HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8021  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2018, 4:22 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
2 more places we should consider going subgrade and leasing space above the road...

Between Vivint and the convention center and between Trolley square and the "am I still in trolley square" stuff to the east of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8022  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2018, 7:10 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,430
I agree those are two good candidates for grade separation.

300 West between the convention center and the arena could take a short dive, like 200 West does to get under the conference center extension. In this case though, the pedestrians would remain at ground level since there would be no building to go under, which is good because the pedestrian experience going below the convention center is not one I'd like to replicate elsewhere.

The grade separation on 200 West is actually a good example of what the driving conditions would be like elsewhere in the city. The road could potentially need slower speed limits, though shorter sight lines would cause drivers to slow down naturally anyway. Snow and ice could be a huge concern, so the road would need to have extremely good drainage and perhaps a heated road surface.

An important point about these grade separations is that the ones I've outlined on 500 and 600 South really only work because they are one-way streets. If we were to grade-separate other intersections, the left-turns would need to be completely eliminated. At busy intersections I think this is already a good idea anyway - in the age of Google Maps and other navigational aids it should be entirely possible for people to move about the city with equivalent convenience even if certain left turns are not allowed. This would cause more trouble in the suburbs, though, where the streets are not on as tight of a grid system and alternative routes are not as easy to find.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8023  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 2:14 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8024  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 8:43 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,536
She doesn’t take the cost of car insurance and car payments into her calculation of which mode of transportation is cost effective, only gas, which is surprising coming from someone who seems to be in the transportation planning environmental advocacy field (or at least studying for it). Wouldn’t she think of this immediately? Obviously she didn’t buy her car, and is not paying for her own insurance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8025  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2018, 8:38 PM
brankrom's Avatar
brankrom brankrom is offline
Transit Advocate
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Liberty Wells-- SLC
Posts: 292
Gawd what a whiner.... UTA needs to increase service hours no question, but I've been commuting on UTA initially from Utah County to downtown, then from West Jordan to downtown and now from Sugarhouse to downtown for 15 years. want to use transit? don't live in snowflake suburbia.

To be fair any place I live has to have good transit access. This video just supports the suburban Utah narrative about transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8026  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2018, 5:23 AM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,536
Considering we are bidding for the Olympics, I thought I'd put together a little proposal to extend the West Valley TRAX line out to the Olympic Oval. What do you guys think?

P.S. The circles represent a half mile radius (walking distance) from each station.


Last edited by Old&New; Nov 21, 2018 at 6:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8027  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2018, 5:47 AM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 970
^
I would add a station at 3600 W and perhaps extend TRAX down 3500 S to MVC and than bring the line south along the MVC and existing rail ROW to the Olympic oval.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8028  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2018, 7:31 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC14 View Post
^
I would add a station at 3600 W and perhaps extend TRAX down 3500 S to MVC and than bring the line south along the MVC and existing rail ROW to the Olympic oval.
My proposed stations hit pockets of density or potential for density. Was thinking of using the north half of the existing rail line for a future spur to connect with a commuter rail line to Tooele.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8029  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2018, 6:51 AM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old&New View Post
My proposed stations hit pockets of density or potential for density. Was thinking of using the north half of the existing rail line for a future spur to connect with a commuter rail line to Tooele.
While this could work, it would be better as a streetcar than Trax due to the narrow streets in areas.

What might be better is to possibly accelerate sections of planned transit lines. By this, take the Green Line and extend it to 5600 West and then turn it South to connect to the Red Line around 9800 South. Long Range plans have Trax being run down the center of 5600 West to replace the planned BRT Line and the 35Maxx is supposed to eventually become Trax as well just further out passed the 5600 West BRT to Trax upgrade.

This would speed up the transit along 5600 West and allow for increased density along the route. It could also speed up the County's plan for a large scale dense development at the SE corner of 5600 West and 4700 South.

5400 South is slated to eventually have center running BRT, according to the long range transit plan. Having it run from 5600 West to the Murray Trax/FrontRunner stations with a detour along 4800 West (Cougar Lane) to service the Speed Skating Oval during the 2030 Olympics would work for direct transit connections.

Overall the costs would be roughly $1.5 Billion to $1.75 Billion for the Green Line Trax extension along 3500 South to 5600 West and then South along 5600 West to the Red Line around 9800 South. The BRT line along 5400 South would be $200 Million to $300 Million. The BRT line could possibly be cheaper if using limited median for stations and buses with doors on both sides. Using Paint for the dedicated lanes could save on costs as well. With 5400 South already having 15 minute service, just replacing the buses and limited median upgrades for Stations and to limit Left Turns where needed could mean the overall costs drop to $50 Million or less and upgrades can be done over time.

UDoT would need to spend around $50 Million to upgrade the 3500 South and Bangerter intersection into an overpass. The cost could be rolled into the overall Trax project. The Rio Tinto rail crossing on 5600 West and 4700 South is planned to be grade separated in the future as well. UTA and UDoT could work with Rio Tinto to grade separate sooner removing the possible rail junction.

This would increase transit along the West Side as well as speed up already planned transit lines by 30 to 40 years.

