HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7741  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 11:47 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 19,318
Top Ten UDOT Projects For 2018


New lanes for I-15 'Technology Corridor' tops UDOT project list for 2018


By Lisa Riley Roche - Deseret News, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-for-2018.html

The Utah Department of Transportation will widen I-15 to six lanes in both directions between state Route 92 and Main Street in Lehi.
The $450 million project will start this spring and will wrap up in late 2020.



https://media.deseretdigital.com/

SALT LAKE CITY — The stretch of I-15 now being called the state's "Technology Corridor" ranks No. 1 on the Utah Department of Transportation's Top 10 list of construction projects for 2018...

...The I-15 project is key to developing Utah's Silicon Slopes technology corridor that includes 700 acres at Point of the Mountain that will be freed up after the Utah State Prison moves to a site near the Salt Lake City International Airport in 2020.


The other nine projects on the list released Monday are, in order of their rankings:

• Adding a new southbound lane on I-15 from 2100 South to 12300 South, redesigning some of the southbound ramps at the 1-15 and I-215 interchange and widening 7200 South to three lanes from I-15 to Bingham Junction Boulevard in Midvale. Work on the $180 million project is also scheduled to begin this spring and expected to be completed in late 2019.

• Reconstructing I-215 in Davis County from the I-15 interchange in North Salt Lake to 2100 North and building a new diverging diamond interchange at Redwood Road and I-215. The $40 million project has been underway since February and will continue through the end of the year.

• Replacing three bridges on I-80 in Tooele County near the state Route 36 interchange: eastbound and westbound I-80 over the railroad tracks and the S.R. 36 ramp bridge. The $30 million in bridge work will begin in late spring and should be done in the summer of 2019.

• Widening Bluff Street in St. George from 100 South to Sunset Boulevard by adding a lane in each direction and turn lanes at several intersections. The yearlong, $51 million project started in January.

• Adding a new westbound lane for trucks on I-80 from Jeremy Ranch to Parleys Summit, and a new wildlife crossing at the summit, repaving I-80 from Lambs Canyon to Kimball Junction. Work on the $30 million project started Monday and is expected to be finished by the end of the year.

• Extending Mountain View Corridor in Utah County from the Redwood Road and 2100 North intersection to state Route 73. The $41 million project is set to start this spring and should be done next year.

• Converting four intersections on Bangerter Highway into freeway-style interchanges, at 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South and 11400 South. The $201 million project is underway and due to be completed by the end of the year.

• Reconstructing state Route 9, the gateway to Zion National Park, through Springdale. The old pavement is already being removed and replaced with new asphalt, and pedestrian and bike improvements are being made. The $19 million project should be done before the peak visitor season begins later this month.

• Finishing the widening and reconstruction of state Route 108 in Syracuse from Antelope Drive to 300 North in Davis County. The $52 million project started a year ago and should be completed this fall.

There are a total of 188 UDOT construction projects scheduled across the state this year, adding up to $1.46 billion. They range from sidewalk and street installations to the major projects on the list.



.

Last edited by delts145; Apr 5, 2018 at 11:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7742  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 1:09 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,450
Seeing another lane added to I-15 through Salt Lake County makes me more eager than ever to see that transit funding coming from the same pool of money as road funding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7743  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 2:49 AM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob rulz View Post
Seeing another lane added to I-15 through Salt Lake County makes me more eager than ever to see that transit funding coming from the same pool of money as road funding.
The cost of the lane I think is actually less than it will be. They have it listed as $180 Million but they will need to update bridges along the was including another reconfiguration of the I-15/215 South interchange and moving rail lines over 70th South (widening it as well).

I would rather they spend the money on free transit. This is more than 6 years of free transit in just the quoted cost. If they are worried about just some costs, they could make FrontRunner free for less than $5 Million a year. The other money could go to parking structures to accommodate the additional riders.

