HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1461  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2009, 6:19 PM
Zionide's Avatar
Zionide Zionide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 148
600 East or 700 East?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
Ok how about this. South from 400 S on 600 E (trolley) to 900 S, turns east on 900 S (Liberty Park) to 900 E (9th and 9th). South on 900 E to 1300 S (small neighborhood commercial core) turns east on 1700 E (Albertsons) to 1100 E at 1100 E it turns south with a stop at the base of Westminster, and straight down 1100 E to Sugarhouse to join the E/W line down to Trax.

That's pretty much the route I had pictured, except I think I would like to see the trolley run down 700 East instead of 600 East. Sixth East south of Trolley Square is so quietly residential, with the median and relatively little traffic; I don't really like changing that feel. Though 600 East is the center of the Central City Historic District and could then eventually offer great views from the trolley (and a grand entrance to Liberty).... just not sure it's worth disrupting the historic neighborhood when 700 East is already such a behemoth.

Though, on second thought.... an historic streetcar or trolley could really add to 600 East's historic neighborhood feel. It just wouldn't be the quiet neighborhood it is now.

Obviously, I'm conflicted!

It would also be great to jog up from Westminster and include 15th & 15th, too. And eventually Foothill Village in some way. Foothill, in particular, is in sore need of mass transit. But up 1700 South all the way to 1500 East might be too far off the path for this particular line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1462  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2009, 6:59 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,801
It would be nice to be able to include 15th and 15th but I think that could be a challenge. One challenge would be that the streets seem to be so narrow up there and the second would be climbing the hill on 17th, yes I realize SF has steep hills with trolleys but as someone mentioned those are actually pulled up the hill from under the track and I would imagine the traction for the newer (lightrail type) trolleys would have a hard time, combine that with the weather and I would think it would be a struggle.

Maybe there could be another trolley line that joins some of the neighborhoods east of 13th to sugarhouse park and the University Line, connecting in to the new University development by the stadium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1463  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 2:37 AM
stayinginformed stayinginformed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 479
Some pork coming to UTA once the omnibus spending bill is passed.

4,750,000 Intermodal Facilities, Salt Lake City
20,000,000 Mid-Jordan Light Rail Extension
81,600,000 Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail

That info can be found here.

http://www.taxpayer.net
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1464  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 2:42 AM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Belt Route
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SLC/Vegas/SoCal
Posts: 3,045
Some of the most appetizing pork I've seen in a while.

So infrastructure now equals pork? What on earth then does the group consider non-pork?
__________________
Life is nicer at 70 miles per hour
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1465  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 1:58 PM
cololi cololi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayinginformed View Post
Some pork coming to UTA once the omnibus spending bill is passed.

4,750,000 Intermodal Facilities, Salt Lake City
20,000,000 Mid-Jordan Light Rail Extension
81,600,000 Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail

That info can be found here.

http://www.taxpayer.net
I don't trust the numbers, primarily because they say 81 million for a rail line that already exists. All these numbers do is plug the gap in funding for the lines already under construction, so it doesn't free up any other funds for other projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1466  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 5:57 PM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by cololi View Post
I don't trust the numbers, primarily because they say 81 million for a rail line that already exists. All these numbers do is plug the gap in funding for the lines already under construction, so it doesn't free up any other funds for other projects.
When the Federal govt. agrees to fund 80% of a rail project, they don't give all of that money up front. They pay it out over 5-10 years, so money for finished projects could still be coming to UTA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1467  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 6:20 PM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,869
North Temple / Airport TRAX

I don't see why the Airport TRAX line couldn't go up 600 West to South Temple, turn west and go under the freeway and then head north again on 800 West to North Temple and turn west onto N. Temple.



South Temple is only a small roadway here, but it does go under the freeway. I don't see why TRAX couldn't go under the freeway at South Temple.

Okay, as I think more about it, the other proposal was a viaduct on 600 West, I assume that was to go over the freight rail line there. So, they'd still need some sort of viaduct to go over the freight line, huh?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1468  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 7:20 PM
cololi cololi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stenar View Post
When the Federal govt. agrees to fund 80% of a rail project, they don't give all of that money up front. They pay it out over 5-10 years, so money for finished projects could still be coming to UTA.
Right, but the money for frontrunner was already allocated beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2012. So, that money is already in existing transportation funding bills that have been passed through 2009 and the rest will be in the next ISTEA LULU bill. My point is that the money quoted should not be considered as part of the stimulus because it was already gauranteed long before the current economic situation reared it's ugly head.

If they did go ahead and just move funding around, then the stimulus package is a complete farce and the American people have been fleeced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1469  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 8:46 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,801



Cololi that's not a bad idea, how about this configuration? While it doesn't help those on N. Temple, east of I-15 it does still help the residents in that area with a stop (in yellow) on S. Temple, east of I-15 and another one on N. Temple at 850 W.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1470  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 9:07 PM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by cololi View Post
Right, but the money for frontrunner was already allocated beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2012. So, that money is already in existing transportation funding bills that have been passed through 2009 and the rest will be in the next ISTEA LULU bill. My point is that the money quoted should not be considered as part of the stimulus because it was already gauranteed long before the current economic situation reared it's ugly head.

