Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I wouldn't be opposed to brt but I'm not sure that it would spur the kind of development that I would be hoping for. It would need to be a quality brt. Nothing like the garbage Max on 3500 South. I think that line barely qualifies as brt. The new line going in Provo and Orem is a much better example. I suspect that it will do well.

My thoughts as well. Once people see how awesome the Provo-Orem BRT line is, many other lines will come in short order. Highland Drive between the Brickyard and Sugarhouse may not be on the immediate to-do list, but it will happen.

[Hatman]

I'm sort of disappointed no one found the fatal flaw in the 'Route D1" option I like so much. So I'll tell you: That option proposed sending the cars counter-clockwise around the loop, which would have required the cars to go through the center of what is now the monument plaza (there used to be a right-turn lane the streetcars would have commandeered). Seriously, check out the colored-pencil pictures - the car is going through the plaza. Obviously this can't be done now that the plaza has been expanded. And so, I propose to you route D2!


Let me show you its features!

First, instead of going counter-clockwise around the block, the tracks cross over each other so that the cars go clockwise around the blocks, making only right-hand turns. That adds efficiency, but it also will be helpful near the plaza, which I'll get to in a minute. First, since the cars require a turning radius of about 80 feet, the curve north will place the northbound track right up against of the east side of McClelland Street, taking what used to be parallel street parking. This should be in an exclusive lane, with a concrete curb to keep cars out.


Then, when the line gets to Elm avenue, it will need to switch from the east edge of the road to the west edge, in preparation for making the turn onto 21st south. This will require a new traffic signal at the intersection of Elm Avenue and McClelland street:


At this point the cars will be running against traffic on McClelland street - so an exclusive lane is absolutely required. Other streetcar systems operate like this already, notably the Tampa Florida line:


Now comes the plaza! The 80-foot radius curve just barely fits; a new traffic signal will probably be needed here too. On 21st south, the streetcar operates in a shared lane, in mixed traffic. This is the other important reason the cars need to go around the loop clockwise - so that they will be going in the same direction as traffic on 21st South. The stop at the plaza will be just like the buses already on 21st south- the streetcar will stop in the middle of the travel lane to let passengers board/disembark. In fact, it could share the bus stop/shelter that was recently installed there. Then, after stopping at the plaza, it will turn right onto Highland Drive.


At this point, the cars will be going southbound on Highland Drive down a new center median. Highland Drive will need a road diet - down from the 2 car lanes in each direction to a car land and a bike lane in each direction, plus a center median:


Then, all that is left is for the cars to turn right onto the S-Line corridor again. A new signal will be required to get the streetcars out of the center median; this new signal can also be used as a crosswalk for Parley's Trail headed towards Sugarhouse Park:


All in all, this route does not need to take any private property or demolish any buildings, like route D1 required. It fits entirely within the existing roads. It takes half the parallel parking spots off of McClelland Street, it requires a road diet for Highland Drive, and it may add a little more congestion to the bus stop at Monument Plaza, but these are all little things.
The total length for this line is just over 3,200 feet long. In comparison the new double-track between 300 and 500 East is 1,500 feet long. So we're probably looking at something about $12 million. Perhaps a little more, since there will be a few more traffic signals added in (McClelland and Sugarmont, McClelland and Elm, McClelland and 21st South, and Highland and Sugarmont - 4 total) and some will need to be reconfigured (21st South and Highland, Highland and Wilmington - 2 total).

The point is that this could be done very easily, without any new major innovations - and for about 5x less than what the crazy elevated airport extension will cost.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

The hope would be that it would spur redevelopment in much the same way that the s-line has done in South Salt Lake. There are already some good size condos and apartments in Brickyard and I can see much of that surface parking being redeveloped.

The difference is that the S-line primarily went through back-road areas - behind houses and warehouses, areas that didn't really have anything of note before, and are now seeing grossly underutilized land being developed. This land can be built to be oriented towards the streetcar and to be pedestrian and transit-friendly, because there wasn't much in many of these areas before, and the corridor is fairly tight. It also connected to a neighborhood that was already transit-friendly. Highland Dr. is a busy, car-oriented road, with car-oriented businesses and a fair amount of residential along that stretch, as well.