With the extension length, it could be handled with transit being free and some upgrades to bus routes. Maybe even some new direct bus routes.

I know that the project came about before the funds were allowed to be used for Transit but I think in this case more than many others, the case should be made that transit is a better option for the funds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7744  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 3:29 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
Correct me if I am wrong, but I've heard this new lane on I-15 in Salt Lake County does not involve widening the road in most locations, but instead narrows the existing lanes and shoulders to use the existing road in a more economical way.

If this is the case I think it will be an interesting experiment. 11' freeway lanes and narrower shoulders would keep people from breaking the speed limit so badly, and might cause people to subconsciously drive safer.
Make no mistake, I wish this money had been used on transit instead of freeway capacity, but since it has already been allocated, I'm interested to see what the unwashed masses of motorists make of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7745  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 5:44 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
I just saw this on Electrek, and I think it belongs here:

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7746  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 7:22 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
I just saw this on Electrek, and I think it belongs here:
I love Proterra's but I always wondered about elevation changes?

Also love their maintenance.

Video Link
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7747  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2018, 11:24 PM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Exit 298
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Valley / Los Angeles
Posts: 3,331
I'm not opposed to the $180m "lane gain" on I-15... however...

They are really running out of right of way, now. I think that's about it. Other than the collector system between 90th and I-215, there really aren't many more capacity projects that can be added to SLCo I-15 north of Bangerter. Perhaps carpool connectors between I-15 and other freeways when those freeways add carpool lanes.

The bigger question for me is, what is the price tag on double-tracking Frontrunner to 100%? Allowing 15 minute service during rush hour would be a big boost to ridership and help address some of the north-south capacity need. Heaven knows I looooooove driving on I-15, but I also looooooove riding Frontrunner. I just don't like the 30-minute headways.
__________________
Celebrating 20 years on SkyscraperPage
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7748  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2018, 12:17 AM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
The price tag is... a lot.

UTA's network study, back from 2013, estimated thus:

Quote:
Capital costs for double-tracking are about $10 million per mile and $12 million
per track mile for electrification.
http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/Final...y_9Oct2013.pdf

I trust these numbers as much as I trust that changing the name from UTA to TDU would cost $50 million.

Here is another source that puts the price of electrification at just under $5 million per track mile. To get the cost of a second track, I think we ought to use the cost of the previous two FrontRunner segments. Each was about 40-ish miles long and cost about $600 million to build. FrontRunner is currently 83 miles long from Provo to Ogden, and let's say that a quarter of that already has the second track in place. Three quarters of 83 is 62.25, which is definitely more than the 40-ish miles of the two FrontRunner segments, but remember that those two segments also included building the stations and buying the trains needed for those segments. Building the second track will involve building something like 20+ major bridges, and this time it will be done next to an active commuter line rather than a freight line with much lower traffic. So in the end let's just call it a wash and estimate $600 million to double-track.

For electrification, we would need to electrify 83*2= 166 miles, plus the Warm Springs yard, which has maybe another mile or two in it. Multiply this number by $5 million and we get $840 million dollars.

Now we also need to buy electric trains! FrontRunner currently uses 9 trains to handle 30-minute headways. To run at double that frequency, we need to double the number of trains to 18. UTA also keeps two complete trains on standby, so let's buy 20 high-speed EMU's from Stadler. Why Stadler? Because they're here in Utah, and they're building 16 very similar trains for Caltrain in San Francisco. For this, Caltrain is paying $551 million.

(This deal is only for 16 trains, but each train will have 6 cars, for a total of 96 cars. If we have 20 trains with 5 cars each, that is a total of 100 cars, which is about the same, so I feel perfectly fine in quoting the Caltrain cost for Utah.)

So, let's add all this up: $600 million for double-tracking + $840 million for electrifying + $550 million for new trains = $1.99 Billion.



