Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[MetroFanatic]

5600 West on the Mid-Jordan line is going to be a weird station. It's going to be by the Interstate Brick Factory where there is virtually no housing whatsoever, and I don't think Daybreak is going to extend that far... but you know, with all this talk about sprawl...

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by MetroFanatic

5600 West on the Mid-Jordan line is going to be a weird station. It's going to be by the Interstate Brick Factory where there is virtually no housing whatsoever, and I don't think Daybreak is going to extend that far... but you know, with all this talk about sprawl...

Shhhhhhhh!!! Don't say the 'S' Word!!! It scares people.

At least we are managing our "sprawl" over here and building dense developments. I'm pretty sure that with light rail access, a TOD will spring up around that station in no time

[delts145]

LOL, ...and I totally agree Urban Logic

[i-215]

I always laugh when people talk about "sprawl" in the Wasatch Front, or in L.A.

If you've ever compared a neighborhood in the west to one in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or upstate New York ... well, it's a total joke. My relatives just bought a place in Michigan, and they have a small forest between them and the house behind them. Everyone owns about an acre in their "development."

Compare that to America's "sprawl capital" of L.A., where about 30% of the population lives in apartments, and people are lucky to have a 1/5th of an acre.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by i-215

I always laugh when people talk about "sprawl" in the Wasatch Front, or in L.A.

If you've ever compared a neighborhood in the west to one in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or upstate New York ... well, it's a total joke. My relatives just bought a place in Michigan, and they have a small forest between them and the house behind them. Everyone owns about an acre in their "development."

Compare that to America's "sprawl capital" of L.A., where about 30% of the population lives in apartments, and people are lucky to have a 1/5th of an acre.

Well you've got 20+ million people just in the So Cal urban area and 4+ million in L.A. alone...obviously you're going to sprawl no matter how dense it gets. Considering you statistic (assuming it's true), just look how much worse it could be!! If everyone had their own huge yard, the urban area would probably engulf Vegas and end right at our front door over here in Utah.

[urbanboy]

Go ahead, try to justify sprawl. If you're going to look the other way or play favorites, somewhere along the line you're going to find out your messing with natural justice.

[i-215]

Am I saying: "Go ahead, try to justify social engineering?"

I'm trying to be moderate here. I do realize there are benefits to urbanization and problems to sprawl. I appreciate the Jane Jacobs book recommendation, which helped me see that.

But likewise, do you also recognize there are benefits to suburbanization and problems with urbanization?

Comparing Sprawl v. Cities isn't looking at a line up with Mother Teresa and the Devil. It's more like looking at a line-up with Henry Paulson and Timothy Geitner. Both a mix of good and bad.

I've been to suburbs that were so sprawly, there weren't even fun to drive in. Likewise, I've been in some "smart growth" neighborhoods in Portland that made me want to puke.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Go ahead, try to justify sprawl. If you're going to look the other way or play favorites, somewhere along the line you're going to find out your messing with natural justice.

I wasn't justifying it, I was just saying that it could be worse. Yes, it could be better, but it could be worse.

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by i-215

Am I saying: "Go ahead, try to justify social engineering?"

I'm trying to be moderate here. I do realize there are benefits to urbanization and problems to sprawl. I appreciate the Jane Jacobs book recommendation, which helped me see that.

But likewise, do you also recognize there are benefits to suburbanization and problems with urbanization?

Comparing Sprawl v. Cities isn't looking at a line up with Mother Teresa and the Devil. It's more like looking at a line-up with Henry Paulson and Timothy Geitner. Both a mix of good and bad.

I've been to suburbs that were so sprawly, there weren't even fun to drive in. Likewise, I've been in some "smart growth" neighborhoods in Portland that made me want to puke.

you have a very valid point to a degree.. lol...
while I would agree more with urbanboy...but I certainly would not advocate being militant about it.. because then people don't listen to what you're saying.. they only pay attention to how you're saying it.. and they shut off.
I look at it this way.. the free market promotes sprawl.. cheap land.. 1-3 story buildings and cookie cutter slapped up homes...
Its more cost effective, profitable, and marketable to build 5,000 houses on 1000 acres than it is to build 50 highrise buildings in an urban core...
Problem is... the burden sprawl places on the government and tax payers to provide services, roads, schools, etc etc etc is costly.. Not to mention the upkeep on all that infrastructure.. On that end of the spectrum it is costly, unattractive, and unsustainable. We all love the idea of having a 4000sqft house on 1/2 an acre of manicured lawn.. but the cost the market places on YOU to buy that piece of property is far below the actual cost, because the tax payer foots MOST of the actual costs. If we were to start adding up all the infrastructure costs associated with sprawl and including it in free market principles.. such properties and developements would be priced out of the market completely.
It goes along with a corporation making whatever 20,000 widgets for x amount of dollars.. and being able to sell them for Y amount of dollars in the market... Nevermind that this corporation pollutes a nearby river, or the air of a valley. Those "hidden" costs are not calculated in market values...but someone ends up paying for those hidden costs eventually... and it usually isn't the corporation...9 times out of ten.. its the taxpayer...
Its really interesting to contemplate.. and really makes you examine your own personal beliefs on society, government, and business...

