Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[scottharding]

I think growth boundries are about more than just saving land, although saving land is vital, even in the desert.
Uncontrolled growth, ie. Suburbia, is unsustainable. It drains public and natural resources. Also, and this is more opinion, I guess, it's bad for society. It tends to segregate and isolate, and foster feelings of "us vs them." I know that's obviously not universally true, but in general, I believe it's accurate. There is nothing good about sprawl. It has no advantages.

[i-215]

"There is nothing good about sprawl. It has no advantages."

I think it's academically dishonest to ultimately say "suburbs are all advantages" or "suburbs have no advantages." Do you seriously believe that? Go back and read what life was like before the "Garden City Movement" in the 1910s and previous. Cities were hell.

Downtowns became "cool" and "hip" today only because suburbs are there to dump disproportionate amounts of capital into the CBD without drawing on the resources. For example, I pay tons in sales tax and restaurant taxes when I visit Salt Lake. But I don't consume garbage pick-up, recycling pick up, water, et al. Some poor suburb has to pay for that. That frees up the capital city to buy decorative lighting, and build "complete streets" ... whereas I have cobra heads outside my house.

I also find the "suburbs drain resources" argument a little bit baffling, too. If I a person chooses to live 2 miles from their suburban job (as I do for one of mine) and uses responsible landscaping (I only have a 5-foot-by-5 patch of lawn), how do suburbs use any more resources than cities? Both homes, suburban apartment complexes, and urban complexes all use gas, electricity, and water about the same. Water policy can change. Transportation has made huge headway in 100 years and it will become much more "green" in the 100 years to come.

Urbanites also live by the myth that sprawl only attracts bedroom communities. It also attracts new industry that can't find a suitable site inside the CBD. That means jobs and short commutes for those living nearby.

And I'd even argue Utah sprawl is somewhat "responsible sprawl." Utilities hinder leapfrogging and the average lot size running around 1/4 acre or smaller, opposed to the 40 acre-a-piece "country sprawl" you see in rural Oregon or back east. Yes, "country sprawl" can create some nasty commutes on dangerous rural roads. Yet that's what Oregon's UGB has done ... swapped out the 1/4 acre lots for 40 acre lots. How is THAT green?

Freedom of choice to choose where I want to live. If I want to work a job in Salt Lake AND a job in Provo (as I currently do), I can because we have an excellent freeway system .... and the region's economy benefits. Maintaining a property owner's right to develop his land, so long as he's willing to pay for the cost to bring utilities to his site (which naturally slows leapfrog development here in the west).

"I guess, it's bad for society." I understand your view. I completely disagree. Forming policy on a simple statement that something is "bad for people" is a dangerous path towards a new world of non-religious "blue laws." (And doesn't Utah already has enough blue laws?)

I've been on the board for 7 years and it seems this debate goes the same path every time with nobody budging, and I guess that's okay. But I have read Jane Jacobs. I have sat through planning classes and heard all the arguments against sprawl. I respect that. But it feels a lot like Economics to me .... you know, Economists say they can "save the world" but then find their theories don't apply to reality that well.

As an Urban Planning grad, I thank HEAVEN they don't let us in charge, and that politicians ultimately run the show. Because we planner types are NUTS (including me, who'd probably pave over half the state if they let me).

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by i-215

I also find the "suburbs drain resources" argument a little bit baffling, too. If I a person chooses to live 2 miles from their suburban job (as I do for one of mine) and uses responsible landscaping (I only have a 5-foot-by-5 patch of lawn), how do suburbs use any more resources than cities?... .

You are completely contradicting yourself with that statement and supporting the bridge. Yes there is nothing wrong with those living in the burbs driving two miles to work, also in the burbs. But those wanting the bridge across Utah lake aren't doing it because they live 2 miles from their job, THEY DON'T. They, by choice, moved dozens and dozens of miles from their jobs in order to move to Saratoga Springs and now are frustrated with their commute to SLC.

