Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Future Mayor]

Just for the record, I don't disagree that Mass Transit and TOD are good things, I feel they are vital to any community.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by DMTower

mass transit and density is great!

This we agree on. Add walkable intensity and you have the recipe for improving suburban communities everywhere.

[WASDEN]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

...One thing that Utah MUST learn from the Bay Area is mass transit incentives - discounts on fares for frequent users, contests, and free-fare days during high pollution days. In the Bay Area, the regional transit council would declare a "Spare the Air Day" when pollution levels were particularly high. When they did this, transit systems throughout the region would offer all services for free. Can you imagine UTA doing this on our bad inversion days?? On spare the air days, I could ride the $8.50 round-trip train ride into down town San Francisco absolutely FREE! Yes, trains become very crowded, but they would add trains to routes and lengthen each train by an additional car or two to help compensate. I must say that it worked very well. There was a noticable change in freeway traffic patterns on these days, and I'm sure the air was much cleaner!

This is something I think everyone could support, incentive to ride TRAX/Frontrunner/bus on inversion days..

But in order for people to choose mass transit on a daily basis, it must be at least as fast as a car, or FASTER. I can't tell you how irritated I get on Frontrunner when my Northbound train sits idiling waiting for a Southbound train to pass. It offers an enraging view of two freeways full of cars moving at 70 mph +. And why does the train go so slow through Salt Lake's refineryland? Speed is something UTA HAS GOT to address with Frontrunner to Provo. I don't care if they have to double track it the whole way! Get folks to downtown faster than in a car and you will see INSANE ridership numbers. There is nothing more important to me than my time. I'm guessing a lot of commuters would feel the same.

[Urban_logic]

I know it's a lot more expensive, but it is so much more efficient! In the Bay Area, BART was much MUCH faster than driving! It took a good hour to drive from Walnut Creek to Down Town SF - but only 35 min in the train! With elevated rail, you don't have to worry about crossing roads, pedestrians getting run over, etc. I wish that UTA made an elevated rail network for the FrontRunner trains to run on.

Elevated rail back home in the Bay:





This was in Down Town SF when it turned into subway. Notice how many people ride the train! Hopefuly Utah will go the way of California in altering a car-society into a mass transit-society. Almost all of my neighbors and friends in Walnut Creek owned a car, but they would only use it for local in-town driving (dropping the kids off at school, going to community events, going to the grocery store, running errends in town, etc.). They would then use the train to go to other parts of the Bay or to commute to work or the airport.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by WASDEN

This is something I think everyone could support, incentive to ride TRAX/Frontrunner/bus on inversion days..

But in order for people to choose mass transit on a daily basis, it must be at least as fast as a car, or FASTER. I can't tell you how irritated I get on Frontrunner when my Northbound train sits idiling waiting for a Southbound train to pass. It offers an enraging view of two freeways full of cars moving at 70 mph +. And why does the train go so slow through Salt Lake's refineryland? Speed is something UTA HAS GOT to address with Frontrunner to Provo. I don't care if they have to double track it the whole way! Get folks to downtown faster than in a car and you will see INSANE ridership numbers. There is nothing more important to me than my time. I'm guessing a lot of commuters would feel the same.

You are gaining time to do whatever on Frontrunner: check email, read a book, get updated on the forum, have a conversation, etc. You can't do all these things when you're busy driving a car.

[arkhitektor]

I ride FrontRunner to work almost every day. I really enjoy it much more than driving, enough that I ride even though it adds 20 minutes to my commute each way.
I understand that there were budget and right-of-way limitations that resulted in the current single-track alignment, but it really is a ligitimate frustration for people.

A double track system would be much better, does anyone know what is planned for FrontRunner South?

As useful as the time may be to do other things, its annoying to sit for 5 minutes just parked on the track going nowhere, or at a station waiting for another train to clear the track, especially if you're already stressed and in a hurry to get to work, an appointment, home to see your family, etc. Its certainly not been a deal-breaker for me, but if there were something that could be done about it, it would be worth it to save commuters' time and improve the speed and efficiency of the system.

Also, if I were driving a car on I-15 and were considering riding the train instead, seeing it parked on the track along the freeway doing nothing isn't going to encourage me to give it a try.

[Future Mayor]

I don't know for sure but I do hope that Front Runner south will be double tracks, I would imagine as ridership increases it would definitely be worth the investment to add the second line on Front Runner north. I'm sure there are those driving on I-15 that do choose to not take it because they see it just sitting there.

[WASDEN]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

You are gaining time to do whatever on Frontrunner: check email, read a book, get updated on the forum, have a conversation, etc. You can't do all these things when you're busy driving a car.

Right you are- but imagine if you had time to email, study, AND it got you there faster than driving?? Now thats incentive! I want it all baybee.

[i-215]

... and who says I CAN'T do e-mail, studying, etc AND drive?

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I found that I knew my neighbors much better and actually interacted with them in the neighborhood setting rather than the apartment/condo setting.

My favorite neighborhood was one at about Los Angeles density in Portland, Oregon. Smaller apartments mixed with homes of the 1920s, with all the infrastructure amenities (freeway, shopping, etc).

I knew my neighbors so well, I never locked my doors.

Opposed to a suburban apartment complex in Salem, Oregon. While the place was technically nicer, I never spoke to anyone.

