Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Future Mayor]

I love the proposal above for the street car lines. I like the 900 E line rather than the 1100 east line. I think it will help to stretch development along 2100 S from 1100 E and the heart of Sugarhouse. The 900 E line wouldn't have to worry about jogging to the west once it got to 600 S and hit the hill plus it would be a great benefit to have it run through 9th and 9th.

I also think a 500 or 300 E line would be a nice addition too and maybe a 900 S 1300 S or 1700 S line. 1300 S wouldn't be the best in my opinion because it is a feeder route to I-15 but 900 S or 1700 S would be nice.

[TANGELD_SLC]

I would beg to differ somewhat because 1300 S could really use a streetcar line BIG TIME. That would help get the ghetto on the up-and-up, IMO. That area could be such an awesome city neighborhood if it was more walkable and not so car-oriented.

[WASDEN]

Got this email today, since theres a lot of good ideas on this thread maybe some of you would be interested in attending-


Do you like TRAX but think it could be better? Think Utah is behind when it comes to public transit? Want to help change things? There are three upcoming events scheduled for the Sustainability "Conversations" series for Spring 2009 based upon the theme "Commuting Without Cars." Join in encouraging friends, co-workers, associates and groups you are associated with to attend and participate --audience participation in the "conversations" is encouraged. Descriptions of the panels are included below:

· JAN 28TH, 7pm Wednesday (Salt Lake City Main Library, 4th Floor Conference Room): "Transportation Planning Ideas and Solutions for SL Valley"

· FEB 18th, 7pm Wednesday (Rm 109 in the new Carolyn Tanner Irish Humanities Building, University of Utah): Utah Transit Authority (UTA) presentation on public transit solutions and innovations from around the world

· APRIL 1ST, 7pm Wednesday (SL Main Library Nancy Tessman Auditorium): "Public Policy Issues and Challenges"

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I think with additional routes being continually added, and if they connect to each other rather than simply via the main track, that Trax will easily be able to accommodate the increase in ridership that is inevitably going to occur. Another simple solution will be to increase the frequency of the trains, during peak hours.

It looks as if S bound trains run about every 12 minutes during peak commute time. I would predict that once the new lines are added that a S bound train will be leaving downtown about every 4 minutes. While there won't be a sandy train every four minutes, many of the other southbound riders such as murray, millcreek and SSL will be able to catch any of the other two trains and reach their destinations before they ultimately head towards WVC and SJ. This will allow for an increase in Sandy only ridership as well. Front Runner south will also eliviate some of the potential north south ridership on trax. If you could jump on FR from Sandy or Draper, especially if you are coming from the west, and have only a couple of stops on a faster train, as opposed to more stops on Trax that will also take care of increased capacity. FR seems to have a much larger potential for capacity increase, with additional cars and more double decker cars.

I could also anticipate a train every 3 minutes, with every other train headed to Sandy/Draper and the others headed to WVC and SJ.

Having BRT that runs along 5600 W, with the future potential of LRT, or the potential LRT along the Baucus Hwy, connecting to other lines, this will allow for a substantial increase in capacity, while utilizing the transit we currently have in place.

Back in the day, when trax was just a proposal and I was a student at SLCC I had to present something in my speech class and I choose Light Rail. Subways are estimated to cost roughly 10 times that of LRT and a monorail is roughly 5-6 times more expensive to build than LRT. So the amount of LRT and commuter rail that could be built. Especially considering the amount of commuter that come from outside of the city, with the dispersed population that has been mentioned.

Maybe I should have posted this on the transit thread.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out there, mayor. It remindes me of BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) and the perliferal transit tangents from when I lived in Nor Cal. In down town San Francisco, there are local street cars for quick trips down the block, city buses to access more cross-town locations, and a light-rail system (Muni) that services the penninsula (San Fran and bordering cities). Then there is regonal BART system (hybrid of subway and elevated rail) that services the entire Bay Area region. Then, each urban cluster in the Bay Area has it's own local transit system (typically buses).

BART is the back-bone of Bay Area Transit. All other transit sytems work to accomidate BART passengers. I'm thinking that the Wasatch Front will have a duel domination of TRAX and Frontrunner when all lines are complete, which is a little different from what I'm used to. One thing that might end up happening here is what they do in the Bay Area during peak commute hours. On BART, there are 5 lines that access the Bay. Each line is typically 30-40 miles long. The one I lived off of goes from SFO (airport) in the South Western Bay to Pittsburg/Bay Point in the North Eastern Bay. During peak hours, there is a train every 12 min to Pittsburg (the full route), but then a shorter distance train that goes only from down town SF to Concord, about 15-20 miles less than the full route. It's the same line, just less of it (the more traveled part). This train comes every 12 min, allowing for Walnut Creek-bound passengers (that'd be me) to catch a train every 6 min.