So yeah, there is no way UTA is going to be able to pay for that on its own. But that is not an impossible price for the state government to pay, especially if the alternative is double-decking I-15. Udot has spent this kind of money before and so far the world hasn't ended.
For this price, you will get a train that comes every 15 minutes (or perhaps as often as every 5-10 during rush hours!), travels up to 110 mph, is quiet and zero-emissions, and which is never delayed by needing to pull into sidings to allow other trains to pass. Ridership on FrontRunner is now about 18k per day; make these changes and I'd be surprised with anything less than 40k per day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7749  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2018, 10:56 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 19,318
Utah, Salt Lake counties weighing whether to breathe new life into failed transportation tax hike

SALT LAKE CITY — More than two years ago, voters in Utah's two most populous counties rejected Proposition 1, the sales tax hike that would have brought in tens of millions for transportation projects. But now, county leaders can bring it back from the dead.

That's thanks to one of the many provisions included in the sweeping transportation bill passed by the Utah Legislature this year, which includes restructuring and renaming the Utah Transit Authority, among other changes.



FILE - A TRAX train carries passengers on Main Street in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018. Ravell Call, Deseret News


The new law gives leaders in both Utah County and Salt Lake County the power to revive Proposition 1 — either by implementing the tax increase, which would raise taxes by roughly one penny for every $4 spent — through a vote from their legislative bodies, or by placing the proposed tax increase on another ballot.

Now faced with the decision to take one of those options — or do nothing — while also dealing with underfunded needs for roads and transit, leaders in both counties aren't sure what they'll do, but they plan to have the discussion over the next few weeks before the bill takes effect in May.

Because that's when the clock starts ticking.

Included in the bill is an incentive for counties to act sooner rather than later, because if the tax is implemented before June 30, 2019, counties would be able to capture 100 percent of the revenue up until that date. Afterward, the funds will be split as if the change had been passed under Proposition 1: 40 percent to UTA, 40 percent to cities and 20 percent to counties. The sales tax option has an expiration date of June 2022.

On top of that, counties wouldn't be able to implement a new 0.2 percent sales tax increase option provided in the 2018 transportation bill, which would raise at least $30 million in Salt Lake County for transit projects, until they're collecting all four of the quarter-cent increases for transportation already allowed. That option has an expiration date, too: June 2023...

.

Last edited by delts145; Apr 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7750  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2018, 3:53 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,000
I think it has been noted before but I will bring it up again. The revenue generated by the Prop 1 sales tax would be HUGE for SL County. From the Article: When Proposition 1 failed in Salt Lake County by a narrow margin — 51 percent to 49 percent — voters decided to pass on the state's largest pot of sales tax dollars: nearly $58 million. When it failed in Utah County, 59 percent to 40 percent, voters passed on more than $18 million.

Quote:
On top of that, counties wouldn't be able to implement a new 0.2 percent sales tax increase option provided in the 2018 transportation bill, which would raise at least $30 million in Salt Lake County for transit projects, until they're collecting all four of the quarter-cent increases for transportation already allowed. That option has an expiration date, too: June 2023.
If both taxes are passed, SL County would be collecting around $90 Million in additional sales taxes for Transit yearly.

Without any state funds, the increase would allow for Free Transit across the Wasatch Front, greatly improve bus service levels while also building BRT and StreetCar lines, Trax extensions and additional double tracking for FrontRunner.

On the FrontRunner upgrades, with the work needing to be done to completely double track and electrify the line, Hatman is right about there with the $2 Billion estimate.

The original work for FrontRunner would allow trains to run over 90 MPH. I did hear that when work was done to do a full double track of the route, additional work could be done to allow trains to reach 110 mph for an additional $500 Million.

If this information is still true, I think it would be worth the cost for the State to assist with upgrading FrontRunner. Having a fully double tracked, electrified, 110mph commuter rail train running every 15 minutes throughout the day would put FrontRunner in a league not seen outside of the NE Corridor. Even there, I don't know if they run at 15 minute intervals throughout the day.