I think that's the trouble as to why I don't like density (and why I like L.A.). Planners in the 30s and 40s knew how to build a neighborhood right. People could have their yards, but it still felt like a neighborhood. There were nice grid streets that were easy to navigate by car or pedestrian.

Today, most of the TOD and urban development I see in post-2000 Portland is atrocious. It feels like a communist nightmare. Their "new urbanism" developments are scams. Just an excuse for a developer to shove more cracker box houses on the lot.

That's why I am skeptical of a lot of new urbanist types. They say they want to recreate the nice to walk and drive neighborhoods of a bygone era, but in the end these developments are awful.

Tell me WHY I should want to live here:



It's nothing more than a subdivision with skinny houses (or a future ghetto of tomorrow if home values implode). It's not near rail. It does not include any neighborhood shopping or offices. And worst of all, it's 7 miles from the freeway.

Compare that with this neighborhood in L.A.

[urbanboy]

That's a terrible design! Look at how all the streets are accessed from one inlet connecting to a collector street. There's only one way in and one way out.

However, walk and drive neighborhoods are making a comeback baby!

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by i-215

... and who says I CAN'T do e-mail, studying, etc AND drive?

I'm pretty sure the State of Utah says you can't... you would probably get pulled over for reckless driving anyway.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by i-215

Today, most of the TOD and urban development I see in post-2000 Portland is atrocious. It feels like a communist nightmare. Their "new urbanism" developments are scams. Just an excuse for a developer to shove more cracker box houses on the lot.

That's why I am skeptical of a lot of new urbanist types. They say they want to recreate the nice to walk and drive neighborhoods of a bygone era, but in the end these developments are awful.

Tell me WHY I should want to live here:



It's nothing more than a subdivision with skinny houses (or a future ghetto of tomorrow if home values implode). It's not near rail. It does not include any neighborhood shopping or offices. And worst of all, it's 7 miles from the freeway.

Compare that with this neighborhood in L.A.

Anyone who says that the top picture is a new urbanist project shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept. It also is no where near being transit oriented development. New urbanism is all about connections, mixed uses, mixed housing types, and the possibility of walking somewhere. I prefer the term Traditional neighborhood Design. Unfortunately it seems whenever a new urbanist project or TOD is attempted in a suburban community, the designers can't seem to get over the protypical suburban development.

The top picture reminds me a lot of Daybreak. IT has limited connections, lacks a logical grid, and is difficult to move around in, whether you are in a car or on foot.

[WASDEN]

Right on Cololi- That top picture is not New Urbanism, and the street layout is very Daybreak reminiscent. While Daybreak gets some things right, it gets a lot of the same things wrong.

[scottharding]

Originally Posted by i-215

... and who says I CAN'T do e-mail, studying, etc AND drive?

There's incentive right there for riding the Front Runner. Utah drivers are absolute morons. This is coming from someone who lived in LA for half his life.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by WASDEN

Right on Cololi- That top picture is not New Urbanism, and the street layout is very Daybreak reminiscent. While Daybreak gets some things right, it gets a lot of the same things wrong.

Well, in Daybreak's defense, they are surrounded on most sides by undeveloped land and on the other by typical, closed-off suburban developments, so there isn't a lot to integrate their street system into. When its built-out there will be a good road and pedestrian connection between neighborhoods within Daybreak as well as good connections to TRAX, Bangerter Highway, and the future Mountain View freeway.
Sure, you wont to able to walk to your friend's house on the other side of town, but that's more S. Jordan's fault than Daybreak's.

[aspiringArchitect]

While I appreciate what Portland is doing by preventing sprawl and preserving the countryside, I will say that most of these new developments are very unwelcoming. The biggest drawback for me is the size of the yards. I thought people move to the suburbs for more space. Compare those tiny lots in that neighborhood to the ones in the city of Portland and you'll see that the ones in the city are alot larger. Notice the cul-de-sac in the top left corner. There are five homes crammed into less than half of it, when they usually only have about four around the whole thing!

[Urban_logic]

Don't all jump in at once! Judging by the deafening silence to my question, I take it Utahns are happy and satisfied commuting without elevated rail.....

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by i-215

My favorite neighborhood was one at about Los Angeles density in Portland, Oregon. Smaller apartments mixed with homes of the 1920s, with all the infrastructure amenities (freeway, shopping, etc).

I knew my neighbors so well, I never locked my doors.

Opposed to a suburban apartment complex in Salem, Oregon. While the place was technically nicer, I never spoke to anyone.

I think that's the trouble as to why I don't like density (and why I like L.A.). Planners in the 30s and 40s knew how to build a neighborhood right. People could have their yards, but it still felt like a neighborhood. There were nice grid streets that were easy to navigate by car or pedestrian.

Today, most of the TOD and urban development I see in post-2000 Portland is atrocious. It feels like a communist nightmare. Their "new urbanism" developments are scams. Just an excuse for a developer to shove more cracker box houses on the lot.

That's why I am skeptical of a lot of new urbanist types. They say they want to recreate the nice to walk and drive neighborhoods of a bygone era, but in the end these developments are awful.

Tell me WHY I should want to live here:



It's nothing more than a subdivision with skinny houses (or a future ghetto of tomorrow if home values implode). It's not near rail. It does not include any neighborhood shopping or offices. And worst of all, it's 7 miles from the freeway.

Compare that with this neighborhood in L.A.

Both of those look like neighborhoods I'd rather not live in to be honest

[Urban_logic]

.