I'm thinking that TRAX could do something similar if need be. Of course, the BA has 7.6 million people to service - a lot more than the WF's 2.2 million. Though, now that I think about it, that's not too bad. The WF is half way between a third and a fourth (29%) the population of the BA. It's catching up! I'm thinking that if current growth rates remain the same, the WF could eclipse, or at least rival the size of the BA in the next 50-75 years. There's also the fact that the WF has a bit more room to expand than the BA

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by i-215

Well, if we're talking dream projects ...

Let me introduce you to Interstate 415, Utah's ultimate infrastructure boost! Complete with a sister network of higher-speed at grade expressways.



If Utah got the money and started building this tomorrow, both Urbanboy and I would probably die of heart attacks.

But for totally different reasons.

Wow, that map makes even a mass-transit guy like me drool! With all the potential development West of Utah Lake, that map looks very feasible. I just hope that it is developed wisely - more like the Bay Area, and less like La La Land. The BA actually has zoning codes that require a certain percentage of developed land to remain open space. They should do that here before it's too late!

The 'Butterfield Freeway' doesn't have to be a pork project. With a Tooele connection to the north (I-80, SR 201) and the new one to the south, you won't need this central one to be a freeway. It could just be similar to Sardine Canyon between Brigham and Logan - a 4-lane expressway. That would be cheaper and more feasible to build. That way it won't be a waste of money.

As to your bridge up North, I wouldn't support it. It can loop around and piggy back off of legacy. I fear that a bridge like that would disrupt ecosystems in the GSL. That, and remember how the rail bridge disrupted salt flows way back when it was built? The salinity is toxic on the one half, then not salty enough on the other. I'd say, hands off the GSL and it's wetlands! Legacy is as far as we should go.

Originally Posted by i-215

If Utah got the money and started building this tomorrow, both Urbanboy and I would probably die of heart attacks.

But for totally different reasons.

Lol So true.

It's a good thing we have people like Urban Boy, though. If we didn't have eco-minded people to challenge development, we would most certainly end up like La La Land or New York! I certainly support, and am encouraged by, development, but it must be wise development. I mean, we can't do either extreme. We can't fight it because the crowds will come whether we like it or not. But we can't just sprawl like there's no tomorow. We need to find a place for these new-commers to live, shop, work, etc. But we must do so sustainably. This will mean that we will need to eventually give up our cars and lawns unfortunately. This also means that we need to strive to preserve natural ecosystems and limit or negative impact on the Earth. I mean, there's only one Earth. If we F this one up, we won't get a second chance.

[scrapernerd]

That is a sweet freeway. If that got started tomorrow I would be buying land in Goshen and Santaquin the next day.!!

[TANGELD_SLC]

I think it's a good idea too. The automobile is NOT going away. Sure, we should promote and build infrastructure for mass transit, but not everyone can or should go without a vehicle.

But we do need to develop wisely with the environment in mind and not end up like L.A.

[urbanboy]

There might be clean cars available to the masses soon, but what should be done about the rubber dust from the tires? This also causes health problems.

It's not just the environment, it's the social factors that are a concern as well. People are already to spread out as it is. There are plenty of suburban housing options for those who like that lifestyle, however, there are not yet enough urban high density walkable options for those who like that type of lifestyle. The metro region is not dense enough to justify building out. Why are some people more interested in there own personal quick gains, than the welfare of our community as a whole? Investment? In what? Not in our future, or future generations; Yes, that means your children and grandchildren too!

[i-215]

Well, it depends.

I do think cities need to expect more from developers. The Eagle Mountain "build whatever you please" model needs to die.

Additionally, there need to me more high-density housing opportunities at TOD points. We are beginning to see that in downtown Salt Lake City. I think UTAs aggressive program will open up more choices in SLCO.

But an expansion of low-density choices will also continue. I am terrified of waking up 20 years from now and seeing a Cedar Valley full of Eagle Mountain-style sprawl with no corridor preservation for arterial and highways. They valley would become a massive gridlock mess of jumbled subdivision roads and arbitrarily windy collector roads.

MAG needs to step uo and be aggressive. They need to start saying "this is where I-415 will be" and "this is where Frontrunner West will run."

[arkhitektor]

I wouldn't favor building a new freeway through the middle of nowhere to encourage growth, but I'd have no problem preserving the corridors now so that when the area does begin to grow, it does so around the corridors for future transit improvement. Then, when the population (and tax) base is in place to support contruction, there is already a space set-aside for construction of a new freeway.

