HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4241  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2012, 2:43 AM
Neuroguy's Avatar
Neuroguy Neuroguy is offline
Frontal lobes required!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Provo Utah
Posts: 98
Question for FM or anyone else....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
Speaking of FrontRunner South opening. This was, I assume still is, the plan regarding area's in UT County past the Provo Station.

Payson is the eventual last stop on the current long range plan and is scheduled to be completed no later than 2025. If demand shows a need they will move the construction date for a completion time sooner than that.

An express bus is supposed to open in conjunction with Front Runner south, that starts/ends at Paysons future FrontRunner stop. It will only make three additional stops, one at Spanish Forks eventual station, one at Springvilles eventual station and finally at the Provo FrontRunner Station.

The reason UTA didn't extend to Payson with this round of construction is that just south of the Provo station is that the right of way UTA owns switches sides and a flyover bridge is required to cross the tracks, similar to the one around 98th S, behind the SLCC Miller Campus.

The express bus will allow people to effectively use FrontRunner without riding a bus through all the smaller cities on the highways. It will also allow UTA to better estimate ridership demand and when the south extention should actually begin construction.

Future Mayor, or anyone for that matter, do you know how far South UTA owns right of way, and which set of tracks they would be developing? There are are several "branches" of track along that Southern corridor and I'm interested which they are planning to develop along.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4242  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2012, 7:15 AM
xseven xseven is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
Transit isn't always about what the current trends are, but building for the future.
I respectfully agree with transit development where the opportunity exists.

I respectfully disagree that "downtown" Sandy, the South Towne Center, and the residents of Sandy is an opportunistic option for that kind of transit development.

I will agree that Sandy has huge potential in that planned development, but I believe they are at least ten years away from becoming a viable candidate for any streetcar/trolly transit.

I've seen way too many "Office Space for Lease" banners on those buildings for years to convince me otherwise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4243  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2012, 7:46 AM
xseven xseven is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
Yes alot of people use their cars on the south end of the valley, but they do also on the north, east and west as well. If that was true then what's the point of building frontrunner and trax lines down there. People down there just need to have the option. The more mass-transit the better
I am absolutely, 100% on your side of transit development in the south end of the valley.

But based on my conversations with family and friends in southern Salt Lake County, 13 years after TRAX was launched, they don't use it today and they don't want their taxes increased to pay for something they don't use...

As much as I try to convince them otherwise.

I used TRAX every weekday while commuting to the U when I was a student from opening day 1999 and loved it. I saved miles on my car, gas, maintenance... And I didn't have to pay the dreaded University of Utah $125 parking permit per semester.

I totally agree that residents should have the option; I just don't know if Sandy residents are willing to pony up the dough for a streetcar/trolly through Sandy's City Hall and South Towne Center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4244  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2012, 6:48 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
While we're on the topic, I just want to say that I think the new buildings going up at the 4400 S/Fireclay Ave TRAX station have got to be the ugliest buildings I have ever seen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4245  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2012, 7:32 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by xseven View Post
I am absolutely, 100% on your side of transit development in the south end of the valley.

But based on my conversations with family and friends in southern Salt Lake County, 13 years after TRAX was launched, they don't use it today and they don't want their taxes increased to pay for something they don't use...

As much as I try to convince them otherwise.

I used TRAX every weekday while commuting to the U when I was a student from opening day 1999 and loved it. I saved miles on my car, gas, maintenance... And I didn't have to pay the dreaded University of Utah $125 parking permit per semester.

I totally agree that residents should have the option; I just don't know if Sandy residents are willing to pony up the dough for a streetcar/trolly through Sandy's City Hall and South Towne Center.
Suburbanites may use transit more it it seems futuristic. I think a gondola, especially one flying over the freeway, will get suburban kids excited about riding transit, pulling their parents along with them. I was thinking Sandy's downtown could be a TOD or transit oriented development. Therefore, the transit infrastructure here would be more for the people living in a new high-density downtown Sandy neighborhood, as well as for those who want to transfer from TRAX to Frontrunner or vice versa, than for Sandy's existing 3-car-garage-population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4246  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 3:30 AM
(Eco)nomy_404's Avatar
(Eco)nomy_404 (Eco)nomy_404 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 299
UDOT to invest nearly $4 billion in infrastructure in 2012

UDOT announces more than 200 summer road construction projects
Deseret News


Photo by UDOT

SOUTH JORDAN — Motorists traveling east on Daybreak View Parkway past Herriman High School pass signs warning of construction, but Thursday afternoon, only a few construction workers and trucks are visible. Many of the residents at the Timbergate apartment complex across the street weren't even sure what was being built there.

