Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Comrade]

I think the confusion here is thinking Salt Lake has ultimate control in how this street is designed to be more pedestrian friendly. What you're all proposing is irrelevant. It's not likely to be the choices. The choices will be: keep 300 West as is or bury it. All this energy into discussing other alternatives doesn't change that fact.

UDOT has aggressively fought Salt Lake when it comes to making these streets more pedestrian friendly. It's literally in the original Tribune article from last week about the tunnel.

If UDOT is on board with the idea of burying that part of 300 West, it might be the only plan that actually makes that area semi-walkable. Because as is, it's not and that will directly impact the supposed district idea.

This is a big reason downtown sucks. The wide streets are a hinderance to any level of walkability and it's hard to make the area walkable, even through narrowing of the street. It's a big reason State Street remains entirely unwalkable, even though we've been talking about the need to figure out a way to narrow it for years.

It's not the first time UDOT has been an issue. The Ballpark plan is at the mercy of UDOT as it owns 2100 S between State and I-15 as the city wants to put in a bridge that connects to Central Pointe station.

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by i-215

I absolutely agree. It's a horrible downtown street as it stands.

Maybe the tunnel can be a negotiating tactic to get a better "Portland"-type 6-lane street through there (or, even 4-laner)? If you want a dog, start by asking for a horse.

I always thought -- and have expressed here a few times -- that the state highways of 600 south, 500 south and 300 west should be multi-way blvds, where there are dedicated through lanes and on the sides local throughways and parking with a different pavement style. It would be SO MUCH MORE WALKABLE and pedestrian-oriented. The best example i know of this is in Bothell Washington.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwAkynDHNOU

[Blah_Amazing]

Lets be real here. No matter how many trees you place on a rendering, that won't calm a literal 7 lane highway going highway speeds.

As Comrade also mentioned, advocates and City officials have been begging UDOT officials to redesign State Street for decades. Decades! And that's with all of the towers and workers along there. Heck, they chose to build a pedestrian tunnel for City Creek rather than even consider making that street more friendly to people. Pedestrians have literally been hit and killed as a result of the horrid design of that street and yet nothing has ever changed along there.

So my skepticism is based on years of evidence.

UDOT only seems to consider the efficiency of auto traffic on their roads. They aren't going around asking themselves "how can we make the pedestrian experience better." They just aren't. So expect that to be the real timeline for any of those kind of proposals. Decades. If ever.

If the street was owned by Salt Lake, I would say there is a greater chance. But as long as the State has control of it, it will likely never happen. I'm sure we'd all love to be surprised, but I doubt it.


Also, you need to consider the whole enterprise of the Entertainment District to begin with.

Up until now, people going to events or games at the Delta Center:

• Take trax and arrive at the nearest station or drive and park in the parking lot owned by the LDS Church.
• They brave crossing the wide roads to get the arena.
• They enjoy the event
• THEN THEY LEAVE

Obviously some might venture over to City Creek, but still only a small few considering how many people were attending these events.

For the Entertainment District to be successful, the pedestrian flow between the Delta Center and the District needs to flow easily without any real barriers.
It should feel entirely natural to move from the Delta Center directly into the District to shop, eat, drink, or enjoy other elements of the District.

The long-term economic success of the District depends on people staying in the area for as long as possible. Every person that looks at a 7-lane highway and decides to head back to their car or to the train (both in the wrong direction) instead of venturing across to the District is money lost.

That's why I think it's almost a necessity. Especially for an area and a populace that has mostly been trained to get in and get out as quick as possible.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Lets be real here. No matter how many trees you place on a rendering, that won't calm a literal 7 lane highway going highway speeds.

Ten foot lanes will. Nobody goes 55 down Burnside. (Plenty zoom freeway speeds on Lower Grand in L.A., though!)

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

As Comrade also mentioned, advocates and City officials have been begging UDOT officials to redesign State Street for decades. Decades! And that's with all of the towers and workers along there.

But...

It wasn't a situation where the state is suddenly held hostage because a tech bro might "take the team away."

It wasn't a situation where the county is considering demolishing two blocks.

It wasn't a situation where the developer wants a two-block highway tunnel.

We aren't in "business as usual." Strike while the iron is hot!

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Heck, they chose to build a pedestrian tunnel for City Creek rather than even consider making that street more friendly to people. Pedestrians have literally been hit and killed as a result of the horrid design of that street and yet nothing has ever changed along there.

I'm confused. Which street?

Main has a bridge, not a tunnel. It's seen a major road diet. I guess I'm not sure where you're talking.

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

So my skepticism is based on years of evidence.