Imagine if someone had done so 20 years ago for an east-west freeway at the south end of the valley. We wouldn't be tearing down houses to widen all of the arterials because there is absolutley no room for a major connector left anywhere.

I remember driving on this section of Loop 303 in Arizona a few years ago:



It's basically just a 2-lane road but it has a right of way set aside to be widened to a freeway at some point in the future. Something like this could work here as well.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I wouldn't favor building a new freeway through the middle of nowhere to encourage growth, but I'd have no problem preserving the corridors now so that when the area does begin to grow, it does so around the corridors for future transit improvement. Then, when the population (and tax) base is in place to support contruction, there is already a space set-aside for construction of a new freeway.

Imagine if someone had done so 20 years ago for an east-west freeway at the south end of the valley. We wouldn't be tearing down houses to widen all of the arterials because there is absolutley no room for a major connector left anywhere.

I remember driving on this section of Loop 303 in Arizona a few years ago:



It's basically just a 2-lane road but it has a right of way set aside to be widened to a freeway at some point in the future. Something like this could work here as well.

Ooooo! I love how none of the yards are green with water-sucking grass!!! Utahns could learn from Arizonians and Nevadans. There's nothing wrong with a little patch of grass and a rock garden with native plants in your yard. The thing that gets me is all the strips of grass put between the road and sidewalk in any neighborhood you drive through. What the f is that used for? It wasts water, and it sucks to mow! I think that we could save a good 15% of water usage in the valley if people just removed this strip from the front yards. Utah cities could start doing what cities in nearby desert states are doing - pay people per square foot of grass they let the city remove.

Also, back to topic. That is an excellent thing to do! I don't support building a freeway in the middle of nowhere to encourage sprawl, but to preserve a corridor that can later be used when it's needed. Tangeled, I know that cars aren't going away anytime soon. That's why I said "eventually". I think it would help if people at least had only 1 car per houshold and carpooled/used mass transit more.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

There might be clean cars available to the masses soon, but what should be done about the rubber dust from the tires? This also causes health problems.

It's not just the environment, it's the social factors that are a concern as well. People are already to spread out as it is. There are plenty of suburban housing options for those who like that lifestyle, however, there are not yet enough urban high density walkable options for those who like that type of lifestyle. The metro region is not dense enough to justify building out. Why are some people more interested in there own personal quick gains, than the welfare of our community as a whole? Investment? In what? Not in our future, or future generations; Yes, that means your children and grandchildren too!

Rubber dust from tires? Oh my! That is deffinately something I hadn't heard of before, but now I have another reason to push even harder toward a mass-transit dominated society. So, you mean to say that we are breathing in rubber dust particulates in addition to all the smog we get during inversion season? Now that is disgusting!

Don't worry about dense living options, they are coming! West Valley is already densing (is that a word? lol) up along 27th West and 35th South where TRAX will soon be. Cottonwood is devloping a dense community, Farmington is, Roy is, Lehi is, Day Break is (S. Jordan), Sandy kinda is. I do agree that we lack these at the moment, and probably will for a while, but they will come. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a green, self-sufficiant, densely urban America.

I also agree with you, Urban boy, that the WF needs to become much denser before the need to build out will make sense. We could easily double our population without building out a single square mile more from existing boundaries.

[urbanboy]

The rubber dust from tires also gets into our water.

Look at the previous picture and see how it separates that neighborhood into two. I don't see any pedestrian connectors at the end of those cul de sacs btw, seems like it would be a pedestrian nightmare (remember, not all demographics can drive cars; This demographic would become dependent and trapped). Look how much space needs to be "preserved" for a future freeway. That is a massive chunk of space. Mass transit trains would take up only a fraction of that space and not act as such an "edge." The automobile and all it's infrastructure (including parking) is very inefficient and takes up way too much space. Imagine a grid locked freeway, now imagine all the cars disappeared and all the drivers and their passengers (remember, very few people carpool) were standing in the exact same place they were sitting. Now put them all on bicycles, notice how much room there is. Now imagine all those people efficiently organized in rows, as if they were sitting on a train or bus. Do you see how efficient mass transit is at moving people? Perhaps people will actually be able to get a good night sleep and still show up for work on time because they won't need to face traffic. Can you see how this might even help stimulate our economy?

[arkhitektor]

Those are valid points but you've got to realize that not everyone wants to live in the same utopian candyland that you do.