The bridge is basically one mans pipe dream in order to increase the value and development potential of his parcels of land, conveniently he owns parcels on both sides of the lake where the bridge would connect. Don't even attempt to say that this bridge will help relieve the traffic concerns of those living in Eagle Mtn. the bridge will begin south of where Pioneer Crossing enters Saratoga Springs and will head NE across the lake, so it will help the small population of Saratoga Springs and that is it. If the bridge headed SE towards Provo, serving the Provo CBD than I can see that it would benefit many more people, NOBODY from Eagle Mtn will use it, and the southern portion of Sartoga Springs doesn't have the growth capacity to warrant a 4 lane toll bridge across the lake.

And please don't lump yourself in with all Planners, saying that if the world was run by planners it would be a horrible place and that half the state would be paved over. I am a planner and often times many politicians are the worst thing that can happen to planning, and I for one do not support the Utah Lake Bridge and would not pave over half the state.


In regards to the fertile farm land discussion a few posts up. Very few may know that the soil in most of Orem rivals that of the soil in Fruit Heights and was once home of a very large number of Orchards, but due to growth and a lack of TDR options to land owners at the time, Orem no longer has orchards. The only other ideal orchard soil in the state remaining is in Fruit Heights and in southern Utah County, the Payson and Santaquin area. If we want to support locally grown foods, reducing transportation impacts and costs, we must come up with better development plans and ways to preserve these lands into the future. I am not simply being dramatic, the nearest comparable soil to Fruit Heights, Orem and Payson/Santaquin is in Idaho. Do we want to pave over all these lands with 1/4 acre lots and no longer have those resources available? Luckily there are programs such as Transfer of Development Rights that can at least provide and option to preserve these valuable resources in perpetuity. Planning staff are the ones responsible for mapping out these TDR areas and implementing the legislation for Council adoption, Planner actually knowing how the hell TDR's work and have the knowledge to explain that to the orchard farmers. Then an idiot politician comes along that has a vendetta against Planning and Zoning, because they won't allow a metal skin building to be built in a historic downtown district, and just so happens that said politician owns a sheet metal business, and attempts to eliminate and entire P&Z department through legal and illegal means, thus eliminating the efforts to preserve what few fertile areas we have left in our desert.

[TonyAnderson]

I think the Utah bridge idea is something that may end up happening, but why not let it happen when it absolutely has to, instead of well before it is needed? By doing it now you're really allowing sprawl to occur at a more accelerated pace. If there's no bridge now, people and developers will build smarter and more densely.

[scottharding]

I don't see any reason why the Utah Lake bridge should ever HAVE to happen.

I-215, I didn't say that suburbs have no advantage. I said sprawl has no advantage. Reading your response to my post, I think you're mistaking me. There's a vast difference between growth and sprawl. Growth is inevitable, and brings with it many good things, but it should be planned and executed responsibly (as possible). I'll for responsible growth, realizing that it necessitates some compromises.
But when land consumption is disproportionate to population growth, you've got sprawl, and what's happened on the west side of Utah Lake is not a good thing. And this bridge, in my opinion, is exactly the type of "development" that must not be allowed. There are other ways to grow, ways that do less damage to a vital natural commodity, that will do less to encourage irresponsible trends, and that will be catered to a larger mass of people, rather than a select few who chose to live on the far fringes of a community.

[delts145]

A comment was made about there being a lot of land still available for development on the West side of Salt Lake Valley. Also, that people have no business living in the Eagle Mtn./Saratoga Springs area.

Just a thought... but I'm glad that vast portions, if not most of the west and northwest portions of the Salt Lake Valley are all tied up already. Just think, Daybreak plans on putting 500,000 more people on the west side eventually, and they'll do it in a way that is far superior to the typical sprawl of the typical U.S. city. Also, for all of the lamentation against Eagle Mountain, it continues to be one of the most attractively laid out cities in the metro.