As it should be. An unprecedented situation is here. Let's not wave the white flag at the beginning of negotiating.

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

UDOT only seems to consider the efficiency of auto traffic on their roads. They aren't going around asking themselves "how can we make the pedestrian experience better." They just aren't. So expect that to be the real timeline for any of those kind of proposals. Decades. If ever.

So, I've been to the UDOT Conference a couple of times (each November at the South Town Expo Center). The agency doesn't look it on the outside, but the attitude is rapidly changing from the inside out.

Go to any ITE meetup (Institute for Transportation Engineers) and mention "complete streets," roundabouts, or traffic calming — and you'll see the room light up. Engineers, who traditionally were stubborn in their 1960s mindset, are retiring and the new hires (Gen X and younger) have been very open to innovative ideas.

I don't know when the tipping point will hit, and in fairness it sounds like it isn't here yet, but one is coming.

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

If the street was owned by Salt Lake, I would say there is a greater chance. But as long as the State has control of it, it will likely never happen. I'm sure we'd all love to be surprised, but I doubt it.

I'm just saying, don't give up at the starting line. This battle IS winnable.

Even Region 3, which represents rural Utah and Provo, has been very enthusiastic about complete streets in urban areas. Check out Provo's 300 South Project, 500 West Project (both of which integrate specialized crossing for Provo's bike boulevards) as well as the coordination they did with UTA on University Avenue. That street is 100x better than it was when I was a young student there.

And that's Region 3. Region 2 is even more progressive. I think there is more fertile ground there than you give it credit. Especially if someone else is footing the bill.

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Also, you need to consider the whole enterprise of the Entertainment District to begin with.

Up until now, people going to events or games at the Delta Center:

• Take trax and arrive at the nearest station or drive and park in the parking lot owned by the LDS Church.
• They brave crossing the wide roads to get the arena.
• They enjoy the event
• THEN THEY LEAVE

Obviously some might venture over to City Creek, but still only a small few considering how many people were attending these events.

For the Entertainment District to be successful, the pedestrian flow between the Delta Center and the District needs to flow easily without any real barriers.
It should feel entirely natural to move from the Delta Center directly into the District to shop, eat, drink, or enjoy other elements of the District.

The long-term economic success of the District depends on people staying in the area for as long as possible. Every person that looks at a 7-lane highway and decides to head back to their car or to the train (both in the wrong direction) instead of venturing across to the District is money lost.

That's why I think it's almost a necessity. Especially for an area and a populace that has mostly been trained to get in and get out as quick as possible.

Is crossing to the Gateway really that impeded by a 100 ton locomotive?

Again, Burnside...



People CAN and DO cross six-lane streets all the time, if we build them correctly. Just because Utah hasn't yet done one right, doesn't mean there isn't room to do a first.

TRAX hadn't been done in Utah... until we did it.

The Jordan River Parkway hadn't been done in Utah... until we did it.

A tame arterial street hasn't been done in Utah... until we DO IT someplace. Why not here?

-----------

OR... King Smith can just threaten to move to team to St. Louis, and the state can call a special session to remove 300 West from the State Highway System. It only takes one bill.

[Atlas]

Count me in the "make 300 W a better street, don't bury it" camp. If Ryan Smith has the clout to get UDOT to consider burying the street, he has the clout to ask for it to look like this:

Originally Posted by i-215

But with a bit of tweaking, we can reclaim 34 feet (about 3 lanes):

which would be a huuuuge improvement.

Also, here's a nice aerial I came across on Facebook that shows some SLC density and the Salt Palace wall.

[Blah_Amazing]

Honestly, I dare you all to bet everything on UDOT coming through for you. I'm sure they will deliver on all of your wildest hopes and dreams.

[Blah_Amazing]

If they were to redesign 300 West, it would likely need to be done the entire length (at least to Victory Road). They wouldn't bother narrowing the street or adding bike lanes, or adding stick trees or removing lanes, or reducing speeds or any of the pie in the sky renderings you come up with for only 1-2 blocks.

That just makes no sense from a transportation planning perspective (and would still cost tens of millions or more to do).

Therefore they would likely need to consider redoing from at least Victory Road to 400 South or all the way to 900 South for it to even make sense. So the costs would still be in the hundreds of millions either way. All just to slightly improve a disastrous highway.

I also think you horribly mistake the State's position. Most officials don't care if the stadium stays downtown or moves to Sandy or Draper. In fact, there are many that are actively hoping Salt Lake fails to deliver on all of SEG demands so that it moves closer to their constituents. So there isn't a ton of pressure for them to do anything, let alone fund a several hundred million dollar renovation of 300 West that would only benefit downtown Salt Lake.