Most people in America :gasp: want to live on a quiet suburban street and couldn't care less about having a pedestrian connection to the cul-de-sac next door. The kind of people that buy houses such as these do not do so simply because they can't afford anything else, they choose these kinds of neighborhoods. Why not give them some viable transit options? A well-established freeway system and mass-transit options to go along with it makes much more sense for modern society than tearing up America's infrastructure and issuing everyone a bicycle instead.

Your world view seems so myopic sometimes that I wonder how you are able to function as a member of society, going about arguing that your views are absolutley correct and that the other 95% of the population is completly wrong about nearly everything.

Also, I'm about as concerned about rubber tire dust in my water as I am about being attacked by robots. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[urbanboy]

I would at least like the same amount of emphasis put on each mode of transportation, not 50% automobile and 50% for the rest. However, ideally, I would like these modes of transportation to be funded based on the efficiency of that mode.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Those are valid points but you've got to realize that not everyone wants to live in the same utopian candyland that you do.

Most people in America :gasp: want to live on a quiet suburban street and couldn't care less about having a pedestrian connection to the cul-de-sac next door. The kind of people that buy houses such as these do not do so simply because they can't afford anything else, they choose these kinds of neighborhoods. Why not give them some viable transit options? A well-established freeway system and mass-transit options to go along with it makes much more sense for modern society than tearing up America's infrastructure and issuing everyone a bicycle instead.

Your world view seems so myopic sometimes that I wonder how you are able to function as a member of society, going about arguing that your views are absolutley correct and that the other 95% of the population is completly wrong about nearly everything.

Also, I'm about as concerned about rubber tire dust in my water as I am about being attacked by robots. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Woah, now. Let's hold back the fire and show a little love. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of things Urban boy says, but I value him as an imprtant member of our society. Don't cast him out as some psychotic freak who has nothing valuable to say. His opinion offers a unique perspective that most of us tend to overlook. Without him, we wouldn't get the full picture. I don't think he is fully appretiated - even though I don't agree with some things he says.

I grew up in a suburban community similar to this one that wasn't very pedestrian friendly. I felt trapped. Yes, my parents were able to choose to live there, but I didn't have that choice. They both had cars. I didn't. If I wanted to go anywhere, I had to wait from someone to take me. This was particularly annoying in the summer when I had to stay home all day. The most I could do was play outside with friends, but I couldn't go anywhere. Even if I had had a bus to take me to a mall, I would have been happy.

As to the tire dust thing, ignoring a health hazard doesn't make it go away. I could walk outside and right now and say, "Oh, look at the beautiful clouds and fog". The pollution would still be there, even though I decide to ignore it. Granted, I'm not sure about this tire dust thing, but it does sound like a valid concern.

*searches internet*

It looks like it is a significant health hazord. Tire dust contains latex allergens, which can lead to lung problems and can even be fatal to some people. Apparently, the tire treads wear off and detatch from the tire, escaping into the air where they become a significant health hazard to certain groups of people and a mild hazard to the general population.

The following is an excerpt from a report released by the Environmental Engineering Department of the California Institute of Technology in 1996.

“Latex allergy has become a significant health hazard since its recognition about 15 years ago. ..Exposure to these allergens leads to production of latex-specific IgE antibodies in susceptible individuals. Symptoms of latex allergy resulting from IgE-medicated reactions are those customarily diagnosed for atopic allergic disease, including contact urticaria (itchiness, hives), rhinitis (sneezing, watery eyes, nasal congestion), asthma (inflamed constricted airways, wheezing, difficulty breathing), and anaphylaxis (decrease in blood pressure, circulatory collapse, death). Severity can range from mild to fatal....

Tire production is now the largest application for natural rubber accounts for 75% of the global consumption. Although both synthetic and natural rubber are used in tire compounding, the proportion of natural rubber has increased with the conversion from bias ply to modern radial ply tires. The tire treads, providing the point of contact with the road, wear off to form particulate debris. This tire-wear debris has been encountered suspended in the urban atmosphere as well as deposited along the roadside. In conjunction, this information leads to the possibility of the dissemination of latex allergens in the urban environment via dispersion of tire tread debris...”

Looks like you hit that nail right on the head, Urban boy! See, that's my point. Most of us initially think that "tire dust" is some bizzar conspiracy theory and close our minds to the valid health concern Urban boy has just alerted us to. Without him, we wouldn't get the full picture on things.

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Wow, that map makes even a mass-transit guy like me drool! With all the potential development West of Utah Lake, that map looks very feasible. I just hope that it is developed wisely - more like the Bay Area, and less like La La Land. The BA actually has zoning codes that require a certain percentage of developed land to remain open space. They should do that here before it's too late!

