Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Urban_logic]

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.543437,-122.263885&spn=0.007503,0.015535&t=h&z=16

Ok, I admit that it's not the most transit friendly - it's a good 7 miles from the nearest BART Station but only a mile and a half from the nearest freeway! Once you get to the freeway (especially since it's California), it's another hour or so to the city. I think the view might make up for it! Maybe I could row to work in a cannoe?

There's also the negative of how many ecosystems were disrupted/distroyed to make way for this neighborhood.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by 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.....

I have no problems with elevated rail, and while it may be necessary in the future, my opinion is that there currently isn't a need for elevated rail, considering the cost difference involved vs light rail. I think the money that would be invested could be used to expand and improve upon the system that is currently in place.

I think SLC and the Wasatch Front will be able to develop nicely around at grade rail, (trax) and elevated crossings (Front Runner) at least for the next 40+ years. Getting these systems in place now will allow development to adapt to this type of system.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I have no problems with elevated rail, and while it may be necessary in the future, my opinion is that there currently isn't a need for elevated rail, considering the cost difference involved vs light rail. I think the money that would be invested could be used to expand and improve upon the system that is currently in place.

I think SLC and the Wasatch Front will be able to develop nicely around at grade rail, (trax) and elevated crossings (Front Runner) at least for the next 40+ years. Getting these systems in place now will allow development to adapt to this type of system.

I forget that the WF is a good 40+ years behind the Bay Area mass-transit wise. BART was built back in the 60's and 70's. I think the reason for this is that Utahns ditched their trains for cars around the same time the BA was investing in rails. That's too bad.

Imagine if SLC still had its historic trollies like San Fran still does!

[urbanboy]

We didn't just give them up, General Motors, Firestone, and an oil company, I forget which one, teamed up to buy most of the mass transit systems across the country (including some in San Francisco) so they could rip them out and have a monopoly on transit. The City of San Francisco actually sued this team of conniving businesses and won. However, the settlement only came to $5,000?! Too bad the "inspired" organizations in Salt Lake City didn't do anything to stop this from happening in our City. I guess the people of San Francisco were either more inspired, or just plain smarter.

[Future Mayor]

Yes it would be cool to have the historic Trolleys but I wouldn't necessarily say that we are 30+ years behind in mass transit. As the car became the popular mode of transportation the WF was still a somewhat small population base while SF and the bay area had a much larger population, particularly a large more dense urban population and had constraints as to allowing even more cars into an already crowded city, thus developing a need for mass transit sooner than the WF developed that need.

[urbanboy]

We were a pretty dense community ourselves (no pun intended) Futuremayor, we just demolished our buildings to accommodate the automobile.

[Future Mayor]

While we were dense as far as buildings go, we were nowhere near the population density that SF was or is, and the WF was definitely not as populated as the Bay area.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

We didn't just give them up, General Motors, Firestone, and an oil company, I forget which one, teamed up to buy most of the mass transit systems across the country (including some in San Francisco) so they could rip them out and have a monopoly on transit. The City of San Francisco actually sued this team of conniving businesses and won. However, the settlement only came to $5,000?! Too bad the "inspired" organizations in Salt Lake City didn't do anything to stop this from happening in our City. I guess the people of San Francisco were either more inspired, or just plain smarter.

Even if God sent Utah a "transit revelation", I doubt that people would have fought too hard to keep the trains

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Even if God sent Utah a "transit revelation", I doubt that people would have fought too hard to keep the trains

Did you see what they did with Proposition 8?

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

While we were dense as far as buildings go, we were nowhere near the population density that SF was or is, and the WF was definitely not as populated as the Bay area.

The Bay Area only had a few hundred thousand more people back then than the WF does now. So it sounds like the WF is right on track in that regard - actually, even a little ahead.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Did you see what they did with Proposition 8?