It won't be that way for long.

The site is one of more than 200 projects the Utah Department of Transportation will be working on for the rest of the year, a record in the state. UDOT estimates the projects will cost just under an estimated $4 billion.

The pending work at Daybreak View Parkway near 4800 West will be part of the Mountain View Corridor, which will be two lanes in each direction with signalized intersections that will one day be a fully functional freeway on the far west side of Salt Lake Valley.

Six of the 20 projects are in Salt Lake County, the most of any county. Motorists on I-15 from 10600 South to 600 North will experience lane restrictions, reduced speeds and ramp closures this summer, and in a project titled "Bangerter 2.0," a grade-separated interchange and new pedestrian bridges is being added at 7800 S. and 13400 S.

In Utah County, work will be done on the I-15 from Lehi to Spanish Fork that will expand the freeway by two lanes and replace or restore 63 bridges...


Full Article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ects.html?pg=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4247  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 3:54 AM
(Eco)nomy_404's Avatar
(Eco)nomy_404 (Eco)nomy_404 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 299
Just to put that $4 billion into perspective: Utah has 1/13 the population of California yet it will spend 1/3 the amount that California will on road construction projects in 2012. That means that Utah will spend $1,050/person whereas California will only spend $350/person. So Utah`s per-capita construction spending for 2012 will by 3x that of California. The next largest state, Texas, will only spend twice as much as Utah on construction despite having about 10x the population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4248  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:17 AM
CountyLemonade's Avatar
CountyLemonade CountyLemonade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404 View Post
Just to put that $4 billion into perspective: Utah has 1/13 the population of California yet it will spend 1/3 the amount that California will on road construction projects in 2012. That means that Utah will spend $1,050/person whereas California will only spend $350/person. So Utah`s per-capita construction spending for 2012 will by 3x that of California. The next largest state, Texas, will only spend twice as much as Utah on construction despite having about 10x the population.
Hmm. Imagine if we put $1 billion of that money toward transit. Heck, imagine if we put $500 million toward transit! I'm sensing that we're not using a balanced approach in road/transit expansion, to be honest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4249  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:34 AM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
Well how much have they spent per person in Salt Lake County on rail projects alone?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4250  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:45 AM
CountyLemonade's Avatar
CountyLemonade CountyLemonade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
Well how much have they spent per person in Salt Lake County on rail projects alone?
FrontRunner to Provo is around $950 million alone.

We've expanded light rail and commuter rail well. I'm more than satisfied with that. I just wish we'd go about maintaining what we have already, instead of having to suffer service cut after service cut. If the state legislature were willing to pony up some extra funding, could we have a restoration of night and Saturday service?

But, you know, I guess for a conservative state like ours we're doing pretty well. We're not balanced, but we're still in a good spot. It's just that seeing that $4 billion figure for roads is a bit overwhelming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4251  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 5:25 AM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,215
Doesn't look very walkable to me. Do we really want an auto-dependent future?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4252  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 7:20 AM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountyLemonade View Post
FrontRunner to Provo is around $950 million alone.

We've expanded light rail and commuter rail well. I'm more than satisfied with that. I just wish we'd go about maintaining what we have already, instead of having to suffer service cut after service cut. If the state legislature were willing to pony up some extra funding, could we have a restoration of night and Saturday service?

But, you know, I guess for a conservative state like ours we're doing pretty well. We're not balanced, but we're still in a good spot. It's just that seeing that $4 billion figure for roads is a bit overwhelming.
We're not balanced, but if you're inclined to favor transit, you should be thrilled about that. Hypothetically you could've bought a brand new car for every daily rail commuter with the money that was spent on commuter and light rail infrastructure in the past several years. I'm just being anecdotal of course, but that seems kind of steep for something that we were by no means in dire need of. FrontRunner is hovering around.. what, 6000 riders a day? Those people could be driving Bentleys with the money that's been spent on them!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4253  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 1:33 PM
CountyLemonade's Avatar
CountyLemonade CountyLemonade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
We're not balanced, but if you're inclined to favor transit, you should be thrilled about that. Hypothetically you could've bought a brand new car for every daily rail commuter with the money that was spent on commuter and light rail infrastructure in the past several years. I'm just being anecdotal of course, but that seems kind of steep for something that we were by no means in dire need of. FrontRunner is hovering around.. what, 6000 riders a day? Those people could be driving Bentleys with the money that's been spent on them!
Public transit lasts much longer than a car. Its capacity can be increased much more easily than roads, in any case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4254  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 3:27 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuroguy View Post
Future Mayor, or anyone for that matter, do you know how far South UTA owns right of way, and which set of tracks they would be developing? There are are several "branches" of track along that Southern corridor and I'm interested which they are planning to develop along.
UTA currently owns right of way to roughly 800 S in Payson, that is the southern/Wal-Mart exit. The UP line that they own right of way on can be seen west of I-15 from roughly the old Sugar Factory in Spanish Fork all the way to 800 S in Payson. Immediately before the 800 S exit the right of way veers west and into what is the Payson TOD zone. Immediately after the TOD the tracks cross under the DRG line, a place called Red Bridge. UTA will need to negotiate the right of way purchase with DRG in order to eventually extend FrontRunner further south than Payson.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4255  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 3:32 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
We're not balanced, but if you're inclined to favor transit, you should be thrilled about that. Hypothetically you could've bought a brand new car for every daily rail commuter with the money that was spent on commuter and light rail infrastructure in the past several years. I'm just being anecdotal of course, but that seems kind of steep for something that we were by no means in dire need of. FrontRunner is hovering around.. what, 6000 riders a day? Those people could be driving Bentleys with the money that's been spent on them!
Someone has been listening to anti-transit propaganda. You know those claims have been widely discredited, right?