Last edited by Makid; Apr 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7751  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2018, 6:33 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
Change day will happen this weekend. FrontRunner is having its schedule slowed down due to Positive Train Control implementation. (A second track sure would be nice to have right about now...)
Old Schedule:
https://www.rideuta.com/-/media/File...017.ashx?la=en

New Schedule:
https://www.rideuta.com/-/media/File...18x.ashx?la=en

The total trip time from Provo to Ogden is now 2 hours and 7 minutes, or just five minutes longer than before. The trains will leave 3 minutes earlier from Provo and arrive in Ogden 2 minutes later, and North Temple station remains the same.

This means that a second track would now eliminate about 25 minutes from the total end-to-end run time. Electrification would cut out another 20-ish minutes. It would therefore take about an hour and 20 minutes to go end-to-end, meaning that if we use the 15-minute frequency, UTA could get away with using 12 trains instead of 18. A train every 10 minutes would require 16 trains (technically 14, but I'm adding in two more so that there's time to turn the trains around).



All new change-day schedules are here:
https://www.rideuta.com/Rider-Info/A...018-Change-Day
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7752  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 7:00 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
More thoughts on the new FrontRunner schedule. While I'm not happy about the trip-time being longer, I am very happy that UTA added more frequency to the schedule - Half-hour service extends an our longer in the morning and starts an hour earlier in the evening. We're one step closer to have 30-minute service all day long, which is a step towards even more frequent service. It is, after all, easier to justify spending many millions of dollars upgrading FrontRunner when it can be said 'we cannot add any more trains to the schedule - we are at capacity!'
I also like that they have a special 'Friday Night' schedule, showing all the trains returning to Salt Lake Central from Ogden and Provo. I'm not sure if these trains were open for passengers before, but clearly they are now and hopefully they can pick up a few more riders and make those moves semi-useful instead of being a deadhead move.

So I say two steps forward, one step back.

Also, I looked into the cost of Stadler EMU's, and I found that Caltrain is paying such a high price ($5.7 million per car) for their trains for several reasons:
1) The price includes a portion of the cost of the assembly plant here in Salt Lake City. Thanks, California! Stadler and Caltrain have an agreement for an additional 96 cars, which would not include the cost of an assembly building. This deal is for $345 million (per the article previous linked), which comes out to a much more reasonable $3.6 million per car.

2) The Stadler cars will have four doors per side, two being for high platforms and two being for low platforms. This is because of the California High Speed Rail project, which will share the tracks and stations with Caltrain, and will require high-platforms. Caltrain currently uses low-platforms with steps up into the train. While the transition is happening, both sets of doors - high and low - will be in use, which will also require the use of a wheel-chair lift inside each car, which adds to the price of the cars as a whole. To read more about Caltrain's woes, follow this link:
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/200...V5q2DPfw7nfrNQ
I find this stuff fascinating.

These two points make me think that UTA could probably purchase their fleet of Stadler cars for about $3 million per car, which would make the deal much more palatable. For reference, each UTA Bombardier car costs about $2.2 million each. If UTA wanted 4 cars per train (so as not to need to lengthen any platforms) and were to purchase 20 trainsets (to allow 10 minute service with 2 sets as spares), that would cost 20*4*$3 million = $240 million, which is less than half of what I estimated before. And that surely wold make a difference.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7753  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2018, 3:50 PM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-215 View Post
I'm not opposed to the $180m "lane gain" on I-15... however...

They are really running out of right of way, now. I think that's about it. Other than the collector system between 90th and I-215, there really aren't many more capacity projects that can be added to SLCo I-15 north of Bangerter. Perhaps carpool connectors between I-15 and other freeways when those freeways add carpool lanes.

The bigger question for me is, what is the price tag on double-tracking Frontrunner to 100%? Allowing 15 minute service during rush hour would be a big boost to ridership and help address some of the north-south capacity need. Heaven knows I looooooove driving on I-15, but I also looooooove riding Frontrunner. I just don't like the 30-minute headways.

