some digging and earth-moving to make it suitable.

Green Bro · #**1571** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 5:11 AM**

I know people and I am sure there are others in the country that come to Utah to visit and to vacation in just Park City. I think finding land to develope a commercial airport would be difficult and yes there would be a lot of people that would be worried about the noise and all other factors. But I think if Park City had a commercial airport would really help their economy. I would also help Park City become a even more popular town and well known. My idea of an airport in Park City would not be a major airport or like the size of SLC Int'l obviously but maybe just the size of Vail Colorado's airport. I think if Park City had an airport, the terminal wouldnt have to be too big, maybe just a terminal with 2 jetways. I think I would be a popular airport. If they had non top flights from cities such as Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles and possibly Denver, that would not be too big of an airport or bring in too much noise. If they had flights from places like those, a majority of them would be possible just weekend flights and even a few flights a week would be really nice. I like the idea of a Park City airport down the road. Maybe Heber could think about replacing their airport with a Park City-Heber regional airport. It would be nice for private jets as well....

skyguy414 · #**1572** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 6:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Yeah it would!!

I'd never heard that about the slopes before, this is just something being dreamed up by Kennecott Land with it's West Bench Plan. Not sure if it will happen, but I hope so. They also want to put in a full-scale university. Also not so sure about that, but hopeful

In regards to the slopes, maybe they can alter the landscape

I mean, it would be rather difficult if it wasn't steep enough, but if its too steep, I suppose they could do some digging and earth-moving to make it suitable.

There are plenty of good places in the Oquirrh's for a ski resort. Terrain isn't a problem, take a look in Google Earth. Lots of canyons

delts145 · #**1573** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 12:17 PM**

There have been some strong attempts to put an airport in the snyderville basin, and even very recently this past year. The people of Park City and surrounding communities are not too keen on the idea, as skyguy pointed out.

The Eagle County airport, which serves Vail is 45-plus minutes from Vail/Beavercreek. That's not as close as Salt Lake's intl. airport and certainly not Wasatch County's. I imagine that the Heber airport will expand as demand dictates. It just doesn't make allot of sense right now, with one of the world's busiest and now most connected airports already at the doorstep of 11 major resorts, which are already bunched so close together. I could see Provo Municipal becoming a more important fixture, if Provo ever gets it's act together with a 2nd resort (remember Heritage Mtn./Seven Peaks) Of course, that is another discussion entirely. Ogden's airport will continue to expand in the future as it's metro expands, and the plans for it's three resorts mature, expand and become another powerhouse like the Park City area.

Speaking of the Park City area and it becoming more popular. Becoming more popular is not exactly a problem that Park City is dealing with right now. If anything Park City/Deer Valley is fighting to keep up with it's popularity. Remember, Park City and it's exploding neighbor of Heber, are very much an intergral part of one of a handful of the fastest growing metros in the nation. That intense growth and losing control of it, justifiably scares allot of people in Summit and Wasatch Counties. Deer Valley and Park City Resorts are more about refining their experience than expanding their popularity at this juncture. Their improvements are more about handling their current popularity, in a way that will continue to keep them competitive with Colorado. Park City/Deer Valley see themselves as in danger of becoming victims of their popularity, not as needing to become more popular. There will be 100-200 acre openings here and there occasionally, and the addition of focused infrastructure expansion, such as the St. Regis. We will also probably see a physical lift connection in the near future as we've seen with Alta/Snowbird. Bottom line is that Park City/Deer Valley is in an epic battle to keep it's development manageable. Witness the current struggle with Treasure Mountain, with infrastructure and open space that we've been following on the MSA thread. Rembember, it wasn't a Vail or even an Aspen, or the Tahoe area that was given top access honors by a landslide vote in SKI. Over 25,000 of a wide range of skiers from accross the globe gave resorts like The Canyons and it's neighbors the votes by a landslide in SKI Mag., which is recognized as the most respected authority in these matters. It wasn't even really a competition when the votes were tallied from those who actually fly into these airports and make their way to the lift lines. All of the silly blustery in the world by a certain forumer, doesn't negate the reality of those who actually are doing the traveling and skiing. Another important fact is that year over year, for the past umpteen years, Wasatch Resorts are among the rare ski areas that have actually seen a sizeable increase in skier visits. Almost all ski areas in the world are doing what they can to just retain their customer base. Much of the growth of what Utah is experiencing year over year is as a result of bringing in skiers from other areas, and of course the explosive growth of the local/metro pop. The industry globally is not growing at an appreciable rate.

However, huge development and expansion is coming to The Canyon's portion of Park City. The forever floundering Am. Ski Co. is out of the picture finally. The bitter blood-letting of the industry titans, "Talisker and Vail Resorts" for dibs on the development of the crown jewel "The Canyons" has reached a resolution. The go ahead is now much clearer for deep-pocketed Talisker's stunning plans, of the development of what promises to be the largest single resort in the U.S., if not all No. America. The Canyons Resort and Kimball Junction's village will be a part of that Park City area where we will see a huge push for major expansion.