IF Brickyard is redeveloped into a transit-friendly, lifestyle-like development, then a streetcar could have some merit. However, I wouldn't want a streetcar to go in until after that happens, not before. I don't think it's a situation comparable to the S-Line.

I wouldn't be opposed to brt but I'm not sure that it would spur the kind of development that I would be hoping for. It would need to be a quality brt. Nothing like the garbage Max on 3500 South. I think that line barely qualifies as brt. The new line going in Provo and Orem is a much better example. I suspect that it will do well.

I haven't seen the one in Utah County (and probably won't any time soon), but I agree the MAX on 3500S is poor.

400 S loop?

I'm probably getting my street wrong, but isn't there a proposal to connect the main north/south TRAX line back to the transit hub? It's probably 700S, now that I think about it. Someone correct me!

The line was built with a tiger Grant from the federal government. If I recall correctly, a municipality must pay for at least half of the cost of the project. Salt Lake city, while Becker was mayor, applied for a second Grant to extend the line but it was not chosen to receive a grant that year. They had plans to reapply. Jackie was elected and for whatever reason opted not to reapply. As far as I know she hasn't provided an explanation as to why. Trump wants to discontinue the tiger grant program all together. So this may have been the city's Last Chance in a long time to secure funding through the federal government.

Ahhh ok. That's very unfortunate. Hopefully there will be some way to get the funding without a grant? Maybe we'll actually vote for a sales tax increase to go towards UTA, maybe??

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I'm sort of disappointed no one found the fatal flaw in the 'Route D1" option I like so much. So I'll tell you: That option proposed sending the cars counter-clockwise around the loop, which would have required the cars to go through the center of what is now the monument plaza (there used to be a right-turn lane the streetcars would have commandeered). Seriously, check out the colored-pencil pictures - the car is going through the plaza. Obviously this can't be done now that the plaza has been expanded. And so, I propose to you route D2!


Let me show you its features!

First, instead of going counter-clockwise around the block, the tracks cross over each other so that the cars go clockwise around the blocks, making only right-hand turns. That adds efficiency, but it also will be helpful near the plaza, which I'll get to in a minute. First, since the cars require a turning radius of about 80 feet, the curve north will place the northbound track right up against of the east side of McClelland Street, taking what used to be parallel street parking. This should be in an exclusive lane, with a concrete curb to keep cars out.


Then, when the line gets to Elm avenue, it will need to switch from the east edge of the road to the west edge, in preparation for making the turn onto 21st south. This will require a new traffic signal at the intersection of Elm Avenue and McClelland street:


At this point the cars will be running against traffic on McClelland street - so an exclusive lane is absolutely required. Other streetcar systems operate like this already, notably the Tampa Florida line:


Now comes the plaza! The 80-foot radius curve just barely fits; a new traffic signal will probably be needed here too. On 21st south, the streetcar operates in a shared lane, in mixed traffic. This is the other important reason the cars need to go around the loop clockwise - so that they will be going in the same direction as traffic on 21st South. The stop at the plaza will be just like the buses already on 21st south- the streetcar will stop in the middle of the travel lane to let passengers board/disembark. In fact, it could share the bus stop/shelter that was recently installed there. Then, after stopping at the plaza, it will turn right onto Highland Drive.


At this point, the cars will be going southbound on Highland Drive down a new center median. Highland Drive will need a road diet - down from the 2 car lanes in each direction to a car land and a bike lane in each direction, plus a center median:


Then, all that is left is for the cars to turn right onto the S-Line corridor again. A new signal will be required to get the streetcars out of the center median; this new signal can also be used as a crosswalk for Parley's Trail headed towards Sugarhouse Park:


All in all, this route does not need to take any private property or demolish any buildings, like route D1 required. It fits entirely within the existing roads. It takes half the parallel parking spots off of McClelland Street, it requires a road diet for Highland Drive, and it may add a little more congestion to the bus stop at Monument Plaza, but these are all little things.
The total length for this line is just over 3,200 feet long. In comparison the new double-track between 300 and 500 East is 1,500 feet long. So we're probably looking at something about $12 million. Perhaps a little more, since there will be a few more traffic signals added in (McClelland and Sugarmont, McClelland and Elm, McClelland and 21st South, and Highland and Sugarmont - 4 total) and some will need to be reconfigured (21st South and Highland, Highland and Wilmington - 2 total).