You're right that we're not balanced, but totally wrong in the direction. We spent so much money on car infrastructure in the latter half of the 20th Century that in order to reach "balance" we would have to completely stop funding cars/highways totally and funnel all our money to transit for several decades in order to catch up. Even if it is true that we are currently spending more on transit (which is almost certainly not true, but I haven't seen Utah's budget so I won't make a claim either way), the system is still highly imbalanced in favor of roads.

More importantly, it is totally disingenuous to claim that for the capital costs of a rail line we could buy everyone a fancy car. I can think of about 50 ways it is disingenuous, but the simplest way is that you are ignoring the capital cost of building the roads that those cars are supposed to be driving upon. In case you're not aware, roads are not free. Another way that statement is disingenuous is that it ignores most of the reasons why transit is useful, such as its effect on land use and the ability of transit users to bypass traffic congestion. It's like saying you could buy a nice video game with the money you spend on a tank of gas; the statement might be true, but it ignores the benefits of using that gas to travel.

Frankly, anyone who parrots disinformation of the sort contained in that post really just makes themselves look foolish. It is so blatantly wrong, and has been so overwhelmingly discredited by years of research, that individuals who make such claims show themselves to be ill-informed and/or extremely biased.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4256  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:28 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Someone has been listening to anti-transit propaganda. You know those claims have been widely discredited, right?

You're right that we're not balanced, but totally wrong in the direction. We spent so much money on car infrastructure in the latter half of the 20th Century that in order to reach "balance" we would have to completely stop funding cars/highways totally and funnel all our money to transit for several decades in order to catch up. Even if it is true that we are currently spending more on transit (which is almost certainly not true, but I haven't seen Utah's budget so I won't make a claim either way), the system is still highly imbalanced in favor of roads.

More importantly, it is totally disingenuous to claim that for the capital costs of a rail line we could buy everyone a fancy car. I can think of about 50 ways it is disingenuous, but the simplest way is that you are ignoring the capital cost of building the roads that those cars are supposed to be driving upon. In case you're not aware, roads are not free. Another way that statement is disingenuous is that it ignores most of the reasons why transit is useful, such as its effect on land use and the ability of transit users to bypass traffic congestion. It's like saying you could buy a nice video game with the money you spend on a tank of gas; the statement might be true, but it ignores the benefits of using that gas to travel.

Frankly, anyone who parrots disinformation of the sort contained in that post really just makes themselves look foolish. It is so blatantly wrong, and has been so overwhelmingly discredited by years of research, that individuals who make such claims show themselves to be ill-informed and/or extremely biased.
I'm not anti-transit per se, I'm simply stating the reality in response to notions that we should be spending more on transit in Utah than we already do. Obviously I'm not suggesting that a free car for every regular transit user is even remotely viable, but the fact that it isn't doesn't justify the costs of light and commuter rail extensions like you're connoting. You're carelessly applying a vague ideology to a specific case which you clearly know nothing about, and you're far from compelling as a result. Maybe you should do some research first.

