Salt Lake Transit News Thread - Page 37

Orlando · #**721** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 5:31 AM**

I appreciate your comment. However, if we are continually sympathetic to those people who choose to live far out from the urban core by investing infrastructure and shopping and other conveniences to them, there will be no lesson learned and we will be perpetuating sprawl even further. It's like never being able to say "no" to a kid. If you always give in to what they want, they will never learn how to live within rules and guidelines. And the lesson will never be learned. Wise regional urban planning guidelines need to be followed and adhered to, or we become a chaotic, centerless mess. People who choose to live far away from the city and expect the shopping and infrstructure to come to them are in the wrong and are the primary case of suburban sprawl ignorance. People need to be educated, and understand the consequences of sprawl. WE CANNOT CONTINUALLY BE SYMPATHETIC TO THOSE WHO IGNORANTLY/OR UNIGNORANTLY CHOOSE TO LIVE FAR AWAY IN PLACES LIKE EAGLE MOUNTAIN OR HERRIMAN AND EXPECT THE CONVENIENCES OF A CITY! The propose Herriman development is like giving candy to a spoiled kid, who was once told they could not have candy because of their actions, but then someone gave in and decided to give it to them anyways. This development will just tell others that it's okay to move far away because there will always be some developer to create you a new city. ...and thus we all go down the unsustainable sprawl tradition with no one to stop us until our urban core has lost it vibrancy amd the most vibrant places are the new development on the periphery! We don't want our downtown to suffer like downtown L.A. has over the years.

Future Mayor · #**722** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 12:59 PM**

I am not symphathysing with sprawl. I agree that we need to set growth boundaries and set limits for were development can occur. However your argument with telling a child that they can't have something and then turning around and giving it to them doesn't fit in the case of Herriman. You are right in saying that we need to educate people regarding natural resources and the importance of repsonsible sustainable development. However that hasn't been done like it needs to. If you put your metophor into place with Herriman I look at it more as you let the kid act in whatever way it wants to act without teaching it right from wrong and then you come in after the behavior has been allowed and encouraged for a long time and say guess what we are going to punish you for doing what we have now decided is wrong, even though we didn't tell you it was wrong when we allowed you to do it. Punishment for something that wasn't deemed as punishable at the time is not acceptable in my opinion. So by your rationale we punish them for the behavior that they didn't know was punishable and thus create a need for more traffic and pollution to enter the air as they continue to drive to area of shopping.

We need to begin the education process now and begin to implement those growth boundaries. Places like Eagle Mountain and the west side of Utah Lake are the places that need to be focused on, as well as many others. UDOT can decide now that the roads in and out of Herriman will be widened to a certain point and that is the max, and this is the max capacity and Herriman cannot approve additional development that will exceed that capacity.

As an example. The State needs to pass legislation that a causeway or a bridge will not be built across Utah Lake and UDOT must state that the road from Lehi will only be so wide, at its maximum build out, and at maximum build out it will have a capacity of so many vehicles. Thus resulting in said amount of residents.

Forward thinking policies is the key, not retroactive punishments. "We know that policies in the past allowed you to build out there, but we have decided that we shouldn't have so F#$% OFF!" As much as we might wish we could do it that way, we can't.

UTPlanner · #**723** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 2:47 PM**

Growth will continue to be a challenge throughout the Intermountain West. Good sustainalbe developments as well as infill projects should certainly be encouraged and promoted, but growth is inevitable. Portland, OR is often used as an example of an Urban Growth Boundary. People may not realize that this UGB is not a permanent line it must continually grow and expand. Portland has adjusted their line dozens of times now. An UGB will do nothing but force land prices to increase dramatically.

The urban areas that exist today are not going to be sufficient to support the millions of people that are coming. 20 years ago people thought that Holladay, Millcreek, and West Valley City are the Herrimans and Eagle Mountains of today. How many people on this forum are lamblasting these communities but reside in a suburban neighborhood?

We certainly need to be pro active in thought and action in dealing with growth but a simple line on a map is not enough. Attitudes need to change in this valley. The people of Lehi don't want to see Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain to grow, but the people in Draper and Riverton don't want to see the traffic and growth in Lehi.

Always remember that house you're living in undoubtedly was occupied by a farmer of the past or was simply open space. I'm sure we're all happy that the farmer of the past was willing to sell his land so that we could have a piece of it.

I'm sure this appears as nothing more than a rant but I work in a rapidly growing community and am continually asked by residents how we can stop growth. Growth cannot and should not be stopped it should be better designed and directed.

Future Mayor · #**724** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 3:03 PM**

Perfectly stated.

delts145 · #**725** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 3:23 PM**

"Hallowed Be The Orai," for those of you familiar with Stargate SG-1, you'll understand what I'm talking about!!