Of course I did. What kind of stupid question is that for someone from California?! Prop 8 is all we heard about all day long for months - on the radio, TV, paper, robo calls, etc, etc. But in regards to the LDS Church, that was something they all believed in to begin with. It's not like the Church was telling them to do anything different than what they believed already in regards to Prop 8. Telling them all to get rid of their cars...that might have been a bit harder to do.

You do realize that my post about the Church "almost knowing" about the recession was a joke? I was just saying that because it is a religious institution behind the project, it's kinda funny. Not that it is God's "one and only true Church". Just the fact that it was a Church in general. If a 'psychic' was the major developer and driving force behind a project, I would have said the same thing. It would have been ironic that the development was started at the perfect timing when a psychic was the developer. That doesn't mean that I am saying the particular psychic (or psychics in general) know the future, just that it's situational irony. Similarly, I was joking that a Church had "divine inspiration" to start a project at the perfect time because it is a Church. We can drop it now. I thought it was funny (hence the 'Lol'), but now I am beginning to regret saying it. I forget that Utah people get so pissy when religion is ever brought up.

[urbanboy]

You're not Mormon are you... You'd be surprised what the LDS church leadership can get their membership to do. If they said "you're a slave to your automobile and furthermore your automobile is a public safety hazard, and we as a community must take steps to overcome this dependancy," you'd see legislation for mass transit sooo fast your head would spin! Remember, most of the legislators on Capitol Hill are Mormon, and most those who are not, already are for mass transit. Many of you on here, who wouldn't have previously, would get behind it as well.

[Future Mayor]

We are ahead of some much larger cities such as Phoenix and Minneapolis as far as developing rail mass transit.

I do have to say that while the masses were very much opposed to Light Rail for many years that once it finally was approved that this very conservative population really has grasped the concept and supported it with tax increases and very impressive ridership numbers.

SLC (19) currently has about half the miles that Denver(36) does and a little less than a third of Portland (44), once the remained or our lines that are currently under construction, (airport, WJ, and WVC) are completed we will have a pretty good system considering our population in comparison to those two cities. If we then implement a trolley system that would be even more impressive. (all mileage data taken from Wikipedia)

I'm not saying it is a perfect system, but we are making huge strides in my opinion.

[cololi]

I'll bite: I hate elevated rail. It creates a nightmare for pedestrians below, particularly in the winter months when it completely shades the street and snow and ice are not given a chance to melt. Not an issue in the bay area, but a huge issue here.

Another factor is that we already have a wide rail spine and multiple spurs throughout the region that are built with overpasses/underpasses so that dealing with at grade crossings is not as big of an issue as it is in the bay area. With slight modifications to existing bridges and underpasses, we can have an effective regional commuter system that links to a smaller LRT system to serve trips between adjacent and nearby cities and a street car system to serve those travelling within the city itself.

You must consider our geography when planning a transit system. we are very linear in nature with only a few places (Morgan, Tooele, Summit, west side of Utah lake) where development can branch out from our central spine. Our geopgraphical restraints are far different than other places in the US that have elevated rail systems.

The BART and MUNI systems in the bay area run at a huge defecit every year. They may be extensive in terms of the miles of track, but they are not financially viable, even with a huge public subsidy. True that every regional transportation system is heavily subsidized, but I think they have the worst financial standing of any. Maybe if they spent less time arguing over banning sippy cups (this is a real issue!!!) and more time finding ways to be more financially sustainable, then they can be considered differently.

Elevated rail is a waste of funds along the Wasatch Front.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

You're not Mormon are you... You'd be surprised what the LDS church leadership can get their membership to do. If they said "you're a slave to your automobile and furthermore your automobile is a public safety hazard, and we as a community must take steps to overcome this dependancy," you'd see legislation for mass transit sooo fast your head would spin! Remember, most of the legislators on Capitol Hill are Mormon, and most those who are not, already are for mass transit. Many of you on here, who wouldn't have previously, would get behind it as well.