The point is that this could be done very easily, without any new major innovations - and for about 5x less than what the crazy elevated airport extension will cost.

It needs to stay on 21st until 13th, make a right, continue to 3200 s make a left, make another left on highland, and return via Simpson.

If we're not going to go to Brickyard it should still go to 13th and return through either the Sugarhouse shopping center or the new shopko street and then Simpson.

[DCRes]

It sounds like they are considering turning Highway 89 in Davis County into a full interchange freeway.

http://davisclipper.com/view/full_st...es_left_column

“The no build looks at keeping 89 in its existing condition with just routine maintenance,” Romero said. “With that the traffic delays would increase dramatically. The upside is no extra cost and no disruption.”

The one-way frontage road proposal would widen US-89 from four lanes to a six-lane freeway from Shepard Lane to I-84 with parallel one-way frontage roads adjacent to US-89 between Main Street and SR-193, according to UDOT information. It would provide interchanges with exit and entrance ramps at 400 North, Oak Hills Drive, Gordon Avenue and Antelope Drive, with grade separations at Crestwood Road and Nicholls Road.

A traditional freeway concept calls for widening US-89 from four lanes to a six-lane freeway from Shepard Lane to I-84, with the same interchanges and exit/entrance ramps as the one-way option.


Read more: The Davis Clipper - Residents angry over US 89 expansion concepts

[Hatman]

One of the main justifications for the West Davis Corridor is that I-15 needs a back-up in case of... whatever. I get that argument and mostly agree with it. But if they are planning to upgrade US-89 along that stretch to a full limited-access divided highway, it seriously undercuts the need for the WDC. But UDOT's gotta UDOT, so in the end they'll probably get both freeways. Whatever.

On a different note, I was given a glimpse of the first Provo-Orem BRT bus and it's paint scheme. The pictures are not public yet, but from what I saw it is a pretty slick design. There will be no mistaking it for a regular city bus, since it almost entirely gray and white with the traditional UTA red and blue used only as accents. So that's cool. It's also nice to see that the first bus is already built. Only 24 more to go.

[asies1981]

WFRC is gathering public input on how to spend transportation money in the next 6 years.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Hatman

My thoughts as well. Once people see how awesome the Provo-Orem BRT line is, many other lines will come in short order. Highland Drive between the Brickyard and Sugarhouse may not be on the immediate to-do list, but it will happen.

I'm hoping that the Provo line spurs some activism toward speeding up a BRT line for State Street. At least through Downtown SLC to the S-Line area. I've become fixated lately with how State needs rethinking, better sooner than later.

If I could have my dreams for State Street come true, One of those wishes would be that State from the intersection of 1st S. all the way to 800 S. will become Manhattanized. Other wishes are that a skyline will pop up for Murray's portion of State. And finally, that Sandy's portion of State would also become a skyline core. I often like to compare the topography and natural barriers of the Central Los Angeles Basin to Salt Lake County. To me, they are so similar in many ways, that it's freaky. It often occurs to me that Salt Lake County is pursuing the same development trajectory as L.A. before it. If this continues to hold true, we will see my wishes come true for State Street. State Street for Salt Lake County is a future Wilshire Blvd.

[Hatman]

This:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/545327...note-about-uta

[JMK]

Highway officials identify proposed West Davis Corridor route

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=44918702&nid...corridor-route

Federal and state highway officials Thursday released an environmental analysis identifying the route for the proposed 19-mile West Davis Corridor designed to serve commuters in western Davis and Weber counties.

The route from Farmington to West Point would connect with I-15 and Legacy Parkway at Glovers Lane on the south end, and at state Route 37, or 1800 North, at approximately 4000 West on the north end.

The Federal Highway Administration and the Utah Department of Transportation have been working on the final draft environmental impact statement the past seven years, developing and analyzing 51 alternatives that were under review by a study team.

Input from residents, farmers, community and environmental groups, cities, counties, and federal and state resource groups was considered in determining the final route, transportation officials said.