___
There is an underground pedestrian tunnel under State Street that connects City Creek to where Harmons is. Again, UDOT would rather shove people underground like rats than make State Street actually livable. The fact that you are blissfully unaware is just more proof that shoving pedestrians underground DOESN'T WORK.

___
I'd say it's at least several decades before there is enough change there to make a difference. Basically everyone that works for UDOT needs to be fired, retired, or died and actively replaced with pro-pedestrian individuals before that department could ever do anything other than advocating for highway construction and lane widening.

Again, best case scenario, a couple generations (25-50 years) before real change can occur.
___

Honestly though, I guess I shouldn't be baffled that someone who names themself for a literal freeway is so anti-pedestrian-only infrastructure. Especially when your opinions seem to match perfectly with the name.

'How dare pedestrians demand to have a block or two where cars aren't always whizzing by.'

'How dare we set aside a block of the city where pedestrians can actually freely roam without needing to worry about getting hit and killed by a car.'

'How dare we consider investing in something that doesn't still mostly benefit cars.'

That's how y'all sound to me at least.

If YOU were a pedestrian (I know, it must be a shocking concept for you), are you saying you would prefer:
A) walking along a seven lane highway - again- moving highway speeds - with distracted commuters driving.

OR

B) walking comfortably in a pedestrian only plaza or park built over the now buried street.

By choosing A, you are still choosing CARS OVER PEOPLE.
By choosing B, you are choosing PEOPLE (both in safety and enjoyment) without disrupting cars at all.

If I were to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (as both would likely cost) I would take pedestrian-only infrastructure over a SLIGHTLY improved highway any day of the week. If we could have both great. But this time PEDESTRIANS SHOULD COME FIRST.

[Nebula3lem123]

Originally Posted by i-215

I'm confused. Which street?

Main has a bridge, not a tunnel. It's seen a major road diet. I guess I'm not sure where you're talking.

State street between south temple and 1st south.

Originally Posted by Atlas

Count me in the "make 300 W a better street, don't bury it" camp.

I am also pro improving the street before resorting to burying it. And if we can successfully do so I would support it. But in the very likely case that this doesn't happen, I don't see why the tunnel solution isn't a good way to do so. I think making it tunneled for such a short segment is kinda dumb, but if it were tunneled from 6th north to 4th south, or even further, I think this + a complete street with 2 through lanes at grade would be a great solution that appeases UDOT's current strategy while improving walkability not just around the stadium, but throughout downtown.

[i-215]

double post

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

If they were to redesign 300 West, it would likely need to be done the entire length (at least to Victory Road). They wouldn't bother narrowing the street or adding bike lanes, or adding stick trees or removing lanes, or reducing speeds or any of the pie in the sky renderings you come up with for only 1-2 blocks.

I'd love to see it tie in with the city's improvements down toward the south, with a goal that through truck traffic should divert to the freeway at 500/600 S. The street should focus on being a "downtown street" from 600 South to 600 North, at minimum.

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

There is an underground pedestrian tunnel under State Street that connects City Creek to where Harmons is. Again, UDOT would rather shove people underground like rats than make State Street actually livable. The fact that you are blissfully unaware is just more proof that shoving pedestrians underground DOESN'T WORK.

Honestly though, I guess I shouldn't be baffled that someone who names themself for a literal freeway is so anti-pedestrian-only infrastructure. Especially when your opinions seem to match perfectly with the name.

(I guess you are throwing civility out the window, so gloves off...)

'How dare pedestrians demand to have a block or two where cars aren't always whizzing by.'

Yeah. That's why I am the one advocating for freaking TRAFFIC CALMING and not turning downtown Salt Lake City into Paradise, NV.

'How dare we set aside a block of the city where pedestrians can actually freely roam without needing to worry about getting hit and killed by a car.'

This what you want? Let's be honest, this is the crap you're gonna get.

'How dare we consider investing in something that doesn't still mostly benefit cars.'

I just cut like 30 feet of right of way off a state highway. YOU are the one saying it can't be done.

GTFO

That's how y'all sound to me at least.

If YOU were a pedestrian (I know, it must be a shocking concept for you)

I lived in Portland for a year with NO car and walked everywhere. Have you?

, are you saying you would prefer:
A) walking along a seven lane highway - again- moving highway speeds - with distracted commuters driving.

OR

B) walking comfortably in a pedestrian only plaza or park built over the now buried street.

