HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7701  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2018, 1:57 AM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
You can have both a park(There already is one, midrise residential would be better) and the off ramp. The land the viaduct is on should be repurposed but there is still plenty of room for a freeway off ramp. The off ramp is already an important pressure release valve and will become important in its own right if the city ever gets off its ass and gets a tech district going centered on the fleet block.

Further 5th and 6th need to become grand boulevards to make the city more friendly. My preference is subgrade lanes that go uninterrupted to the freeway(a boy can dream). If we want to tame the rivers of steel that are 5th and 6th we definitely need another ramp before 13th.

clarification on the subgrade commuter lanes. 5th could have one subgrade lane from about 5th E to state, expand to 2 around state, expand to 3 somewhere after 3rd west. functionally there would be a freeway on ramp at 5th e, state, and 3rd west. The remainder of the row gets a major facelift.
I agree, I have thought about putting sub grade commuter lanes in SLC. In Chicago they have these and they are very convenient. I would like to see one of these on Foothill drive also between I-215 and the UofU.

I think moving the viaduct to 500 W would be a great idea. I like it more than just eliminating the exit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7702  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2018, 3:33 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC14 View Post
I agree, I have thought about putting sub grade commuter lanes in SLC. In Chicago they have these and they are very convenient. I would like to see one of these on Foothill drive also between I-215 and the UofU.

I think moving the viaduct to 500 W would be a great idea. I like it more than just eliminating the exit.
Not only is it convenient it moves traffic "out of" the city. How much would central city property values increase? How much of the cost would be offset by increased property values(thus increased property tax revenue)over 30 years?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7703  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2018, 4:57 AM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
Not only is it convenient it moves traffic "out of" the city. How much would central city property values increase? How much of the cost would be offset by increased property values(thus increased property tax revenue)over 30 years?
I don't think so many streets need to prioritize moving people out of the city. SLC has big wide roads so commuters don't have to be inconvenienced coming and going. By eliminating that off ramp you create a pocket of the city that can develop with a more local focus and not share the road with so many people just using it as a pass through. The roads could then more easily be narrowed and make it easier to create a slower community feel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7704  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2018, 5:07 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 661
deleted

Last edited by Liberty Wellsian; Mar 13, 2018 at 5:09 AM. Reason: delete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7705  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2018, 5:24 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
I don't think so many streets need to prioritize moving people out of the city. SLC has big wide roads so commuters don't have to be inconvenienced coming and going. By eliminating that off ramp you create a pocket of the city that can develop with a more local focus and not share the road with so many people just using it as a pass through. The roads could then more easily be narrowed and make it easier to create a slower community feel.
I get what you are saying but I believe the opposite is true.

The way I see it you can have fewer but larger more dangerous roads or more smaller less dangerous ones. funneling traffic toward fewer roads creates these highways within the city that are destructive to neighborhoods and cut them off from the larger city. It destroys communities.

By eliminating that off ramp you exacerbate traffic on 13th/5th&6th leaving that neighborhood marooned, surrounded by dangerous roadways. That's the Thanksgiving Point model. No thank you

edit: when I said moving traffic "out of" the city I was referring to subgrade commuter Lanes and I meant that it would not br present on the street level, sidewalk level, bike lane level. The traffic to some degree is still there but its presence isn't felt as much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7706  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2018, 4:55 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
I get what you are saying but I believe the opposite is true.

The way I see it you can have fewer but larger more dangerous roads or more smaller less dangerous ones. funneling traffic toward fewer roads creates these highways within the city that are destructive to neighborhoods and cut them off from the larger city. It destroys communities.