"After years of detailed analysis, collaboration and extensive public outreach, together we've identified a transportation solution that will benefit western Davis and Weber counties for many years to come," said UDOT project manager Randy Jefferies.

The planned corridor includes "dark sky" lighting and noise-reducing pavement, Jefferies said. Lighting would only be placed at on- and off-ramps and be directed downward to the pavement, and the highway would be constructed with its height at the lowest level possible along much of its route to minimize impacts to surrounding communities.

"We are making every attempt to keep the height of the road as low as we can, and by doing so make it less intrusive to communities," Jefferies said.

Transportation officials said the number of households in western Weber and Davis counties is projected to increase by more than 65 percent by 2040, and Davis County is the second-most densely populated county in the state.

They estimate the West Davis Corridor will reduce traffic congestion west of I-15 by 35 percent in the area.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

One of the main justifications for the West Davis Corridor is that I-15 needs a back-up in case of... whatever. I get that argument and mostly agree with it. But if they are planning to upgrade US-89 along that stretch to a full limited-access divided highway, it seriously undercuts the need for the WDC. But UDOT's gotta UDOT, so in the end they'll probably get both freeways. Whatever.

Modeling takes into account long-planned upgrades to US-89.

To be fair, this isn't the 1960s where engineers just randomly drew marker on maps and demolished houses a week later. This is a seven-year process that has been well scrutinized by environmental and local groups. There's no way UDOT would get away with trickery like you describe.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Idea

Export our sprawl with a new high speed rail to Delta. You know something foreign (200mph?). Try to keep it under an hour if you can. The line would connect Delta, Tooele city, and SLC central. That's it no more stops. It would be roughly 100 miles between Delta and Tooele and another 35 to SLC. Eventually a second phase to connect to St George/Vegas could be built.

There is no way to justify it based on current population but the idea would be to create housing demand beyond the reasonable automobile commute while providing some relief to housing on the wasatch. Delta would become an extension of the CSA without contributing to the inversion and further stressing our roadways. Tooele would grow but I think the drive is already far enough as to disuade people from commuting by car. Otherwise it would probably be growing rapidly now.

Thoughts?

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Idea

Export our sprawl with a new high speed rail to Delta. You know something foreign (200mph?). Try to keep it under an hour if you can. The line would connect Delta, Tooele city, and SLC central. That's it no more stops. It would be roughly 100 miles between Delta and Tooele and another 35 to SLC. Eventually a second phase to connect to St George/Vegas could be built.

There is no way to justify it based on current population but the idea would be to create housing demand beyond the reasonable automobile commute while providing some relief to housing on the wasatch. Delta would become an extension of the CSA without contributing to the inversion and further stressing our roadways. Tooele would grow but I think the drive is already far enough as to disuade people from commuting by car. Otherwise it would probably be growing rapidly now.

Thoughts?

You're kidding, right?

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Idea

Export our sprawl with a new high speed rail to Delta. You know something foreign (200mph?). Try to keep it under an hour if you can. The line would connect Delta, Tooele city, and SLC central. That's it no more stops. It would be roughly 100 miles between Delta and Tooele and another 35 to SLC. Eventually a second phase to connect to St George/Vegas could be built.

There is no way to justify it based on current population but the idea would be to create housing demand beyond the reasonable automobile commute while providing some relief to housing on the wasatch. Delta would become an extension of the CSA without contributing to the inversion and further stressing our roadways. Tooele would grow but I think the drive is already far enough as to disuade people from commuting by car. Otherwise it would probably be growing rapidly now.

Thoughts?

I like the thought but I think an HSR line with the following route would be easier to build:

SL Central Hub, SL Airport, Tooele/Grantsville, and Wendover.

This line could start at 150 mph and be upgraded over time. It would spur growth in Tooele and Grantsville as well as Wendover (East and West). It would also offer a high speed/direct option between the airport and downtown while also doing the same for areas West.

The biggest reason I think this line would happen first is that it could seek and get private investment and advertising from the Wendover casinos.

The total cost for the route shouldn't be all that expensive either considering that most of the route is empty land. Using FrontRunner as an example, the whole route is roughly 90 miles and total cost was approximately $1.2 Billion.