I am opposed to the bridge as I understand it's current proposal, and the motives behind who is doing it. I say plan Cedar Valley's core in Lehi or Cedar Valley. I have no problem with the existance of Cedar Valley's development. However, those who choose to live there should do so without the expectation that their commute will be underwritten by an ugly and obtrusive overpass across what should continue to once again become a beautiful jewel in Utah's scenic crown.

Future Mayor, I would be very anxious to know if Nephi's Valley will also be good orchard land, if given the proper water delivery. I want Provo to continue to receive the attention that critical mass will give it. Of course, the land still available at the southern end of the valley is enormous in it's potential to feed Provo with significant numbers of population influence in the future. Therefore, I want to know why the Nephi region can't replace the Santaquin agricultural region, in the same way that Santaquin replaced the Orem region.

[SLC4L]

Maybe it's because I'm a pessimist, but I have no fault with the bridge. To me, sprawl was going to happen in that area anyway and it's well on it's way there. We have Daybreak to look forward to in the future, but even then it still has a little bit of that sprawl feel. I said it awhile ago and I'll say it again. The planet Coruscant in Star Wars is really just Earth. They say "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away..." but they're just trying to avoid controversy.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by delts145

Future Mayor, I would be very anxious to know if Nephi's Valley will also be good orchard land, if given the proper water delivery. I want Provo to continue to receive the attention that critical mass will give it. Of course, the land still available at the southern end of the valley is enormous in it's potential to feed Provo with significant numbers of population influence in the future. Therefore, I want to know why the Nephi region can't replace the Santaquin agricultural region, in the same way that Santaquin replaced the Orem region.

I don't know the exact details but what I do know is that the climate conditions, and soil conditions in the areas that have Orchards in Payson/Santaquin are ideal and are the last remaining areas in the state. I know this from talking with the Allreds and the McMullins concerning annexation, development and TDR's Allreds are the orchards on the east side of Payson up against the foothills and the McMullins are the orchards you would see west of Payson and north of Santaquin. They both talked about the need to keep those lands for farming and that have looked at other locations nearby and in the state and neighboring states, if there came a time they needed to relocate.

I understand that development is going to happen and the population will increase but there are options out there, if the property owners choose to participate, that can save agricultural lands while providing them the value of the development dollars for their property and increasing density in other areas of the city.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

I think the Utah bridge idea is something that may end up happening, but why not let it happen when it absolutely has to, instead of well before it is needed? By doing it now you're really allowing sprawl to occur at a more accelerated pace. If there's no bridge now, people and developers will build smarter and more densely.

Yes, this is what I think. This isn't like Mountain View Corridor or something to make inevitable development pleasant in the future. The bridge is simply a tool to make something undesirable seem less undesirable. If the west side of Utah Lake is going to take off and become big regardless of the bridge, then sure, it only seems reasonable to build it. However, it's not like there is any impending need for it now, nothing's gonna happen on the lake to make construction difficult later, so I think they should wait to build this (and maybe, hopefully, they'll never have to).

[Portland Dude]

When will the bridge on North Temple be completed?

[i-215]

If I came across a bit strongly in my argument, my apologies. I have passionate feelings toward automobile transportation, and I appreciate the thoughtful responses - which I really do try and listen to.

I do agree with many points:

- The bridge will not help Eagle Mountain commuters.
- The bridge may be ahead of its time.
- Those in Saratoga voluntarily moved away from their jobs .... (BUT only for now. Inevitably, these cities will start enticing office parks, to help pay the bills).

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by i-215

If I came across a bit strongly in my argument, my apologies. I have passionate feelings toward automobile transportation, and I appreciate the thoughtful responses - which I really do try and listen to.

I do agree with many points:

- The bridge will not help Eagle Mountain commuters.
- The bridge may be ahead of its time.
- Those in Saratoga voluntarily moved away from their jobs .... (BUT only for now. Inevitably, these cities will start enticing office parks, to help pay the bills).

