Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[John Martin]

Indeed. This is just overkill. Is that not a bike rack next to the sidewalk in the grass? What about that white guard rail around the parking lot? Is something wrong with those? If someone is determined to park their bike there, there is an endless number of things to lock it up to in the immediate vicinity. So what the heck is the point of this bike parking lot on the side of the road? As long as they're wasting money, why did they go for that cheap, industrial, unpainted bike rack? And all those ugly white marker poles and unnecessary signs (really, what else would you park there?)... none of that would be needed if it weren't in the road, which it shouldn't be. This is pointless clutter. I almost think now that the city is just trying to be cute with all this nonsensical bike crap. I would hate to know how much money they've wasted on the various bike "improvements" around the city. What a shame.

This reminds me a lot of the traffic lights at crosswalks throughout the city. I'm particularly peeved by the one at the TRAX station on S Temple by Abravanel Hall, which I think is red more often than not. Is there ever anyone crossing? Occasionally, but rarely do they ever wait for the light to turn red. A traffic light simply isn't useful to busy people wanting to cross one lane of traffic (which there is so little of). It's a waste of the city's money, a waste of people's time, a waste of fuel, and it's ugly clutter. These types of things are a bigger deal than you might think. Holladay city spent a whopping $200 grand installing a redundant intersection on Highland Drive near the Cottonwood Mall... and it never gets used. I don't understand how these local governments can be so careless and cumbersome when they really don't have all that much bureaucracy to go through. Yet we still end up with all these ugly, pointless, wasteful installations all over the place. How can they be so inefficient?

[i-215]

In some cases, I've found an unprotected crosswalk is safer. Signals give both drivers and peds a false sense of security. Drivers fail to look for jaywalkers when it's green. Pedestrians fail to look for cars when it's red.

Is a signal a waste on a seven-lane arterial? No.
Is a signal a waste on a 20 MPH single-lane road with a train running down the median? Yes.

[Future Mayor]

Yes, these bike "Parking space" seem like a weird idea. Here's an idea that could be but into the development ordinance under parking requirements. In the development code reduce the number of automobile parking lots per a certain amount of square footage, even if by only 1 or two and require new developments and redevelopments to have a certain amount of bike spots (racks) available. This would provide for substantially more bike racks in parking strips or adjacent to buildings, and ugly "bike parking" would need to occur.

Then again, maybe these will be successfully utilized and it could turn into a project similar to the 300 S raised median mid street parking. Something along the lines of a raised curb with racks and a bench. A little addition to the walkability. Another issues is snow removal in the winter, if these remain in place it will cause problem for the plows or they will simply get wiped out by them.

[TonyAnderson]

Markea is sure taking its time...

[SLC Projects]

Donors push Leonardo closer to opening
April 25th, 2011 @ 5:10pm
By Jared Page

SALT LAKE CITY — Move-in day at The Leonardo was more about housewarming gifts than actual moving.

In fact, the only boxes moved into the science, technology and art center Monday were empty. The ceremonial "move" featured Leonardo officials, donors and volunteers carrying a dozen or so boxes into the former library building at 209 E. 500 South, accompanied by the sounds of ongoing renovation of the building.

The gifts, however, were real. Leonardo executive director Peter Giles announced a pair of recent large donations — $275,000 from the Sorenson Legacy Foundation and $160,000 from the Micron Foundation.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=15287814

[farmerboy]

I think the Bike Racks are an awesome idea! I think your logic is contradictory John Martin, on the one hand you're complaining about the cost of infrastructures, on the other hand your're complaining about the ugliness of the installed bike infrastructure. I don't think you can have both. As it is the infrastructure added couldn't have cost much, and I'm sure it will be well utilized in front of the twilight lounge.

[farmerboy]

Originally Posted by John Martin

And all those ugly white marker poles and unnecessary signs (really, what else would you park there?)... none of that would be needed if it weren't in the road, which it shouldn't be.

The Bike Rack is right next to the Bike Lane. That seems like a very logical location to me. 200 South is designed for Bike usage as well as Auto usage. I'm bothered that you insinuate Transportation Networks should be made available only to the automobile. I love that Salt Lake City is making a greater effort to promote alternative modes of Transportation, i.e. Bicycles à la Becker.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by farmerboy

The Bike Rack is right next to the Bike Lane. That seems like a very logical location to me. 200 South is designed for Bike usage as well as Auto usage. I'm bothered that you insinuate Transportation Networks should be made available only to the automobile. I love that Salt Lake City is making a greater effort to promote alternative modes of Transportation, i.e. Bicycles à la Becker.