Wendover to SLC is 110 roughly and will need less bridges and stations. Double tracking for 79 mph I figure would be around $2 Billion. Electrifying and running at 110mph would be $3.5 Billion and 150mph would be $5 Billion.

For financing, If it qualifies as a New Starts line, the Feds could cover 80% of the line (up to $4 Billion). Leaving the local share at $1 Billion. Casinos could realistically get financing for 10% ($100 Million). Leaving $900 Million for local funding.

The local funding could be split with 40% of the local funds coming from UTA for a Frontrunner/Trax line to downtown Tooele. Sharing the same ROW and having construction at the same time will reduce the cost of the line immensely. I do think Trax would work better here than FrontRunner as they could extend the Airport line with stops at the International Center, Inland Port, Salt Air, Lake Point and a couple in Tooele.

50% from the State/UDoT. ROW costs from UDoT and the State covering the rest via a pollution mitigation fund or something similar. Even developers may pay for a portion of this part as part of their impact fees.

The remaining 10% of local costs could split between SL City, SL County to bring the line from the Airport to SL Central or they could use the funds to build a better combined station at the airport. If they wanted to go with the extension to SL Central I think the costs would get to high as it would end up either elevated, submerged or a combination of the 2 between the 2 points. With Trax already linking the 2 points, until a line going South to Vegas/St. George is started, I don't think the costs could be justified easily. Maybe add it a couple years later or as part of the Southern extension.

This Routing also allows for a spur going South from the Tooele/Grantsville station area down to Delta that would meet with the SLC to Vegas line.

The work at SL Central would need to support at least 8 HSR tracks. 2 for the Western link (Wendover sooner but San Francisco eventually), 2 for Boise (Portland/Seattle) 2 for Denver and points East and the last 2 for St. George/Las Vegas (L.A. and Phoenix).

Because of the space needed for the lines, I am not sure SL Central would work unless it was handled via a mixture of elevated and submerged tracks all within a grand station. It would need to be big because of the traffic it would handle. FrontRunner, Trax and eventually 4 HSR lines.

This is my long term dream but I do think a short term goal of a line from SLC International to Wendover with a Trax extension is possible in the next 20 years or less if the political push was started in the State Legislature / Governors office.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Makid

I like the thought but I think an HSR line with the following route would be easier to build:

SL Central Hub, SL Airport, Tooele/Grantsville, and Wendover.

This line could start at 150 mph and be upgraded over time. It would spur growth in Tooele and Grantsville as well as Wendover (East and West). It would also offer a high speed/direct option between the airport and downtown while also doing the same for areas West.

The biggest reason I think this line would happen first is that it could seek and get private investment and advertising from the Wendover casinos.

The total cost for the route shouldn't be all that expensive either considering that most of the route is empty land. Using FrontRunner as an example, the whole route is roughly 90 miles and total cost was approximately $1.2 Billion.

Wendover to SLC is 110 roughly and will need less bridges and stations. Double tracking for 79 mph I figure would be around $2 Billion. Electrifying and running at 110mph would be $3.5 Billion and 150mph would be $5 Billion.

For financing, If it qualifies as a New Starts line, the Feds could cover 80% of the line (up to $4 Billion). Leaving the local share at $1 Billion. Casinos could realistically get financing for 10% ($100 Million). Leaving $900 Million for local funding.

The local funding could be split with 40% of the local funds coming from UTA for a Frontrunner/Trax line to downtown Tooele. Sharing the same ROW and having construction at the same time will reduce the cost of the line immensely. I do think Trax would work better here than FrontRunner as they could extend the Airport line with stops at the International Center, Inland Port, Salt Air, Lake Point and a couple in Tooele.

50% from the State/UDoT. ROW costs from UDoT and the State covering the rest via a pollution mitigation fund or something similar. Even developers may pay for a portion of this part as part of their impact fees.

The remaining 10% of local costs could split between SL City, SL County to bring the line from the Airport to SL Central or they could use the funds to build a better combined station at the airport. If they wanted to go with the extension to SL Central I think the costs would get to high as it would end up either elevated, submerged or a combination of the 2 between the 2 points. With Trax already linking the 2 points, until a line going South to Vegas/St. George is started, I don't think the costs could be justified easily. Maybe add it a couple years later or as part of the Southern extension.