If they did go ahead and just move funding around, then the stimulus package is a complete farce and the American people have been fleeced.
This money isn't in the stimulus package but the omnibus spending bill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1471  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 9:29 PM
cololi cololi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 690

Apparently I need to read a little bit closer. thanks for pointing that out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1472  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 11:22 PM
stayinginformed stayinginformed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 479
Does anyone know what the total cost of Frontrunner north was?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1473  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2009, 11:35 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,801
Brought over from the SLC development Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by WASDEN View Post
I agree it would be nearly impossible to go back now. But I'd be willing to sacrifice Central Station for improved efficiency of the system as a whole. I guess I equate better efficiency with shorter commute times with increased ridership(which is the ultimate goal). And its true, should a transfer station at North Temple be built, almost no one would get off at Central Station. I understand your wanting to protect the millions of public dollars that have already been pumped into the Central Station location, but that money was spent with the purpose of serving the public. And if a transfer station at North Temple serves the public better, than so be it.
While a transfer station at N. Temple would shorten the commute from the north by a couple of minutes, but if that were the only station, it would lengthen the commute from the south by just a bit. One other problem I see is that under the viaduct doesn't seem like a very vibrant location for a Central Hub. The beauty of the location of Central Station is that there is plenty of redevelopment opportunity directly surrounding the station. It's an opportunity to extend the downtown core further west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1474  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 2:58 AM
Urban_logic's Avatar
Urban_logic Urban_logic is offline
I'm an Urbanizer, baby!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Goias, Brazil ~ starting summer 09'
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by cololi View Post
I agree completely about where the hub location should have been. However, do we correct a wrong right now and say that the new hub is at N Temple and 400 W or do we move in a direction of protecting the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested by the Fed govt, state, city and Utah in Salt Lake Central Station? I think the question is pretty obvious that we do what we can to build up Central Station.
Yes, I deffinately feel that the hub would have been better located on North Temple and 4th West. However, that is not the case. I do think that multiple hubs are good to have, just not so close to each other - I mean the hub and the "sub hub" will be only blocks apart, which is rediculous! I suppose the 6th West option would be the one I would support because it will utilize the exsisting hub. I love the idea of having a multi-level hub, but the hub is what it is and should, as you said, continue to be invested in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
While a transfer station at N. Temple would shorten the commute from the north by a couple of minutes, but if that were the only station, it would lengthen the commute from the south by just a bit. One other problem I see is that under the viaduct doesn't seem like a very vibrant location for a Central Hub. The beauty of the location of Central Station is that there is plenty of redevelopment opportunity directly surrounding the station. It's an opportunity to extend the downtown core further west.

P.S. I'm moving this conversation over to the Transit Thread.
It is true that the 4th West option would be more efficient, but what's a few extra minutes to invest in the hub and make it the best it can be? I think it's worth the sacrifice (the few extra minutes).
__________________
Urbanize, or get left behind!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1475  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 3:07 AM
Urban_logic's Avatar
Urban_logic Urban_logic is offline
I'm an Urbanizer, baby!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Goias, Brazil ~ starting summer 09'
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post



Cololi that's not a bad idea, how about this configuration? While it doesn't help those on N. Temple, east of I-15 it does still help the residents in that area with a stop (in yellow) on S. Temple, east of I-15 and another one on N. Temple at 850 W.

Wait, so what's wrong with turning onto North Temple and going under I-15? There would be no need of a viaduct. Or is that the whole point? I personaly think that the best route would be to just go straight up 6th West to North Temple, turn west onto North Temple, then shoot straight to the airport. That seems the most logical to me.
__________________
Urbanize, or get left behind!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1476  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 4:29 AM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_logic View Post
...I personaly think that the best route would be to just go straight up 6th West to North Temple, turn west onto North Temple, then shoot straight to the airport. That seems the most logical to me.

I agree, however, the neighborhoods on the west side of the City feel like building a TRAX viaduct on 600 West would create yet another physical barrier between the west side of the city and Downtown.

Currently, there is not enough money to both rebuild the viaduct, and inlay the TRAX tracks in cement all along North Temple. Perhaps Rose Park and other west side communities should choose between rebuilding the North Temple viaduct which would accommodate TRAX, or building a new, cheaper TRAX viaduct on 600 West and using the leftover funds to pay for both the inlay of the TRAX tracks, and the "boulevard" amenities/upgrades along North Temple.

I once thought the views from the North Temple viaduct would give transit riders and visitors a sense of arrival into downtown, However, now these views have been blocked by current development at the Gateway. I now think the Airport TRAX line should run down 600 West, and should be seen as a connector between the west side community and Downtown, rather than a divider. This alignment will also insure the vitality of Salt Lake Central Station.

Furthermore, the implementation of the Airport TRAX line will reduce North Temple from six lanes to four lanes, thus there is potential of also reducing the number of lanes on the viaduct from six to four, freeing up more space on the current viaduct for bicycle lanes. And, by not running on 400 West, the Airport Line will not interfere with the future Salt Lake-Davis County TRAX line and cause transit congestion.

Eventually, I would like the North Temple viaduct shortened, but I don't think it should ever accommodate TRAX.

Just some doodling:


Last edited by urbanboy; Mar 12, 2009 at 5:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1477  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 12:36 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,333
Legislature approves rail station on archaeological site

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11888049

Utah lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill that allows the Utah Transit Authority and a developer to build a rail development in Draper on the site of a 3,000-year-old archaic Indian village.

The Senate voted 21-8 to approve HB179, authorizing the Utah Department of Natural Resources to trade land east of the Jordan River near 13500 South with a private landowner to the north...


.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1478  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 1:47 PM
cololi cololi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_logic View Post
Wait, so what's wrong with turning onto North Temple and going under I-15? There would be no need of a viaduct. Or is that the whole point?
The viaduct is needed to cross the heavy rail line. Trax cannot cross it at grade, it has to go over it or under it. There is no need to fly over I-15 because trax can go under it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1479  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 8:10 PM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120


I heard none of the rails or roads can go below-grade in that area because of different types of utilities and pipe lines running underground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1480  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 10:22 PM
cololi cololi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanboy View Post


I heard none of the rails or roads can go below-grade in that area because of different types of utilities and pipe lines running underground.
utilities can be moved and are required to as part of the nornal construction process anyway.
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 9:46 PM.

     

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