Neither. I want to walk across a PUBLIC calmed 4-6 lane (not seven) urban boulevard that is designed with pedestrians at mind. That is soooooo much better than a PRIVATELY-OWNED DISNEYLAND of a skybridge/tunnel that encourages traffic underneath to zip along at freeway speeds and causes mayhem on the blocks south of the tunnel.

You have to look at the big picture. A tunnel is sort of a "we only care about these 2 blocks, and screw everywhere else." That's not a city. That's not planning. That's short-sighted 1960s stupidity.

And honestly, I'm sorry, but you villify me -- but YOU are the one advocating for a downtown that isn't human scale or inviting. So, I don't appreciate the personal attacks (simply because my 20-YEAR-OLD user name reflects a different mindset I had... IN HIGH SCHOOL).

Again, yes -- human scale can be done (as it's done ALL OVER THE WORLD):



And it's a helluva lot more "urban" and inviting that turning SLC into downtown Los Angeles or the Vegas Strip.

[TRex]

Agreed. Please don't bury the street. Improve it!

[i-215]

Originally Posted by TRex

Agreed. Please don't bury the street. Improve it!

Agreed. But we have to, actually improve it. If vehicles are zipping along any faster than like 29 miles per hour (on greens, in the middle of the night), it's a failure.

It's got to be a road diet like SLC or UDOT has never seen before. But it's done other places. And this is a perfect place for Utah's first really good road diet.

[Makid]

I know that there is a desire, me amongst the group that would like to see 3rd West upgraded and calmed.

That said, it is very doubtful that any calming measures will be taken by UDoT. I say this as calming measures have been brought to UDoT a few times in the past and all of them were rejected. I am hopeful that this may be different but I would rather be surprised than disappointed.

Back in the 80's, UDoT was approached to reduce the width of State Street by 1 lane each direction. This would have allowed wider sidewalks or better on street parking. This request came from PRI (Property Reserve Inc.) when they were looking at making updates to the ZCMI mall. The plan was to have a pedestrian crossing between the Beneficial Life tower and Social Hall.

UDoT liked the idea, but said they would not reduce their right of way and would keep the lanes as they were. PRI returned to UDoT with a plan for a tunnel under State Street at the same location. This tunnel came with plans for a landscaped median to act as a possible traffic calming measure. UDoT agreed as the landscaped section would be mid-block and was deemed to have no impact to traffic flow. This gave us the current tunnel between the now Key Bank tower and Social Hall.

When CCC was in planning, CCR (City Creek Reserve), basically a renamed PRI, approached UDoT again about removing lanes along State Street. They wanted to increase the width of the sidewalks on the West side, allow on street parking and have shops fronting State Street (similar to that on Main Street).

UDoT loved the idea but would not reduce their ROW. They wanted to keep it as is due to traffic backups that happen during the Legislative sessions at the Capitol and during some large events. So CCR did some updates to the tunnel on both sides and upgraded the ventilation system.

I know that 3rd West sees vastly less traffic than State Street but I still see a tunnel happening here. Because of the current and future built environment along 3rd West between North Temple and 1st South, it would be a great area to test technologies that would allow for moving a highway below grade, think I-15 between 12th North and 12th South.

[mstar]

I love reading everyone's ideas here. I tend to be in the Comrade/Blah Amazing camp. The fact is that Salt Lake needs to do something different to improve downtown and make a big splash. It does seem that in the past the State, UDOT and maybe even the Church has not been too forward thinking with Downtown. However, I do like what the Church did with City Creek - not perfect but easily the best mixed use project ever built in Utah. For some reason, I am feeling optimistic that this Sports Entertainment District could be really different and if done right - would make a huge difference in Salt Lake. Mayor Mendenhall, Mayor Jenny Wilson and the conservative State Legislature seem to be on the same page with Ryan Smith. Even the Church is giving their blessing to the change that could happen. It just feels like none of the decision makers are opposed to each other on this subject. So, if what I-215 is saying is true that UDOT is open to pedestrian friendly development and the Church, the State, the City, the county and Ryan Smith are all on the same page - maybe this will be different this time. Usually, these entities are fighting with each other. I feel optimistic. This just feels different. I think the Olympics coming is a good thing for moving this along as well. Hoping for the best.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Makid

UDoT loved the idea but would not reduce their ROW. They wanted to keep it as is due to traffic backups that happen during the Legislative sessions at the Capitol and during some large events. So CCR did some updates to the tunnel on both sides and upgraded the ventilation system.

That's troubling to hear, as PRI is a pretty big gorilla swinging around a big paycheck.