Why don't we just fire some sort of death ray on the towns and the ignorant evil doers of Eagle Mtn. and Herriman, LOL

SmilingBob · #**726** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I am not symphathysing with sprawl. I agree that we need to set growth boundaries and set limits for were development can occur. However your argument with telling a child that they can't have something and then turning around and giving it to them doesn't fit in the case of Herriman. You are right in saying that we need to educate people regarding natural resources and the importance of repsonsible sustainable development. However that hasn't been done like it needs to. If you put your metophor into place with Herriman I look at it more as you let the kid act in whatever way it wants to act without teaching it right from wrong and then you come in after the behavior has been allowed and encouraged for a long time and say guess what we are going to punish you for doing what we have now decided is wrong, even though we didn't tell you it was wrong when we allowed you to do it. Punishment for something that wasn't deemed as punishable at the time is not acceptable in my opinion. So by your rationale we punish them for the behavior that they didn't know was punishable and thus create a need for more traffic and pollution to enter the air as they continue to drive to area of shopping.

We need to begin the education process now and begin to implement those growth boundaries. Places like Eagle Mountain and the west side of Utah Lake are the places that need to be focused on, as well as many others. UDOT can decide now that the roads in and out of Herriman will be widened to a certain point and that is the max, and this is the max capacity and Herriman cannot approve additional development that will exceed that capacity.

As an example. The State needs to pass legislation that a causeway or a bridge will not be built across Utah Lake and UDOT must state that the road from Lehi will only be so wide, at its maximum build out, and at maximum build out it will have a capacity of so many vehicles. Thus resulting in said amount of residents.

Forward thinking policies is the key, not retroactive punishments. "We know that policies in the past allowed you to build out there, but we have decided that we shouldn't have so F#$% OFF!" As much as we might wish we could do it that way, we can't.

Is the problem growth or transportation? The growth in Cedar Valley or Herriman is a problem, not not because of "sprawl", but because of lack of transporation. People want to live in Herriman and work downtown or Odgen or Holladay and need to get to work.

Not everyone can live downtown and work downtown.

With Utah's growth, do we want everyone living in the 'burbs and commuting to downtown or is it more sensible to move work closer to where you live?

UTPlanner · #**727** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 9:35 PM**

I think you're right that we can't all live and/work downtown. It isn't feasible and in all reality, ridiculous. I think it is wise to create job centers all over the Wasatch Front. We should recognize that the Wasatch Front is a multi-nodal, dynamic area. Good planning techniques should be encouraged all over the area to ensure that these job centers, or village centers, or town centers or whatever you would like to call them are well designed. This would mean with different options for transportation and through mixed-use design placing people in and around these job centers.

Now this isn't a perfect system but would certainly create a better environment. People all need jobs and living nearby is not always an option and some job locations are not appropriate for nearby residents. I definitely woudn't want to create a mixed-use center around the sewer plant but I'm glad that somebody commutes out to work there.

I think that the solution is multi-faceted as the problems of today are as well. I think that we need to avoid extremist ideas, policies, and legislation but still work to inject society with better idea of what the Wasatch Front could be.

arkhitektor · #**728** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Residents on west side of Utah Lake wishing for transit options
July 18th, 2008 @ 7:59am
By Randall Jeppesen
People who live in the commuter towns of Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain are getting hit hard with high gas price, and they don't have many public transit options to fall back on.

A lot of people moved out to Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs to get away from the city, but with high gas prices and a long commute, many are wishing for a bus or two.

Saratoga Springs Mayor Timothy Parker says, "If they could catch a bus here in Saratoga Springs, I think we would see a lot fewer cars on the roads"

Parker says he hopes the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) will start driving their way, but there's nothing in the works just yet. Also residents would need to pass a quarter-cent sales tax increase before UTA could consider running buses there.

Parker says they need to look at all their options, including the idea of creating their own bus system.

I'm not sure if this was posted already or not, but the above article from KSL.com last week seems to address some of the same issues being discussed here.

I think that if people want to live in Eagle Mountain that's certainly their right, but they need to realize that living there will bring a long commute and that since there was no transit service when they moved in, they have no right to expect it now just because they are suddenly paying a lot more for gas.

When my wife and I bought our first home 2 years ago, we moved from SLC to Clearfield, partly to be closer to family, but mostly because we could afford a lot more house there than we could downtown. We knew that FrontRunner service was on its way, and that was a factor in our descision as well. I now have a much longer commute to work, but if that's a problem for me, I have nobody to blame but myself.

We certainly can't expect everyone to live downtown, but if people choose to live in the distant suburbs, they need to be ready for a long commute and a high gas bill. If that's a big problem, they need to forgo the bigger, newer house and live closer to work. You can't have the best of both worlds.

UTPlanner · #**729** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 9:41 PM**

Arkhitektor we probably pass each other on the tracks every morning. I live downtown and commute up to Davis County every day. I enjoyed your post, very sane and level headed.

Future Mayor · #**730** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 10:59 PM**

UTPlanner, you say the same things I'm thinking on nearly all your posts, you just say it in a much better way.

wrendog · #**731** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 11:26 PM**

UTPlanner for mayor in 2019!!!