This Routing also allows for a spur going South from the Tooele/Grantsville station area down to Delta that would meet with the SLC to Vegas line.

The work at SL Central would need to support at least 8 HSR tracks. 2 for the Western link (Wendover sooner but San Francisco eventually), 2 for Boise (Portland/Seattle) 2 for Denver and points East and the last 2 for St. George/Las Vegas (L.A. and Phoenix).

Because of the space needed for the lines, I am not sure SL Central would work unless it was handled via a mixture of elevated and submerged tracks all within a grand station. It would need to be big because of the traffic it would handle. FrontRunner, Trax and eventually 4 HSR lines.

This is my long term dream but I do think a short term goal of a line from SLC International to Wendover with a Trax extension is possible in the next 20 years or less if the political push was started in the State Legislature / Governors office.

I was looking for somewhere between 100 and 150 miles because at this distance the automobile wouldn't be able to compete in terms of convenience or cost. I also wanted to avoid many stops and already developed areas as much as possible in between. Each stop requires a cycle of slow down, stop, board, depart, get away from possibly conflicts, return to travel speed. As you add stations in between our 100 miles you begin to degrade the usability of the line from end to end. Further the distances in between stations become more reasonable for the automobile at the distance between them decreases. I think you run the risk of spurring development that is a continuation of the metro rather than an auxiliary tied in by rail. You would get a new arm of the Wasatch Front that would continue the same develop patterns that are heavy on highways rather than something new. The idea is to connect hubs.

I like the idea of a stop at the inland port but not more than that and I think you still want to get to SLcentral without a transfer. Trax between the inland port and the airport should be done even if no new line to Tooele were done imo.

My first thought was Wendover but let me explain why I like Delta as a future population hub and America's fastest growing city. Wendover is kinda a dead end. I was envisioning something that would be dual use. Something that would not only get you from state to state but that could be used for commuters along the way. Reno is too far but Delta, St George, Vegas(and on toward LA) would put us under that 150 mile mark between stops. It would also be positioned well for an eventual east line to Grand Junction and on toward Denver. Water. Delta has it but Wendover does not. An aerial view says it all. Converting alfalfa into a population center is more reasonable than an uniriagated desert.

The more I think about this the more I like it. It would attract jobs as well as people looking for a lower cost of living. It would convert a good deal of our sprawl from communities that service and support the edges of the metro to ones that are intimately tied to its center. I think it would improve our suburbs and our CBD simultaneously. The Metro could grow extremely rapidly as it basically added a shit ton of new land. Importantly nowhere along the line is the car a reasonable alternative. Park and ride but noone would choose the Highway. Honestly I would rather live in Delta and commute by that rail than live in Herriman and commute by car and I think it would be just as if not more convenient than an intra county commute on the FrontRunner.

[bob rulz]

A high speed rail line to be Wendover wouldn't pay for itself in 100 years.

A high speed rail line to Delta would not get people to want to move there.

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

A high speed rail line to be Wendover wouldn't pay for itself in 100 years.

A high speed rail line to Delta would not get people to want to move there.

I agree... HSR isn't going to work to create new population centers out of thin air. HSR is meant to link existing population centers with already high amounts of travel in between, and be another option for those travelers. Think LA to Vegas. San Diego to LA. Etc. But since no HSR exists in the US, the costs are astronomical. It works in China and Japan and Europe where they've been doing it for decades, already have a preference of mass transit over cars, or have communist governments that can take and demolish property on a whim.

Even in liberal CA, HSR is going to fail. The environmentalists that oppose cars and highways are now opposing HSR in many areas. Americans aren't going to give up their cars ever, we don't have the history of mass transit behind us, or the infrastructure in place in cities, to make cars unnecessary. Plus, SLC has no "partner" city that would make sense for HSR. San Diego to LA makes sense. LA to Vegas. SF to Sacramento. Seattle to Portland. SLC to Vegas isn't really a business route. SLC to Denver would make more sense but the terrain would be impossible for HSR. Boise and Reno too small.