It's stupid because you could have just put them on the curb next to the existing bike rack that is already there (see that black rack??) why not just add new racks there??? It is dumb to add new stuff to the pavement just for aesthetics as well as room for bicycles to ride in the bicycle lane.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by farmerboy

I think the Bike Racks are an awesome idea! I think your logic is contradictory John Martin, on the one hand you're complaining about the cost of infrastructures, on the other hand your're complaining about the ugliness of the installed bike infrastructure. I don't think you can have both. As it is the infrastructure added couldn't have cost much, and I'm sure it will be well utilized in front of the twilight lounge.

I think money should be spent on infrastructure that is well-planned. That involves fulfilling a real need, and being installed in the right place in the right manner. This bike rack is none of those. I'm against wasting money, yes, but that doesn't mean I think things should be tasteless. If such infrastructure were more carefully planned and applied, it could afford to be attractive as well.

I don't see why bike racks ought to be right next to the bike lane... the bike rack in the grass, the guard rail, the chain-link fence, etc. are only a few feet further from the street. It's not doing cyclists a huge favor to have it in the road.

I'm not insinuating that bike travel shouldn't be an option at all. I'm pointing out that the area already caters to cyclists, and that the city's efforts to make it better are redundant. So far I've been very unimpressed by the things the city has done to promote bike travel, because for the most part they seem to have been A) unnecessary and B) fruitless. Sure, Becker's intentions are admirable, but what the city has actually done has been ineffective and unnecessary. The city's attitude at this point seems to be that if it spends money on something, results are sure to follow suit. That just doesn't make sense when it comes to cyclists and pedestrians though (at least to the extent that they seem to think it does), because they simply don't require that much infrastructure.

Perhaps a more sensible approach to promoting bike travel would be to institute a bike-sharing system. Frankly I just don't see how painting bicycle lanes green and having an excess of bike racks is supposed to entice people to bike.

[arkhitektor]

I'm a biker and there's no way I'd use a bike rack like that. Leaving a bike in such a random conspicuous location basically says "here's a bike for you to steal or inadvertently run over with your car."

It may be unclear from the picture where it actually is, but its on 200 S. across the street from the abandoned Albertson's / Fresh Market. I'd be willing to bet that not a single person will ever use that bike rack.

Adding bicycle parking downtown is a great idea, but the execution here is terrible. It honestly looks like it was just haphazardly placed there to qualify for a LEED credit or something. Until the guy from public works showed up to install it, nobody probably paid any attention whatsoever to whether it made any sense in that location.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by John Martin

well.. that's attractive...

Lol this better have been an eagle project !


In all seriousness though, I really do love the new bike racks surrounding the City Creek Center. They are aesthetically pleasing and feel organic to the overall development / walking area.

[farmerboy]

Originally Posted by John Martin

I think money should be spent on infrastructure that is well-planned. That involves fulfilling a real need, and being installed in the right place in the right manner. This bike rack is none of those. I'm against wasting money, yes, but that doesn't mean I think things should be tasteless. If such infrastructure were more carefully planned and applied, it could afford to be attractive as well.

I completely agree with the need for carefully planned infrastructure, but I think this particular infrastructure in front of Twilight serves a real need. Bikes attached to that guard rail or chain link fence are impediments to an already narrow sidewalk.

Also the current bike rack could be re-used when funds are available to construct more aesthetically pleasing Bike Parking. So the money for purchase is not a waste.

I don't see why bike racks ought to be right next to the bike lane... the bike rack in the grass, the guard rail, the chain-link fence, etc. are only a few feet further from the street. It's not doing cyclists a huge favor to have it in the road.

We disagree here, I think it makes perfect sense to locate Bike Parking next to Bike Lanes.

I'm not insinuating that bike travel shouldn't be an option at all. I'm pointing out that the area already caters to cyclists, and that the city's efforts to make it better are redundant. So far I've been very unimpressed by the things the city has done to promote bike travel, because for the most part they seem to have been A) unnecessary and B) fruitless. Sure, Becker's intentions are admirable, but what the city has actually done has been ineffective and unnecessary. The city's attitude at this point seems to be that if it spends money on something, results are sure to follow suit. That just doesn't make sense when it comes to cyclists and pedestrians though (at least to the extent that they seem to think it does), because they simply don't require that much infrastructure.