It's also particularly out of character of what I've seen UDOT do down in Provo in the last 10 years, such as:




It makes me wonder if State Street in particular is sensitive because a bunch of hillbillies from Sanpete County roll up to the state capitol, see traffic calming and say (please read in hillbilly accent "What in tarnation is them city-slicker librul doing making roads slower on my tax dollar?"

So, they don't want to make waves on State Street or anything approaching the capitol.

Hmmm... I mean, I've met enough engineers from UDOT over the years, that it's really causing a mental disconnect from the conversations I've had with engineers (who seem reasonably progressive, in principle) and the real-world projects UDOT delivers (as you correctly mention, State Street).

I can see the skepticism, and respect it. I guess I just feel it's way too early to be giving up on *trying* to get the Region 2 to do the right thing, especially as most people don't mentally consider 300 West to be a state road (myself included, initially) while "State Street" has the state's name (and a "US" shield) on it.

This may take some finagling on the legislature's end, but what if:



The state re-routed US-89 on State Street (and take one for the team) up to North Temple, then ran 89 on North Temple to 300 W, then took it north. That would allow the state to abandon ownership from 400 S to North Temple, handing ownership and responsibility to the City of Salt Lake. Which would free up some design choices.

Granted, it's a loooooooong shot. But still far cheaper than the underground freeway tunnel, imo.

[Boz]

Let's be real here. All we need is Monorail!

[Nebula3lem123]

Originally Posted by i-215

The state re-routed US-89 on State Street (and take one for the team) up to North Temple, then ran 89 on North Temple to 300 W, then took it north. That would allow the state to abandon ownership from 400 S to North Temple, handing ownership and responsibility to the City of Salt Lake. Which would free up some design choices.

Funnily enough, this was the US-89 alignment until 2007.

US-89 in Utah from Wikipedia

Until 2007, US-89 followed State Street to North Temple (100 North), two blocks from the capitol, but now it turns at 400 South, following the former alignment of SR-186 and SR-176 west and north on 300 West, and rejoining its pre-2007 route at North Temple. In this area, modern US-89 runs for one block with the UTA TRAX Red Line in its median before crossing the TRAX line in Main Street's median, then passing the Frank E. Moss United States Courthouse, Pioneer Park, the historic Warehouse District at Pierpont Avenue, Japantown, Vivint Arena, the Arena TRAX station, the Triad Center, and West High School. As it leaves downtown, 300 West curves northwesterly and becomes Beck Street, meeting the modern terminus of SR-186 at Victory Road at the back side of Capitol Hill.

However, according to the quote, 4th south and 3rd west were still state highways before the realignment, and I'm not sure how willing UDOT would be to change that. Maybe if they were state highways and not highway 89 anymore UDOT would be more willing to work, but I have no clue.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Boz

Let's be real here. All we need is Monorail!

I hear those things are awfully loud...

[RC14]

Originally Posted by i-215

And it's a helluva lot more "urban" and inviting that turning SLC into downtown Los Angeles or the Vegas Strip.

I don't understand your comparison to the Las Vegs Strip and Freemont Street.
Freemont Street is closed to traffic, as 300 West would effectively be if we buried the "highway" portion of it.

I am coming around to the "traffic calming" idea and I think it could work.

However, it still feels like a half measure to me and like it's not even addressing the main problem, which is creating a seamless experience between the DC and the current Salt Palace blocks.

I think Comrade is correct to point out that this highway presents a major obstacle for the overall project. It's not like Main street cutting through City Creek. It would be more like State street between Harmons and the rest of City Creek. I am skeptical that we could calm that much traffic enough to make the blocks feel connected. However, it may be the most practical option.

I still think the best solution would be to burry a larger section of 300 west. Such as 600 North to 400 South or even further south. I think Chicago's Magnificent Mile (Michigan Ave) does this well enough. I mean, it's one of the most famous streets in America and it has a ton of pedestrian traffic. (Although, in this scenario the above ground portion would of course be narrower, if not void of vehicle traffic.)

[Makid]

I do just want to point out that the work done in Provo to reduce a lane was primarily UTA for their BRT route. UDoT wanted to shift the route but MAG and Provo fought to keep the original route/alignment. People complained about losing space but like UDoT, the studies were done and the route went forward as designed due to Federal Grants.

The planned BRT to South Davis is set to run along 4th West due to UDoT wanting to preserve the lanes along 3rd West. Some original plans had BRT going along 3rd West but UDoT fought it as they own the road. so the alignment shifted to 4th West. If WFRC, SLC, and UTA had all decided 3rd West was preferred, I do think UDoT would go along with it. However, I think all 3 groups felt that 4th West was better for a transit corridor than 3rd West.