The 'Butterfield Freeway' doesn't have to be a pork project. With a Tooele connection to the north (I-80, SR 201) and the new one to the south, you won't need this central one to be a freeway. It could just be similar to Sardine Canyon between Brigham and Logan - a 4-lane expressway. That would be cheaper and more feasible to build. That way it won't be a waste of money.

As to your bridge up North, I wouldn't support it. It can loop around and piggy back off of legacy. I fear that a bridge like that would disrupt ecosystems in the GSL. That, and remember how the rail bridge disrupted salt flows way back when it was built? The salinity is toxic on the one half, then not salty enough on the other. I'd say, hands off the GSL and it's wetlands! Legacy is as far as we should go.



Lol So true.

It's a good thing we have people like Urban Boy, though. If we didn't have eco-minded people to challenge development, we would most certainly end up like La La Land or New York! I certainly support, and am encouraged by, development, but it must be wise development. I mean, we can't do either extreme. We can't fight it because the crowds will come whether we like it or not. But we can't just sprawl like there's no tomorow. We need to find a place for these new-commers to live, shop, work, etc. But we must do so sustainably. This will mean that we will need to eventually give up our cars and lawns unfortunately. This also means that we need to strive to preserve natural ecosystems and limit or negative impact on the Earth. I mean, there's only one Earth. If we F this one up, we won't get a second chance.

NYC is nothing like LA. Trying to group them together is hilarious at best. NYC became what it is over 100 years ago. It was built to the land available.

[WASDEN]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Those are valid points but you've got to realize that not everyone wants to live in the same utopian candyland that you do.

Most people in America :gasp: want to live on a quiet suburban street and couldn't care less about having a pedestrian connection to the cul-de-sac next door. The kind of people that buy houses such as these do not do so simply because they can't afford anything else, they choose these kinds of neighborhoods. Why not give them some viable transit options? A well-established freeway system and mass-transit options to go along with it makes much more sense for modern society than tearing up America's infrastructure and issuing everyone a bicycle instead.

Your world view seems so myopic sometimes that I wonder how you are able to function as a member of society, going about arguing that your views are absolutley correct and that the other 95% of the population is completly wrong about nearly everything.

Also, I'm about as concerned about rubber tire dust in my water as I am about being attacked by robots. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Ark- I agree with you- most Americans obviously PREFER to live in a candyland suburban environment. We're capitolists right? And developers are simply giving the people what they want.

But lets fast forward to present day, where folks can no longer bogusly finance their way into the cloned McMansion neighborhoods of the recent past. A lot of cities in our fair valley have zoning laws that REQUIRE a house to be of a minimum square footage with a minimum amount of yard. This is like sprawl mandated legislation. Don't get me wrong, I believe in community planning and property rights, and folks on Traverse Ridge should have the right to not live next to riff-raff such as myself- but where does it end? Lets say America's cities keep consuming land at the same pace they have in the past 50 years. Can you imagine a Salt Lake Metro Area that has tripled, even quadrupled in size? Hell I can't even breath outside NOW! A lot of peope in Utah say they love the outdoors and natural places, but are they willing to alter their mass consumption lifestyles to ensure that these kinds of places are preserved for their kids? The answer is obviously no. Everyone wants somebody else to ride the bus into work so they face less traffic and won't feel so bad about blackening our skies with their Hummers. We all hope for better living conditions but I think a lot of folks think sustainability is someone elses problem. In the end I think it affects all of us, and somethings got to give. In my mind that is big time changes in zoning and transportation planning.

Anyway, I am obviously one of those freaks that would be lynched if he lived in the suburbs (you can find safety from my bizarre ideas and comments on the Salt Lake MSA thread.)

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

NYC is nothing like LA. Trying to group them together is hilarious at best. NYC became what it is over 100 years ago. It was built to the land available.

Sorry, I meant the New York Area - not just Manhattan and the buroughs, but the whole mass of urban/suburban sprawl. I do stand by my comparison - 100+ miles of endless sprawl, tens of millions of people, etc. I believe that So Cal has about 20ish million people in the entire urban mass (La, Orange Co, Long Beach, San Bernadino, San Diego, etc.) and New York area has about the same (maybe a bit more). I'm saying that the WF should stick with its strip of land and build up, rather than out. Yes, Central New York was forced to grow up, but the outlying suburbs sprawled WAY out. It may have a denser core than La, but its urban area sprawls out just as much (probably more).

[DMTower]

It seems like common sense that tire dust would be bad for you... tires do not decompose. Imagine what an irritant tiny particles of it that do not dissolve would be for the lungs. And if you've ever been on I-15 going through Vegas, you can see just how much tire wears off all over the road.