FrontRunner does need to be double tracked and so does the HOV lane. The HOV lane as it stands is not a significant enough incentive to carpool. If we want to change behavior we have to create that incentive. Yes it may choke single occupant vehicles a bit more but right now they are choking everything including the HOV lane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7754  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2018, 4:11 PM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
More thoughts on the new FrontRunner schedule. While I'm not happy about the trip-time being longer, I am very happy that UTA added more frequency to the schedule - Half-hour service extends an our longer in the morning and starts an hour earlier in the evening. We're one step closer to have 30-minute service all day long, which is a step towards even more frequent service. It is, after all, easier to justify spending many millions of dollars upgrading FrontRunner when it can be said 'we cannot add any more trains to the schedule - we are at capacity!'
I also like that they have a special 'Friday Night' schedule, showing all the trains returning to Salt Lake Central from Ogden and Provo. I'm not sure if these trains were open for passengers before, but clearly they are now and hopefully they can pick up a few more riders and make those moves semi-useful instead of being a deadhead move.

So I say two steps forward, one step back.

Also, I looked into the cost of Stadler EMU's, and I found that Caltrain is paying such a high price ($5.7 million per car) for their trains for several reasons:
1) The price includes a portion of the cost of the assembly plant here in Salt Lake City. Thanks, California! Stadler and Caltrain have an agreement for an additional 96 cars, which would not include the cost of an assembly building. This deal is for $345 million (per the article previous linked), which comes out to a much more reasonable $3.6 million per car.

2) The Stadler cars will have four doors per side, two being for high platforms and two being for low platforms. This is because of the California High Speed Rail project, which will share the tracks and stations with Caltrain, and will require high-platforms. Caltrain currently uses low-platforms with steps up into the train. While the transition is happening, both sets of doors - high and low - will be in use, which will also require the use of a wheel-chair lift inside each car, which adds to the price of the cars as a whole. To read more about Caltrain's woes, follow this link:
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/200...V5q2DPfw7nfrNQ
I find this stuff fascinating.

These two points make me think that UTA could probably purchase their fleet of Stadler cars for about $3 million per car, which would make the deal much more palatable. For reference, each UTA Bombardier car costs about $2.2 million each. If UTA wanted 4 cars per train (so as not to need to lengthen any platforms) and were to purchase 20 trainsets (to allow 10 minute service with 2 sets as spares), that would cost 20*4*$3 million = $240 million, which is less than half of what I estimated before. And that surely wold make a difference.

What could UTA get for their lightly used trains?

2 "Under this operational concept, a local and an express show up simultaneously, on opposite sides of the same platform, and exchange passengers. In effect, the express overtakes the slower local at the platform, rather than somewhere between stations, allowing passengers to switch conveniently from one to the other."

I like this "train"(haha) of thought. FrontRunner could become 2 services: an express (Provo,Lehi,SLC, Farmington, Ogden) and a local with more stops than we currently have. Thoughts?

Last edited by Liberty Wellsian; Apr 14, 2018 at 4:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7755  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2018, 3:51 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
What could UTA get for their lightly used trains?
The trouble is that FrontRunner trains are not really that 'lightly used,' as you put it. Compared to most commuter train equipment that go on 2-4 runs per day, UTA runs its equipment all day long, at least double what other operators do. I'm guessing, since most of that stuff new costs about $2 per car, UTA could get maybe half that per unit. $1 million each would give UTA about $50 million if they should ever decide they want to completely purge their current FrontRunner fleet.