You're placing credence in the benefits of rail such as efficient land use and traffic independence while ignoring the fact that the roads are already there, and are in far greater demand than rail in this area. City and commuter buses use the roads to, and they managed to service the Wasatch Front just fine before rail transit was introduced. TRAX and FrontRunner offer a more pleasant rider experience than buses, and in some cases, are slightly quicker. But they don't bypass any major problems like they do in your vision. The fact of the matter is that our rail projects don't reflect actual demand; they were funded with barrels and barrels of federal pork, which other communities were really in much greater need of, and alternatives are still preferred by many. Commuter buses are regularly packed, despite the fact that they follow the same route as FrontRunner and are subject to traffic. But the demand for auto travel vastly eclipses demand for any sort of transit in Utah, so it's silly to act like the incredibly disproportionate cost per rider is somehow justified. FrontRunner ridership has been disappointing to say the least. Fares are among the highest in the nation, and they're only expected to increase because UTA is nowhere near being sustainable, despite the fact that most of this was paid for with federal dollars. Our rail is nice, and I'm not devastated by any means because we don't have to pay the bulk of it. But I wouldn't try to fool anyone into thinking it was a fair and balanced approach. I hope demand increases in time, but I think all future expansion should reflect actual demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4257  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 5:06 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803


If I am reading your opinion right, because people are slow to adjust to new way of commuting we should continue to spend more money on roads simply because that is currently where demand is?

Study after study has shown that building more and wider roads does not nor has it ever reduced congestion and gridlock, which naturally creates more congestions. Continually expansing I-15 to meet current and anticipated future demand only fuels the sprawl of the subburbs and the exuburbs. Creating more impact on road, leading to yet a need for another road of road expansion. LA, continued to build more and more roads to meet "Demand" and are now scrambling to catch up with transit options to somehow shift demand. The Wasatch Front is doing it the right way, IMO, expanding and building highways to meet demand, but also building transit options for an expected future demand and to manage growth and future polution.

Yes FrontRunner is currently under utilized, however as national trends of younger and older people moving into cities and urban/walkable areas continues, development will continue to occur at and near FrontRunner stations as will continued growth around Trax stations. Even Payson Utah has a TOD zone, because the planners in that city (it was zoned before I worked there) realized that this type of development is going to be in ever increasing demand in the future, and they are providing alternatives for future residents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4258  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 5:36 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,302
The projections for the south portion of Frontrunner have the ridership increasing from 5k to 12.5k daily. For a line that was built for a population 30 years from now, that is pretty decent.

I also think that once the Airport LRT extension is open, the ridership on Frontrunner will increase as there is a lot of people that hate driving to the airport that live both north and south of SLC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4259  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 5:37 PM
scottharding scottharding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,527
Yeah, I think we'll find that the airport line really is about 10 years late. It will have a huge impact on ridership, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4260  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 5:53 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
I'm not anti-transit per se, I'm simply stating the reality in response to notions that we should be spending more on transit in Utah than we already do. Obviously I'm not suggesting that a free car for every regular transit user is even remotely viable, but the fact that it isn't doesn't justify the costs of light and commuter rail extensions like you're connoting. You're carelessly applying a vague ideology to a specific case which you clearly know nothing about, and you're far from compelling as a result. Maybe you should do some research first.

You're placing credence in the benefits of rail such as efficient land use and traffic independence while ignoring the fact that the roads are already there, and are in far greater demand than rail in this area. City and commuter buses use the roads to, and they managed to service the Wasatch Front just fine before rail transit was introduced. TRAX and FrontRunner offer a more pleasant rider experience than buses, and in some cases, are slightly quicker. But they don't bypass any major problems like they do in your vision. The fact of the matter is that our rail projects don't reflect actual demand; they were funded with barrels and barrels of federal pork, which other communities were really in much greater need of, and alternatives are still preferred by many. Commuter buses are regularly packed, despite the fact that they follow the same route as FrontRunner and are subject to traffic. But the demand for auto travel vastly eclipses demand for any sort of transit in Utah, so it's silly to act like the incredibly disproportionate cost per rider is somehow justified. FrontRunner ridership has been disappointing to say the least. Fares are among the highest in the nation, and they're only expected to increase because UTA is nowhere near being sustainable, despite the fact that most of this was paid for with federal dollars. Our rail is nice, and I'm not devastated by any means because we don't have to pay the bulk of it. But I wouldn't try to fool anyone into thinking it was a fair and balanced approach. I hope demand increases in time, but I think all future expansion should reflect actual demand.
The more accessible and extensive our mass-transit system is, the more people will use it. Mass transit uses less resources and is a more efficient way to mobilize large volumes of people especially those who are unable to drive or afford a vehicle. Furthermore, transit stops allow for higher densities, densities that will use our precious space more efficiently. The Wasatch Metro isn't doing "just fine," just take note of the ever increasing pollution... which will be the end of economic development and growth if not addressed.
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.