Future Mayor · #**732** Posted **Jul 21, 2008, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrendog

UTPlanner for mayor in 2019!!!

WHAT??????

I'm hurt and offended!

i-215 · #**733** Posted **Jul 22, 2008, 12:46 AM**

I've said it a dozen times. The permanent solution to sprawl-commuting is simple. Require all cities to be job-balanced.

You won't stop "new growth" in planning-libertarian states like Utah. But you can reduce the miles on the road if you require cities to provide employment - not just retail.

RFPCME · #**734** Posted **Jul 22, 2008, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrendog

UTPlanner for mayor in 2019!!!

There went one good, potential mortgage client!!!!

i-215 · #**735** Posted **Jul 22, 2008, 2:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

WHAT??????

I'm hurt and offended!

It's OK. I'm sure he meant Sandy, and you mean SLC.

wrendog · #**736** Posted **Jul 22, 2008, 3:31 AM**

UTPlanner for Future Mayor's spokesman in 2019?

RFPCME · #**737** Posted **Jul 22, 2008, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

I've said it a dozen times. The permanent solution to sprawl-commuting is simple. Require all cities to be job-balanced.

You won't stop "new growth" in planning-libertarian states like Utah. But you can reduce the miles on the road if you require cities to provide employment - not just retail.

I-215: The definition of "jobs" is changing...fast. When I grew up, a job generally meant going to an office, plant, store or whatever, putting your time in, then going home. But that was in a manufacturing economy, which became a service economy, which is fast becoming an information management economy. I know the majority of people still go to jobs each day. I don't. I have an office, even a corner one. But at least two days a week, I work from home, especially if I want to get something done, away from the constant distractions of the office. I also manage people, but working from home has little effect on even that task.

The point I'm driving at is that is more and more each day people have the tools and ability to work and work well from home. So how do you determine whether a city is job-balanced?

Now that I think about it, I'm beginning to realize why it makes so much sense for large, high-rise developments to be mixed-used developments. I know the amount of necessary office space per employee is declining each year, largely because of employee ability to work productively from home. It makes sense to have a large, urban building that is mixed use, with office, retail, and residential.

In fact, my favorite new high-rise in the country is the Beekman Tower in NYC. The first 5 floors of the 70 story tower is a public school, followed by some floors for office space, with the majority of the building reserved for residential. That's really mixed use!

As I think further, it is rather disappointing to see the great CCC still largely confined to residential, retail, or office buildings. Yes, I realize many some of the buildings in the CCC will be a combination of retail and office, and possibly some retail and residential. But I don't think any of the buildings is a combination of all three, which seems to be the wave of the future. In fact, I think if we want to see some REALLY tall buildings in SLC, they are going to have to be a combination of all three types of uses.

Sorry for rambling...one of my many character defects. But my point is that if residential areas are planned very well, they will create productive work environments as well, eliminating a fair degree of the necessary transportation infrastructure and some of the wasted energy on commuting.

delts145 · #**738** Posted **Jul 22, 2008, 4:26 AM**

I think many of us would agree with you RFPCME. I think combining uses of many of our buildings downtown makes very good sense. I also think it could prove to be a very attractive selling point to prospective tenants. We should also continue to pursue and add even more useful, quality public space to compliment our downtown environment.

Orlando · #**739** Posted **Jul 22, 2008, 5:42 AM**

Many of you mentioned that we need to have options. I'm not saying that we should all live in downtown. Living in places where infrastructure is built up, like Clearfield is still okay. Living in Clearfield is a whole lot different than living in Herriman and Eagle Mountain. First of all, there are already many suburbs that have alot more room to grow and they definitely already have more infrastructure and transportation than Herriman, and Eagle Mountain. It was ignorance on the part of planners and developers and home buyers to build out there. Clerefield has I-15 running by it. Frontrunner now runs by it. It's along a major transportation corridor between SLC and Ogden. Herriman, and Eagle Mountain are different because they are way out of the way. There is no major transportation corridor running out there. Those people were stupid to buy out there, and those people who allowed them to build out by the thousands were not very responsible or educated.
I agree with Future Mayor, that there should be limits imposed by UDOT, UTA, and any other planning agency. It requires a lot more money to build up adequate infrastructure for those people. It costs more, it wastes more. It is irresponsible, ignorant, etc. Go live in Lehi or Clerefield, where it at least is closer to the freeway. Herriman and Eagle Mountain are perfect examples of leap-frog development. Developers found a cheap piece of land far out from the perimeter and decided to build. Because there were no planning controls in place, they were allowed to do so.

UTPlanner · #**740** Posted **Jul 23, 2008, 10:01 PM**

FutureMayor I will leave the governing to you. I prefer to stay out of the spotlight. The great thing about being the Mayor is getting credit for every good thing that happens in the city, the bad thing about being the Mayor is getting credit for every bad thing that occurs.

I had the great opportunity of doing a lot of campaigning for Mayor Becker I may help you out along the way as well free of charge.