It's a nice idea, but not going to work, until other bigger cities successfully implement HSR and show that it can make money or pay for itself, be something people actually use, and construction costs come way way down.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

I agree... HSR isn't going to work to create new population centers out of thin air. HSR is meant to link existing population centers with already high amounts of travel in between, and be another option for those travelers. Think LA to Vegas. San Diego to LA. Etc. But since no HSR exists in the US, the costs are astronomical. It works in China and Japan and Europe where they've been doing it for decades, already have a preference of mass transit over cars, or have communist governments that can take and demolish property on a whim.

Even in liberal CA, HSR is going to fail. The environmentalists that oppose cars and highways are now opposing HSR in many areas. Americans aren't going to give up their cars ever, we don't have the history of mass transit behind us, or the infrastructure in place in cities, to make cars unnecessary. Plus, SLC has no "partner" city that would make sense for HSR. San Diego to LA makes sense. LA to Vegas. SF to Sacramento. Seattle to Portland. SLC to Vegas isn't really a business route. SLC to Denver would make more sense but the terrain would be impossible for HSR. Boise and Reno too small.

It's a nice idea, but not going to work, until other bigger cities successfully implement HSR and show that it can make money or pay for itself, be something people actually use, and construction costs come way way down.

I disagree with this sentiment. It is infrastructure that creates cities out of nothing. Whether we're talking about the railroads, Dams, or modern highways development has always chased infrastructure in this country. We have used Rail and highways to connect open land to cities and that's where Suburban America came from. There is a segment of the population that's willing to give up on American suburbanism but if we're being realistic most won't, especially here. So how can we be creative so that we can have our cake and eat it too?

We are going to add half a million or more people to the Wasatch Front in the next ten years. That's roughly another Utah county. That's gunna eat up the land that's left. Yes we can densify, and we will to some degree but many will still want the big house with a big yard. Housing prices will continue to climb particularly for single family homes. The Metro could continue to stretch via highway but that will have serious consequences including hollowing out the core and degraded quality of life.

I think most residents are still underestimating our growth and the consequences it will have.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

The Metro could continue to stretch via highway but that will have serious consequences including hollowing out the core and degraded quality of life.

The key is preventing a jobs/housing imbalance. Part of why traffic is so bad in Southern California is because so many cities want to be "bedroom communities" with NO industrial or even office space. Add in the better weather near the coast, and they end up with all the offices being located in Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Irvine -- while all the residents drive from the San Fernando Valley, Riverside, and the inland empire.



Here in Utah, I think we have a better shot of seeing new employment centers grow *with* the new housing. As a result, commutes can still be workable as people need only travel 5ish miles to work -- even if they live in a far-flung new community. Employment downtown, near the airport, Sandy, Lehi, Orem, Provo, etc. The inbound/outbound imbalance of traffic is changing as people travel both north **and** south on I-15 in the morning. That's good.

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I disagree with this sentiment. It is infrastructure that creates cities out of nothing. Whether we're talking about the railroads, Dams, or modern highways development has always chased infrastructure in this country. We have used Rail and highways to connect open land to cities and that's where Suburban America came from. There is a segment of the population that's willing to give up on American suburbanism but if we're being realistic most won't, especially here. So how can we be creative so that we can have our cake and eat it too?

We are going to add half a million or more people to the Wasatch Front in the next ten years. That's roughly another Utah county. That's gunna eat up the land that's left. Yes we can densify, and we will to some degree but many will still want the big house with a big yard. Housing prices will continue to climb particularly for single family homes. The Metro could continue to stretch via highway but that will have serious consequences including hollowing out the core and degraded quality of life.

I think most residents are still underestimating our growth and the consequences it will have.

To a point yes, but railroads weren't just built in a direction with nothing at the end of it. Railroads were still built to connect population centers. New cities would pop up along the routes of the railroad because that made sense. But major cities came long before the railroad. Same with the highway system, major cities were already developed and the highways were created to connect them. Development of new "bedroom communities" will always come before the infrastructure is largely in place, as the infrastructure requires additional tax dollars to fund. Its always infrastructure that's playing catch up to housing. Unless you find some master-planned large city where everything is built at once or in planned phases, with an ultimate goal in mind, transit will always be behind development. People don't want their tax dollars spent on infrastructure projects in the middle of nowhere, in the hopes that eventually people will want to move there, businesses will relocate, and that infrastructure spending will be justified some day.