Regardless of my religious affiliation, I think this sub-topic is ready to be dropped. You'd be surprised at how similar people of other faiths (of organized religions) are to the Mormons. The bitting and cynical comments you fire at them could be said of people of other such faiths (I'm sure you could say that Catholics around the world would push for mass-transit if the Pope told them to as well as you could with Mormons being told by Pres. Monson.) Mormons were not the only ones who votted for Prop 8, as are they not the only religion in the world lead by a prophet (or another differently-titled leader of the same ilk). One doesn't have to agree with religious people of any faith, but we could be a little more respectful and less stereotypical. I'm absolutely sure that TRAX is not the sole brain child of non-Mormon Utah law makers. Since Mormons are so dominant here, I think it is quite inaccurate to say that they all are against mass-transit (or TRAX never would have been built). A more logical reason for Mormons prefering the auto over mass-transit would be that they demographically have more kids, thus making it more economical to use a van or other auto. People in the Bay Area have smaller families, so it is more economical for them to take mass-transit. Utahns are not "less inspired" or "not as smart" as Bay Area residents. They are simply of a different demographic, which has different needs and priorities.

[urbanboy]

With the majority of our State Legislators being Mormon, and since it is they who control where the funding for transportation goes, and since many make decisions based on their values, and since their faith shapes those values, their faith is actually relevant to this discussion. If the LDS Church says jump, an overwhelming majority of its membership jumps. You can't say the same about the Catholic Church. This gives the LDS church a lot of political power since the majority of our State Legislators are Mormon. Mormon values run very closely with the 1950's version of "The American Dream." There's really no place for mass transit in this type of ideology. Or perhaps Mormons are a controlling people and like the control the automobile gives them to trap their children into a dependent lifestyle. Naw, that's just going too far... or is it? Mass transit frees people: children, the elderly, and those who don't want to be a slave to their automobile. I don't want to get anyone upset, I just want to give all of you something to think about. In the end you might agree or disagree. but it's a valid point of view.

[Future Mayor]

Were is Cool Whip Man? Please stop this discussion Cool Whip Man!

[delts145]

Originally Posted by cololi

I'll bite: I hate elevated rail. It creates a nightmare for pedestrians below, particularly in the winter months when it completely shades the street and snow and ice are not given a chance to melt. Not an issue in the bay area, but a huge issue here.

Another factor is that we already have a wide rail spine and multiple spurs throughout the region that are built with overpasses/underpasses so that dealing with at grade crossings is not as big of an issue as it is in the bay area. With slight modifications to existing bridges and underpasses, we can have an effective regional commuter system that links to a smaller LRT system to serve trips between adjacent and nearby cities and a street car system to serve those travelling within the city itself.

You must consider our geography when planning a transit system. we are very linear in nature with only a few places (Morgan, Tooele, Summit, west side of Utah lake) where development can branch out from our central spine. Our geopgraphical restraints are far different than other places in the US that have elevated rail systems.

The BART and MUNI systems in the bay area run at a huge defecit every year. They may be extensive in terms of the miles of track, but they are not financially viable, even with a huge public subsidy. True that every regional transportation system is heavily subsidized, but I think they have the worst financial standing of any. Maybe if they spent less time arguing over banning sippy cups (this is a real issue!!!) and more time finding ways to be more financially sustainable, then they can be considered differently.

Elevated rail is a waste of funds along the Wasatch Front.

I think I developed a childhood crush on the elevated rail, (monorail) This is probably as a result of childhood trips to Seattle and Disneyland. That said, you're 100% right Cololi. While fanciful and futuristic, it is a proven money pit like no other. I would much prefer the track we're on, with the trolleys added in as quickly as possible.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Were is Cool Whip Man? Please stop this discussion Cool Whip Man!

Ditto to that!!! Your the man Urban logic, but please don't encourage him anymore, LOL

[urbanboy]

Are you for the censorship of a valid point of view, Future Mayor? I clearly stated that I don't want to upset anyone, just give everyone something to think about. I didn't devalue any church, just our legislators.