We will see additional attempts to the immediate east and west of Heber for a major resort development. As soon as the economy stabilizes, there's going to be incredible pressure to place a major resort somewhere in the immediate vicinity of Heber. That would definitely be a compelling reason to either expand the Heber airport, or move it entirely to a more ideal location for commercial aviation.

So much of The Wasatch Front transportation connection/expansion, whether by air or ground is imminent. Forces have set this metro on a course of national and global reach. Many would say, it's about time and welcome it with great pride. Some are scared to death of the eventual five-plus million that will fill the Wasatch Valleys. I feel pretty strongly that we will see this happen in our lifetime. Keeping up with the demands, that such a population dictates will not be an easy challenge, but I see evidence that the challenge will not only be met, but that the Wasatch will become a global leader in many aspects.

The expansion of our ski industry into areas like the Oquirrhs, and whatever additional transportation that such growth dictates, is only a matter of time. International visitors are very important, but the most important customer will continue to be the locals. Salt Lake City is not just a ski town, it's a huge ski metro.

cololi · #**1574** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Martin

Resorts in the Oquirrhs? Huh, that's weird. I always thought they were too steep (or not wide enough.. or something like that...). That'd be interesting.

That's funny. Too steep. The biggest problem with the Oquirrhs is the base elevation does not get a lot of snow.

arkhitektor · #**1575** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 2:39 PM**

Who doesn't want to go skiing in this?:

delts145 · #**1576** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 3:23 PM**

I can't remember which forumer it was, but he was very familiar with the soldier summitt area, and pointed out some of it's many advantages. Soldier Summit and it's high mountain valleys, accessibility, many no. facing slopes, combined with good snow making machinery would make for a very powerful argument in favor of the Oquirrhs.

Urban_logic · #**1577** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cololi

That's funny. Too steep. The biggest problem with the Oquirrhs is the base elevation does not get a lot of snow.

I'm not so sure about that. The lake effect works wonders for us on the west bench. Even if not, it still gets plenty of snow for a killer resort. Don't let your loathing of the west side of the valley hide the excellent untapped possibilities over here from you!

cololi · #**1578** Posted **Mar 30, 2009, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

I'm not so sure about that. The lake effect works wonders for us on the west bench. Even if not, it still gets plenty of snow for a killer resort. Don't let your loathing of the west side of the valley hide the excellent untapped possibilities over here from you!

My feelings for the west side of the valleyhave nothing to do with it. My comment is based on the time I spent out there with representatives from Kennecott Land actually looking at terrain, weather records, snow characteristics, etc. At the lower elevations, they do not get much snow. Even though it is roughly the same elevation as the base of Park City or the Canyons (6,000-6500 feet), the microclimate at the places where it is suitable to have a base of a ski resort really put a damper on things. Sure, they can make snow, but it becomes a huge profit drain because the snow melts quickly. The upper elevations have great terrain and get plenty of snow. I am one of the lucky few who have legally skied in the area. And sure, the lower elevations may get hit with some lake effect, but the data collected to date indicate that there is not historical evidence to suggest there is enough snow to annually sustain a base without supplementing. It will take a lot of water and a lot of snow making equipment to make a base work. And there is a reason why the ski resort idea was 100% pure concept.

Urban_logic · #**1579** Posted **Mar 31, 2009, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cololi

My feelings for the west side of the valleyhave nothing to do with it. My comment is based on the time I spent out there with representatives from Kennecott Land actually looking at terrain, weather records, snow characteristics, etc. At the lower elevations, they do not get much snow. Even though it is roughly the same elevation as the base of Park City or the Canyons (6,000-6500 feet), the microclimate at the places where it is suitable to have a base of a ski resort really put a damper on things. Sure, they can make snow, but it becomes a huge profit drain because the snow melts quickly. The upper elevations have great terrain and get plenty of snow. I am one of the lucky few who have legally skied in the area. And sure, the lower elevations may get hit with some lake effect, but the data collected to date indicate that there is not historical evidence to suggest there is enough snow to annually sustain a base without supplementing. It will take a lot of water and a lot of snow making equipment to make a base work. And there is a reason why the ski resort idea was 100% pure concept.

Just messin' with ya

It's just that every response I have read from you is skeptical or resistant of new ideas/developments outside of SLC Proper.

So how much snow does it need to be suitable? How much does the area in question and the Oquirrhs in general get on average? Delt's was saying something about Soldier Summit. How much does it get?

wrendog · #**1580** Posted **Mar 31, 2009, 7:26 PM**

Soldier Summit??? Why would anyone build anything in Soldier Summit? Perhaps you are thinking of Daniels Summit?