Last edited by Makid; Nov 22, 2018 at 4:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8030  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2018, 9:42 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,466
The potential for more federal grants to UTA for transit is one reason why I am in favor of the Olympics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8031  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2018, 5:02 PM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old&New View Post
My proposed stations hit pockets of density or potential for density. Was thinking of using the north half of the existing rail line for a future spur to connect with a commuter rail line to Tooele.
I like that.
I think Kearns has allot of potential. It is a small but dense area with potential for excellent freeway and transit access.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8032  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2018, 8:02 AM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 970
In case anyone is interested: There is a Public Open House about the "Midvalley Connector" (BRT from Murray Central to SLCC) environmental study and preferred alternatives today from 5pm-7pm at the Taylorsville Recreation Center, 4948 S 2700 W in Taylorsville.
http://midvalleyconnector.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8033  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2018, 11:31 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC14 View Post
In case anyone is interested: There is a Public Open House about the "Midvalley Connector" (BRT from Murray Central to SLCC) environmental study and preferred alternatives today from 5pm-7pm at the Taylorsville Recreation Center, 4948 S 2700 W in Taylorsville.
http://midvalleyconnector.com
I'd say west on 5300, then North on Redwood Road, stop at SLCC, and continue North on Redwood Road to 3500 South, then head west on 3500 to West Valley central station. Would really connect Taylorsville to the TRAX system
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8034  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2018, 12:17 AM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old&New View Post
I'd say west on 5300, then North on Redwood Road, stop at SLCC, and continue North on Redwood Road to 3500 South, then head west on 3500 to West Valley central station. Would really connect Taylorsville to the TRAX system
There are long range plans for BRT along 5300/5400 South, having it go to 4500/4700 South does provide better long term options for the route to help increase density. It also allows for the route to be updated once the Murray downtown plan has been started in the area North and West of the IHC campus.

I do wish that they would increase the dedicated lanes along 4700 South though. It could force UDoT to add the additional lanes that are planned from just before I-215 to 40th West sooner as the section between I-215 and 2700 West will be the slowest part on the entire route.

I do have 2 hopes, first is that the SLCC transit center is utilized for more than just this route. Second, that stations are built in a way that the bus doesn't leave the travel lane. Having a bus leave the travel lane and then relying on the good will of traffic to get back in the lane is crazy.

Now, make this a 6 minute frequency route and it should drive additional development and density along the route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8035  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2018, 1:38 AM
Merewether's Avatar
Merewether Merewether is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: 8410*
Posts: 200
Saw some Lime dockless bikes for the first time today on sidewalk opposite south gate of Temple Square.
The Nextdoor discussion threads for neighborhoods just north and east of downtown aren’t unifomly enthusiastic about the scooters. No doubt a bike thread will soon start.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8036  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 4:40 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,430
UVX in ProvOrem is using their dedicated bus lanes for the whole length of the line for the first time today! If anyone has any pictures or experiences to share, please do! BRT is hopefully the next new wave of transit throughout the UTA system, but only if the first impressions are really good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8037  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 5:41 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,430
Also, the S-Line construction as it appeared on Friday, with a new second platform, a new signal, and the second track completely finished. Now work moves to the catenary system.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8038  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 6:51 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
UVX in ProvOrem is using their dedicated bus lanes for the whole length of the line for the first time today! If anyone has any pictures or experiences to share, please do! BRT is hopefully the next new wave of transit throughout the UTA system, but only if the first impressions are really good.
When we discussed BRT systems versus the run of the mill bus routes a few months ago I think I was unclear on some of your views. Where do you want to see BRT lines and how do you define BRT? In areas that are not candidates for BRT I would at least like to see the routes up dated with covered stops that look nicer than the sad tinted glass structures seen throughout the system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8039  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 7:44 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,430
Thanks for asking, Sunny!

My opinion on the optimal implementation of BRT is always changing and updating. Currently I think that the actual bus-lanes are generally overkill except in the densest of downtown areas. The UVX line through Provo and Orem is probably the longest amount of dedicated bus lanes needed along the Wasatch Front, and I think it was smart to use them there. Downtown Ogden and Salt Lake City could also benefit from dedicated bus lanes, and those are supposedly in the works. But because adding new lanes is extremely costly, I would use them sparingly.

Instead I want to see main arterial roads flanked with BRT-style side stations, where buses do not need to pull over.



Stopping in traffic is key - since the buses won't need to fight their way back into traffic. This also means that buses can't stop more than every 1/2 mile, since that would stop traffic too much and these stations cost money; the flip side is that by stopping less, the buses have higher average speed and better trip times.

Also, the buses need to come super-frequently. The 6 minute headway of UVX is great and I love it, we need that everywhere. We need buses to come so often that during peak times you don't need a schedule - they just come so fast you won't feel like any time has been lost by not driving.

Potential routes are:
  • State Street (with dedicated bus lanes from 9th south to North Temple)
  • 2nd South (with dedicated bus lanes from Salt Lake Central to about 7th East)
  • 700 East
  • Redwood Road

And pretty much all the major east-west streets in the valley, like 33rd, 39th, 45th, 53th, ect., with major tie-ins at TRAX/FrontRunner stations.

This may sound like a lot, but really the only thing that would need to be done is the construction of these side-stations along the way. Traffic light priority is already a thing on Redwood Road and UDOT is pushing that tech anyway, so there's no need to make future bus lines pay for that.
Call this what you will, Frequent Bus Transit, Express Buses, Bus Plus, or whatever, but I think frequency and ease-of-use will create a higher ridership faster and far cheaper than an extensive network of dedicated bus lanes. If some areas become too congested that's OK... dedicated lanes can be added later, like the 33rd MAX line. But it's better to get the line going and have an established ridership in place before begging for more infrastructure. It's easier to win that fight when actual real living people are sitting on delayed buses than when hypothetical planned buses are delayed.

...and that's why we need to make transit free as well, just like freeways are free for cars! FREEways - FREE transit!
By now you're probably sorry you asked, so I'll stop...

Last edited by Hatman; Dec 3, 2018 at 10:10 PM. Reason: Resizing image to acceptable limits
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8040  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 11:17 PM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 3,234
Utah Budget Surplus

I wish the legislature/governor would use this $1.3 Billion budget surplus to make UTA free.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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