Salt Lake Transit News Thread - Page 75

urbanboy · #**1481** Posted **Mar 13, 2009, 5:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cololi

utilities can be moved and are required to as part of the nornal construction process anyway.

Even major natural gas and oil pipelines? That could get pretty expensive.

cololi · #**1482** Posted **Mar 13, 2009, 2:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Even major natural gas and oil pipelines? That could get pretty expensive.

Yes. The weight of the trains and the vibration they cause requires all utilities to be relocated. This is why construction of these are so expensive. If they can't be relocated out from under the line, they are buried deep and placed in dampening sleeves to reduce the vibration.

A gas and oil pipeline would be more expensive, but it still has to be protected. along 600 West the pipleine runs perpendicular to the track, so at the point of intersection, it needs to be dropped deeper and protected. If you bring the pipeline closer to surface, the train can go under it. A tunnel would require a minimum of 28 feet clearance for the train and catenary, so it would be deep. The ceiling of the tunnel could be as thick as you need it to be to secure and protect the pipeline.

electricron · #**1483** Posted **Mar 13, 2009, 7:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cololi

Yes. The weight of the trains and the vibration they cause requires all utilities to be relocated. This is why construction of these are so expensive. If they can't be relocated out from under the line, they are buried deep and placed in dampening sleeves to reduce the vibration.

A gas and oil pipeline would be more expensive, but it still has to be protected. along 600 West the pipeline runs perpendicular to the track, so at the point of intersection, it needs to be dropped deeper and protected. If you bring the pipeline closer to surface, the train can go under it. A tunnel would require a minimum of 28 feet clearance for the train and catenary, so it would be deep. The ceiling of the tunnel could be as thick as you need it to be to secure and protect the pipeline.

You've made a valid point, engineering can design many problems away, if you're willing to spend the money. But considering UTA plans to go over, they have already decided it'll cost to much to go under.
One must remain practical in these matters, because economics and politics must also be considered.

arkhitektor · #**1484** Posted **Mar 13, 2009, 9:11 PM**

Mayor Becker was interviewed today by KCPW. You can listen here. He talked a lot about TRAX, streetcars, the N. Temple viaduct, even the debate between ballast and embedded track along the airport TRAX line.

Anyway its well worth listening to. Becker is such a great mayor. He's really pushing things in the right direction.

T-Mac · #**1485** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 2:12 AM**

Great story on KSL regarding the North Temple viaduct and the airport line.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5870032

arkhitektor · #**1486** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 2:41 AM**

So is the North Temple viaduct the official design that will be implemented?
The story made it seem like a done deal that was already under construction, but from everything else I've read, no decision on crossing the freight tracks has been made and there is still discussion about what type of track to use and where to locate stations. How can they be doing construction already if they haven't even finalized the route?

Shortening the viaduct will do a lot to open up that part of downtown:

i-215 · #**1487** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 3:10 AM**

I have really mixed feelings about this. My urbanization side loves it. My impatient driver side hates it.

Urban Vitality vs. One Extra Stop Light.

(Groan) ONE EXTRA STOP LIGHT??? Oh man!

DMTower · #**1488** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 3:50 AM**

why doesn't that AFTER picture above show the viaduct shortened? Isn't that how long it is right now?

...nevermind. Apparently I should have watched the ksl video first. It's the on and off ramps that end at that intersection... the rendering does show it shortened.

arkhitektor · #**1489** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 4:04 AM**

Yeah, here are all of the before/after shots:

i-215 · #**1490** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 4:59 AM**

Maybe I'm just weird, but I like the old viaduct.

DMTower · #**1491** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 5:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

Maybe I'm just weird, but I like the old viaduct.

I completely agree with you... you are weird. jk

SLC Projects · #**1492** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 6:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

It's about time. I've been saying for years that this viaduct should be shorter.

MetroFanatic · #**1493** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 7:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

Maybe I'm just weird, but I like the old viaduct.

I also agree with you.

Future Mayor · #**1494** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 3:41 PM**

I like the shortened viaduct, even though I hope Trax takes the 600 W route. I have always thought that the SL Hardware Building was a beautifully restored building and the shorter viaduct will allow it to be seen. I think 400 W, north or N. Temple could will benefit greatly, simply because there will now be a sight line that doesn't exist with the current viaduct.

DMTower · #**1495** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 4:11 PM**

I think that the Gateway development has done great things for that street and that area of downtown, and the shortened viaduct, with or without Trax, will help that new vibe spread northward and eventually connect with the Marmalade district. I could see that area filling up with lots of nice medium density housing, shops, cafes, parks, pubs, and maybe even some Brownstones. As of right now that mini canyon feel the Gateway has started is chopped off visually and you don't get to see some of the nice architecture that exists just beyond the viaduct.

SLC Projects · #**1496** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMTower

I think that the Gateway development has done great things for that street and that area of downtown, and the shortened viaduct, with or without Trax, will help that new vibe spread northward and eventually connect with the Marmalade district. I could see that area filling up with lots of nice medium density housing, shops, cafes, parks, pubs, and maybe even some Brownstones. As of right now that mini canyon feel the Gateway has started is chopped off visually and you don't get to see some of the nice architecture that exists just beyond the viaduct.

I agree. That area of downtown during these past 10 years or so has improved alot. I can't wait to see all the new developments yet to come after the Trax line gets built.

i-215 · #**1497** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I like the shortened viaduct, even though I hope Trax takes the 600 W route. I have always thought that the SL Hardware Building was a beautifully restored building and the shorter viaduct will allow it to be seen. I think 400 W, north or N. Temple could will benefit greatly, simply because there will now be a sight line that doesn't exist with the current viaduct.

I think the shortened viaduct will be good for the area in the long run.

But there's an odd charm to the old viaduct. It reminds me of big city infrastructure. Sort of like the area underneath Malfunction Junction in L.A., or places I've seen in St. Louis.

John Martin · #**1498** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 4:05 AM**

Yeah, I kind of like the old viaduct. It's just one of those not-so-pretty things that creates an atmosphere that you can easily find beauty in. I wouldn't like a city that was completely new, or that didn't have any "ugly" spots. It just completes the area. However, I don't quite understand why the current viaduct is nearly as tall as it is.. was there previously railroad depot under there that I forgot about? It looks like the tallest part of it at the moment isn't anywhere near the short obstacle.. so I'm glad they're getting a shorter one.. and maybe it can actually be attractive too.

i-215 · #**1499** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 4:39 AM**

I think it had to be tall enough for a double-high freight rail car.

Yeah, I kind of liked the areas "industrial"-feel. But Gateway decided not to play into the vibe, so I can see why it doesn't make sense to keep the old viaduct.

At least we still have 9th South! Haha! Maybe that area can transform into an "industrial"-condo feel.

MetroFanatic · #**1500** Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 2:22 AM**

Mid-Jordan Trax Line Update

Old Bingham Highway is going to be closing on 3-25 to 4-30 so the road can be widened, utilities can be installed, and a whole lot of other stuff for the mid-jordan line.

There is track laid down right now for both rail lines. I'll be sure to take some pictures for everyone as things progress. They might actually start working on the 4800 West stop soon... probably within this closure.