I'm curious I-215. Why are you so passionate about automobile transportation as your preferred approach to planning? Is it a personal love affair with cars, etc., or do you actually have a good argument for that kind of approach to planning?

[i-215]

I'd write a longer response, but it's 12:45 AM and I worked 10 hours today.

Basically, the automobile has opened up freedom of choice in a way human history has never seen before:

- Instead of being forced to live along specific transit lines, a person can live where they like.

- It's widened choices from a past world of just high-density housing, to one with a spectrum of options ranging from high-rise penthouses to sprawling country estates (with most Americans choosing a good balance in the middle).

- It's allowed the general public to truly explore America. When else in human history could the lay public be the master of their own vacation? To say goodbye to rail schedules or the beaten path.

- It's created one of the few remaining "shared democratized experiences" .... the traffic jam. In a world where a chasm separates the rich and the commoner, the good ole' Angelino-style rush hour is no respecter of persons.

The car is a wonderful invention. A world without it would be a much darker, more unjust place. But along the way we made a few mistakes:

- We allowed G.M. to tear out our existing rail infrastructure. The goal of the car was to give consumers options, not to trade one mode for the other entirely.

- We bet only on gasoline and diesel. That makes transportation vulnerable to horrible volatility (which thankfully we've avoided for the most part, other than the 70s oil crisis).

- We mandated car-only zoning policies in all parts of town, which destroyed some urban areas.

Thankfully, I think we are on track to remedy all three problems.

- The Wasatch Front is making a huge investment into LRT to restore what rail infrastructure we once had ... but we still have a long way to go. If gov't spends money wisely, LRT will benefit both motorists and non-motorists alike. (But if they mismanage the money, it'll be a colossal waste).

- I'm starting to see three potentially viable electric cars hit the market. Honda has it's CNG car selling fairly well. In my lifetime, I believe I'll see a cafe of marketably viable fuels.

- Cities are recreating zones where the pedestrian is king. I do believe there need to be specific places that are urban, especially near rail stops. But I oppose trying to turn every ounce of city into urban zones. It waters down the efforts to revitalize parts of town. Take Midtown Villiage, for instance. It's the wrong purpose at the wrong place. That's car country in Orem. Now, if the developer had tried to build it in downtown Provo, or next to a future Frontrunner stop, perhaps it wouldn't have failed.


Anyway, long sleepy ramble short .... the car (despite it's expenses and moderate environmental impacts) has done more good to "democratize" society and allow each person to be "more in charge" of their life. (Not be a victim of train schedules, bus fare, etc.) It's not a one size fits all approach. I can drive a smaller car to save money. I can drive more economically to save more. Or I can peel out at lights in my SUV if that's my provocative. As opposed to just paying a one-size fits all fare, that might not serve my needs.

The mistake was taking away the old rail lines which force people to have to drive cars, even if they didn't want to. Did I already say that? Oop. Looks like I did.

Goodnight. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

* end of ramble *

[delts145]

Thankyou 215, I am personally grateful to you and those like you with a passion for a reasoned approach that supports liberty and the freedom of choice. God bless the future of CNG as a bridge, Electric cars, and the Wasatch Front's LRT, Commuter Rail, and the Trolley!!

Bennett: light rail among proudest contributions

By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune

Washington • When Sen. Bob Bennett was fighting for federal cash to bring light-rail service to the Salt Lake Valley, he says some south valley folks were none too happy and showed their displeasure during a convention of Salt Lake County Republicans in the 1990s.


(Jim Urquhart | The Salt Lake Tribune) Passengers prepare to board a TRAX train as makes a stop at Arena Station after a Jazz basketball game Monday, November 30 2009 Salt Lake City. Thursday marks 10 years TRAX has been transporting riders along the Wasatch Front. 11/30/09

Every other politician speaking at the event was welcomed with a standing ovation and applause.