I can't think of anything that was ever successfully promoted without $$$. Frankly the Bicycle Networks in this city are nowhere near where they need to be to promote avid use of bicycles as a realistic form of Transportation.

Perhaps a more sensible approach to promoting bike travel would be to institute a bike-sharing system. Frankly I just don't see how painting bicycle lanes green and having an excess of bike racks is supposed to entice people to bike.

I hardly think the bike rack installed in front of Twilite constitutes an excess, a Bike-Sharing system would also be great, but again that will cost $$$.

[farmerboy]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I'm a biker and there's no way I'd use a bike rack like that. Leaving a bike in such a random conspicuous location basically says "here's a bike for you to steal or inadvertently run over with your car."

It may be unclear from the picture where it actually is, but its on 200 S. across the street from the abandoned Albertson's / Fresh Market. I'd be willing to bet that not a single person will ever use that bike rack.

I'm also a biker and I would imagine this being a pretty safe location. It's directly in front of the twilight lounge, which is a very active bar with outdoor seating facing the bike racks, so there should be a good set of eyes (dependent upon consumption) on them most of the time. This bar is also a big hangout for Urban Hipsters, so bikes are prevalent.

[arkhitektor]

That's probably why the owners of the Twilite already installed a bike rack.

Don't get me wrong- I'm all for increasing bicycle access downtown - and I realize that you've got to start somewhere and that beneficial improvements are expensive. I'd just rather see the city make smaller-scale improvements that are of a higher quality and benefit as funds allow than just have Salt Lake City paint green lines across existing streets and haphazardly bolt bike racks to the side of the road and pretend that downtown is 'bike friendly'.

We should really be aiming for something much better than what is currently being implemented downtown.


Which of these would you feel more comfortable riding?:




We have such wide streets that it seems like Salt Lake is better suited than any other place to build completely separated bike lanes.

[farmerboy]

I can totally agree with that. I'm all for higher quality bicycle infrastructures, but I'd rather have these minimal investments than nothing at all.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by John Martin

I think money should be spent on infrastructure that is well-planned. That involves fulfilling a real need, and being installed in the right place in the right manner. This bike rack is none of those. I'm against wasting money, yes, but that doesn't mean I think things should be tasteless. If such infrastructure were more carefully planned and applied, it could afford to be attractive as well.

I don't see why bike racks ought to be right next to the bike lane... the bike rack in the grass, the guard rail, the chain-link fence, etc. are only a few feet further from the street. It's not doing cyclists a huge favor to have it in the road.

I'm not insinuating that bike travel shouldn't be an option at all. I'm pointing out that the area already caters to cyclists, and that the city's efforts to make it better are redundant. So far I've been very unimpressed by the things the city has done to promote bike travel, because for the most part they seem to have been A) unnecessary and B) fruitless. Sure, Becker's intentions are admirable, but what the city has actually done has been ineffective and unnecessary. The city's attitude at this point seems to be that if it spends money on something, results are sure to follow suit. That just doesn't make sense when it comes to cyclists and pedestrians though (at least to the extent that they seem to think it does), because they simply don't require that much infrastructure.

Perhaps a more sensible approach to promoting bike travel would be to institute a bike-sharing system. Frankly I just don't see how painting bicycle lanes green and having an excess of bike racks is supposed to entice people to bike.

My understanding from the newspaper article is that the city did not pay for these bike racks. Any business in the city could request to have one put in at their business in what normally would be a parking space and that business would pay the cost. I also gathered from the article that these were a temporary test to see how much they are used and nicer, permanent racks would be installed if they were well used.

[SLC Projects]

I like the completely separated bike lanes idea. Might not work on Main street with the trax line there. But state street could work.

[UTPlanner]

Stenar in what I know about the bike rack project you are exactly right in your assumptions. I personally think it's a great use. The streets are so wide in SLC, why not use some of that asphalt space, rather than pave over the landscaped park strip?

[Your Boy Blue]

Originally Posted by SLCdude

I just saw another one of these that looked exactly the same on 1100 E in Sugar House. It is across the street from the Soup Kitchen.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

Stenar in what I know about the bike rack project you are exactly right in your assumptions. I personally think it's a great use. The streets are so wide in SLC, why not use some of that asphalt space, rather than pave over the landscaped park strip?

Exactly, the council seems to complain about the wide streets all the time, when there are many good uses that could come out it.