By eliminating that off ramp you exacerbate traffic on 13th/5th&6th leaving that neighborhood marooned, surrounded by dangerous roadways. That's the Thanksgiving Point model. No thank you

edit: when I said moving traffic "out of" the city I was referring to subgrade commuter Lanes and I meant that it would not br present on the street level, sidewalk level, bike lane level. The traffic to some degree is still there but its presence isn't felt as much.
I would agree with you if the aim is to do traffic calming on all those streets. I guess my main complaint is the same as you. If we lower the speed limits, narrow the lanes and even reduce lanes, then even adding exits would not bother me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7707  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2018, 5:15 PM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 471
I think the goal is to separate local traffic from commuter traffic. People driving to work and back from the suburbs are not going to stop at the restaurants and shops on their way in and out. They will just clog up the streets and make them unfriendly to local traffic and local traffic will frustrate commuter traffic. By shifting a large portion of commuter traffic underground we can focus on creating a more walk-able and transit friendly city at grade.

Maybe we could leave the east bound I-80 off-ramp exiting at grade so people coming from the airport would have more interaction with the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7708  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 11:47 PM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Traffic Engineer (EIT)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SLC/SoCal
Posts: 3,085
Quote:
This would allow UTA and the cities it serves to experiment with buses stopping in the traffic lanes, which can speed up bus stops significantly. It slows down traffic, which is why pro-car cities choose to make the buses pull over, but if the bus platform is done right, these delays can be minimized.
More to it than that. A stopped bus poses a safety risk, as the speed differential between traffic going 40 miles per hour and a stopped bus is -40 MPH. That's worse than a typical freeway crash.

However, on lower-volume "slow" neighborhood streets, this type of a product may be perfectly appropriate, imo.
__________________
Life is nicer at 70 miles per hour
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7709  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2018, 1:48 AM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,299
New Provo-Orem bus rapid transit now has a name: Utah Valley Express (UVX)

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...y-express-uvx/

Quote:

Name changes are a sore topic at the Utah Transit Authority, soon to become the Transit District of Utah under order of the Legislature. But a UTA committee approved a new name Wednesday for the Provo-Orem Bus Rapid Transit project.

It will be called the Utah Valley Express, or UVX, when it begins service on Aug. 15.

Andrea Packer, UTA communications director, said that was the winner out of more than 350 names submitted for consideration by the public.

Officials from UTA, local governments and the state Department of Transportation narrowed the field to three finalists that were put to a public vote: Utah Valley Express, Timp Runner and Timp Express.

Packer said UVX won 520 of the 950 votes cast. The UTA Board’s Stakeholder and Planning Committee endorsed the winning name on Wednesday, and forwarded it to the full UTA Board for final action.
So we have a name.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7710  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2018, 6:06 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makid View Post
New Provo-Orem bus rapid transit now has a name: Utah Valley Express (UVX)

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...y-express-uvx/



So we have a name.
All they needed was a "W" word and it would have been very alphabetical.
Utah Valley Whiz EXpress

I think UVX is not bad and will grow on me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7711  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2018, 6:13 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,299
I agree. UVX is a good name and one that can be used with possible future expansions (if any are planned).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7712  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2018, 8:33 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,299
Hatman, do you know what the first year average daily ridership is supposed to be for the UVX?

I can't find the information online and was curious. I have heard it would be 20,000 but I just want to make sure.

The main reason is a 20K increase for bus ridership is just under a 33% increase in average daily bus ridership based on the Q3 2017 APTA numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7713  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2018, 10:05 PM
jubguy3's Avatar
jubguy3 jubguy3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 948
It's expected to take ridership from some routes in Utah county, so it won't be an increase of 33%. I also read that it was supposed to have an initial ridership of something like 16k?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7714  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2018, 10:53 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,020
When it was first approved and financed the ridership projection for opening day was closer to 13,000 riders per day. With BYU and UVU giving their students free passes this number is almost certainly going to be exceeded. I've heard various numbers thrown around, even up to 20,000, but at this point nobody I work with really seems to know or care. With the opening date just 5 months away the attitude seems to be 'just get it opened and see what the real ridership is, don't waste any time on projections!'