Then, “Here comes Senator Bennett, and there are a round of people standing up and clapping and this group literally sitting on their hands and the issue was light rail,” Bennett recalled recently in the waning days of his elected service.

Bennett says his work to secure federal funds to partially pay for the now expanding network of Utah Transit Authority TRAX trains was justified when, after the first main line was up and running, those critics wanted to jump to the front of the line and get their own light rail spur.

“Now, with one or two very small exceptions, that part of the valley is strongly in favor of light rail,” Bennett said.

UTA announced recently that its Mid-Jordan and West Valley TRAX lanes will open Aug. 7, 2011, part of an expansion of the service that within five years is expected to include more than 70 more miles of track, including completion of the FrontRunner commuter line from Ogden to Provo.

Without Bennett, much of it may have never happened.

The outgoing senator, who was denied a fourth term by GOP delegates, is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and helped steer federal funding to UTA’s projects.

During a reception in Washington recently, UTA presented a cake in the shape of a FrontRunner train heralding Bennett for his work.

“Senator Bob Bennett’s visionary leadership has transformed Utah into a world-class state and a wonderful place to live and work,” the cake read.

Bennett, whose term ends in early January, says there are many things he’s proud of from his 18 years in office, many of which may not have been well known. TRAX is one, though, that’s a constant reminder.

“As I look back at the things I’ve been able to do for Utah, light rail is perhaps the most visible,” Bennett said.


Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, speaks to a group of Utahns in a Capitol office building on Nov. 17 while a cake shaped like the Utah Transit Authority's FrontRunner awaits cutting. UTA provided the cake and heralded Bennett for his work to obtain federal money for the project.

.

[scottharding]

Originally Posted by i-215

If I came across a bit strongly in my argument, my apologies. I have passionate feelings toward automobile transportation, and I appreciate the thoughtful responses - which I really do try and listen to.

I do agree with many points:

- The bridge will not help Eagle Mountain commuters.
- The bridge may be ahead of its time.
- Those in Saratoga voluntarily moved away from their jobs .... (BUT only for now. Inevitably, these cities will start enticing office parks, to help pay the bills).

You didn't come across too strong at all. It was obvious that you're passionate, but still respectful. While we agree on very little on this matter, I did find your comments insightful, and it was a good reminder to me that things are never as black and white in reality as they may be in our minds.
It's always refreshing to be able to have a bit of a debate on this forum without it becoming personal or bitter.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by i-215

- We allowed G.M. to tear out our existing rail infrastructure. The goal of the car was to give consumers options, not to trade one mode for the other entirely.

I believe this may be a rumor started and perpetuated by the anti car crowd. My understanding is this is more a function of heavily subsidizing the car industry and simultaneously putting price controls on trolley's. It is hard for an industry to survive in the face of an amazing new technology, which requires extra cash to invest in innovation, when your government is actively subsidizing one and requiring the other to sell their goods (rail transit) at below the necessary level to survive.

This is a story of the dangers of subsidization and price controls. Let's learn the lesson.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by SLC4L

Maybe it's because I'm a pessimist, but I have no fault with the bridge. To me, sprawl was going to happen in that area anyway and it's well on it's way there. We have Daybreak to look forward to in the future, but even then it still has a little bit of that sprawl feel. I said it awhile ago and I'll say it again. The planet Coruscant in Star Wars is really just Earth. They say "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away..." but they're just trying to avoid controversy.

You do realize that Star Wars is a work of fiction don't you?

[SLC Projects]

That Frontrunner cake sure looks good.

[i-215]

I was just thinking the same thing.

[Future Mayor]

GM's purchase of the street car systems wasn't the sole reason for the death of the street car, however GM played a very large roll in the death of the street car and did in fact buy many many of the systems in major cities across the country and convert those systems to buses. It is not just a rumor