I'm in favor of UTA holding onto their equipment so that they could build out the line to Brigham City and Logan much faster (and cheaper). Electric trains could run on double-tracks between Provo and Ogden, and diesel trains could run on single-track with sidings between Ogden and Logan until another enough funding comes through to upgrade that section; as with the current FrontRunner line, the most important thing is to get a section running so that people begin to love it and rely on it and want to improve it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
I like this "train"(haha) of thought. FrontRunner could become 2 services: an express (Provo,Lehi,SLC, Farmington, Ogden) and a local with more stops than we currently have. Thoughts?
Express trains are neat, but less of a priority than making the whole system run well. A train between 3 cities has the potential to be useful to only three types of riders (Between A and B, B and C, and C and A) whereas a system between 10 stations has the potential to be useful to 45 types of riders (the formula is pretty nasty:N!/(2!*(N-2)!)... in case you were wondering...). So unless there is a disproportionate amount of people going between certain station pairs, express trains are not necessary, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7756  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2018, 9:13 PM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Exit 298
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Valley / Los Angeles
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
FrontRunner does need to be double tracked and so does the HOV lane. The HOV lane as it stands is not a significant enough incentive to carpool. If we want to change behavior we have to create that incentive. Yes it may choke single occupant vehicles a bit more but right now they are choking everything including the HOV lane.
FHWA won't allow a general purpose lane be "stolen" for a carpool lane, so a new lane will need to be added. (In fact, an underused HOV lane must be converted back to a general-purpose lane, hence the effort to allow tolled drivers in the lane).

The proposal I saw was to remove the inside shoulder and stripe it as a traversable HOT lane. There are drains in that lane, so electronic "X" marks above the lane would close the lane during rainstorms (similar to the "X" marks above the reversible lanes on 5400 South). For now, the idea is just something UDOT and consulting firms were batting back and forth, but it's possible that it may materialize in coming years.
__________________
Celebrating 20 years on SkyscraperPage
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7757  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2018, 11:34 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 19,318
Salt Lake County Council eyeing sales tax option to bring Prop 1 tax hike back from the dead


ByKatie McKellar@KatieMcKellar1 - Published: April 17, 2018 8:58 pm - The Deseret News - https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-the-dead.html


SALT LAKE CITY — Faced with the opportunity to collect 100 percent of its revenue until June 2019, Salt Lake County leaders are eying their chance to revive the failed sales tax hike that would have captured about $58 million in new revenue for transportation projects had voters approved in 2015.

The Salt Lake County Council on Tuesday was briefed on the new tax opportunities provided to counties in the sweeping transportation bill passed by the Utah Legislature this year, and council members expressed interest in seeking feedback from cities and members of the public on how they should act.

The new law, along with many other provisions, gives leaders in counties that didn't pass Proposition 1 in 2015 the power to bring back the sales tax increase — which would raise taxes by roughly one penny for every $4 spent — either by implementing it through a vote from their legislative bodies or by placing it back on another ballot...



Ravell Call, Deseret News
FILE - TRAX trains carry passengers through Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018.

.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7758  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2018, 4:23 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,450
The latest proposal for the SLC tax increase that the city council will vote on soon will scale back the number of new police officers and put more towards improved bus service. This is great news! I always thought 50 new police officers was unnecessary. I hope that the council sees the good that will come from this, and won't follow Charlie Luke's fears.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...etter-transit/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7759  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2018, 2:16 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob rulz View Post
The latest proposal for the SLC tax increase that the city council will vote on soon will scale back the number of new police officers and put more towards improved bus service. This is great news! I always thought 50 new police officers was unnecessary. I hope that the council sees the good that will come from this, and won't follow Charlie Luke's fears.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...etter-transit/
I like that they would be exceeding the levels of the Transit Master Plan. I just hope they have an idea for possible routes in the NWQ.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7760  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2018, 6:50 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
Speaking of buses, I saw a MAX bus running the 205 route today on 5th East. I didn't have time to open my camera app, so you'll just have to trust my eagle eyes. Something is clearly going wrong with that service. I'm pretty sure it isn't permanent, but I wonder how long it will last.

With more funding, more MAX-type services would be awesome.
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 4:27 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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