Also, I think it is absolutely insane that it is going to open in 5 months - the stations aren't even finished yet, and there are whole sections of road that still need to be totally rebuilt. If this were a rail project we'd still be at least a year away from opening. FrontRunner South's first test train ran in June of 2012, but the line didn't open until December. Some of that was due to funding the new service, but most of it was because the line needed to be certified by all the proper regulatory agencies tasked with certifying new rail lines. For BRT, it's just another bus on the street so who cares how long you test it for?
It's just another reason to love BRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7715  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2018, 11:26 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,299
I do like the idea behind let's wait and see how used it is.

I wasn't sure if it would replace any other lines or supplement.

I just hope that ridership is high and that it gets more people thinking about transit and how to incorporate more options, regardless of type, along the Wasatch Front.

I do like that the BRT Line will open in August and love the fact that some of it is still under construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7716  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 9:34 PM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Traffic Engineer (EIT)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SLC/SoCal
Posts: 3,085
I remember hearing one of the heads at MAG tell a group of us that if opening day ridership "is not in the tens of thousands" that he would resign his job.
__________________
Life is nicer at 70 miles per hour
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7717  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 10:56 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-215 View Post
I remember hearing one of the heads at MAG tell a group of us that if opening day ridership "is not in the tens of thousands" that he would resign his job.
This can be taken a few ways. Opening Day for a new line like this generally generates close to 2 times the average daily ridership. So it is possible that the opening day ridership could be close to 40,000. This is because they generally offer free ridership at first to build buzz.

Once revenue service starts we will probably see the real number. With school schedules, with UVU and BYU be on their fall schedules? I am wondering if the students will be counted in the initial opening or if they will be a few weeks away (closer to revenue service).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7718  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 10:28 PM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Traffic Engineer (EIT)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SLC/SoCal
Posts: 3,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makid View Post
Once revenue service starts we will probably see the real number. With school schedules, with UVU and BYU be on their fall schedules? I am wondering if the students will be counted in the initial opening or if they will be a few weeks away (closer to revenue service).
I'm really hopefully this line does well, at least on the dedicated ROW sections.
__________________
Life is nicer at 70 miles per hour
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7719  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2018, 8:41 PM
dshane73 dshane73 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-215 View Post
I'm really hopefully this line does well, at least on the dedicated ROW sections.
I asked this a while ago..... does anyone know why the 35MAX doesn't use its dedicated ROW...at all?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7720  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2018, 5:27 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,020
I haven't heard anything regarding any changes in how the 35M operates. As I understand it, the 35M has only 1 section of dedicated bus lanes with one median station, located at 3600 West.

Has UTA stopped using that dedicated section?

Last I heard, the amount of dedicated infrastructure for the 35M was set to increase, with a new median station at "FairBorne Station" development. In fact, I just found it in Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6962...7i13312!8i6656

This new station means that the dedicated MAX lanes between 2970 West and Market Street will be abandoned, since the MAX line will be rerouted through the new development towards the Green Line terminus.

I'm really split on my opinion of the MAX line. I like how it uses dedicated lanes in only the areas where it really needs it. The rest of the UTA bus network could really benefit from this sort of thinking. Every bus line could become a BRT in certain congested sections - such as State Street or 2nd South.

I don't like how the infrastructure feels like an afterthought. The median stations at 3600 West are not attractive places to catch a bus. The Provo-Orem BRT line ...UVX... will show everyone what nice BRT stations should be like. Basically, like mini TRAX stations, like UTA's been building since 1999 - it isn't that hard.

If I were the King of UTA ...TDU... I would swap out my entire bus fleet with buses that have doors on both sides; this could be done gradually over time. I would then expand the 'MAX' network branding as much as possible by increasing service frequency, expediting service, and adding in dedicated lanes in the most congested areas. Bus stops for the MAX lines could gradually be upgraded to be platforms, either on the shoulders or in the medians. Basically, keep doing the UTA started in 2008 with MAX but really run with it. It is a pretty good idea that has been cut down at the knees by lack of funding and lack of interest.
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 10:27 AM.

     

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