Believe me, I totally understand where you're coming from the thought of racing down a beautifully designed expressway in a high performance vehicle through an urban jungle sounds downright heavenly... but there is a bigger picture to be seen and taken into account....and in all fairness I do agree that there must be a balance... if we didn't care.. we'd have endless sprawl sucking the life out of our cities... if we became over militant about it... we'd be wasting money and resources on trying to build elaborate monsterous urban complex's that could very well crumble to the ground from any given earthquake that happens to roll under our feet.

[scrapernerd]

Well if we are talking about sprawl wouldn't Surgarhouse, and Holladay be sprawl its just had time to mature. I know SJ and WJ and Eagle mountain are car centered but you know if cars get to expensive to drive then more people will work near their home rather than commute to the city. Wait wouldn't that hurt salt lake?

Not everyone want to live in salt lake! but alot of people work there and buy there lunch there all this talk about making it harder and more expensive to come to the City I think is stupid. SLC is not New york. I have cheap family and if it cost them a buck to drive to salt lake with toll roads they would just stay in Ogden or Provo.
its late this is mosty rambiling

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Boiseguy

you have a very valid point to a degree.. lol...
while I would agree more with urbanboy...but I certainly would not advocate being militant about it.. because then people don't listen to what you're saying.. they only pay attention to how you're saying it.. and they shut off.
I look at it this way.. the free market promotes sprawl.. cheap land.. 1-3 story buildings and cookie cutter slapped up homes...
Its more cost effective, profitable, and marketable to build 5,000 houses on 1000 acres than it is to build 50 highrise buildings in an urban core...
Problem is... the burden sprawl places on the government and tax payers to provide services, roads, schools, etc etc etc is costly.. Not to mention the upkeep on all that infrastructure.. On that end of the spectrum it is costly, unattractive, and unsustainable. We all love the idea of having a 4000sqft house on 1/2 an acre of manicured lawn.. but the cost the market places on YOU to buy that piece of property is far below the actual cost, because the tax payer foots MOST of the actual costs. If we were to start adding up all the infrastructure costs associated with sprawl and including it in free market principles.. such properties and developements would be priced out of the market completely.
It goes along with a corporation making whatever 20,000 widgets for x amount of dollars.. and being able to sell them for Y amount of dollars in the market... Nevermind that this corporation pollutes a nearby river, or the air of a valley. Those "hidden" costs are not calculated in market values...but someone ends up paying for those hidden costs eventually... and it usually isn't the corporation...9 times out of ten.. its the taxpayer...
Its really interesting to contemplate.. and really makes you examine your own personal beliefs on society, government, and business...

You're talking about two different suburbs, here.

I'm not promoting exurb sprawl. There are some really bad attributes to extremely low density, that I don't particularly care for, myself.

I think I posted this example, before:



Now, I don't mean to single out your home town, Boiseguy, but here's the Eagle area. It's main problem is that there is no mixture of uses. It doesn't mean the buildings have to be mixed use ... but it sure would be nice to go to the store without having to make a left turn onto a 55 MPH collector road.

But, I actually think the 1/5 acre sprawl you mentioned is quite sustainable.



Here's a neighborhood east of (gasp) Los Angeles. Although they don't build 'em like this anymore, to me this is the pinnacle of planning. A nice mixture of small-scale apartment complexes (20 units or less), along with reasonably sized single-family homes, neighborhood commercial, and big boxes. All within a sea of freeways and reasonably sized arterial streets with high speed limits.

To me, everybody wins. I can still drive my car, while the (future) kids still have a logical street pattern to walk to school.

I can start off in an apartment, and later upgrade to a house.

I think we (you, Urbanboy, and I) appreciate the same "Jacobs-onian" planning principals. The difference is the density. I envision a city at about 1/5 per acre, with pockets of higher density. Urbanboy wants Manahattan.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we may be able to make progress, and as planners, be able to sell the Utah (and Idaho) public "Pasadena Planning" in our lifetimes. But we'll never sell them Manhattan. Most people don't want to live there.

[Urban_logic]

It's important to remember that our country's best density examples (S.F. and NYC - the two densest cities in the country) have achieved their densities with suburbs. NYC has massive suburbs. The Bay Area has a lot of suburbs. But look at the central city - it's extraorinarily dense. The fantasy of building a Manhatten-like city without suburbs is illogical. Even our densest city - Manhatten - has a large chunk of suburbs around it. Manhatten would not have the density it does without its suburbs. It has successfully built an efficient transportation structure - roads, rails, buses - to bring people into town. Central cities and suburbs have a very complex and intricate relationship where one can not survive without the other. The goal should be how both can work together and utilize each other for mutual benefit rather than exclusively pushing suburban or city center interests over the other. An optimal balance must be achieved for both to succeed. In the SLC area, the suburban boom of the post World War Era greatly harmed the central city because the balance biased toward the suburbs. Now we are seeing a resurgence in the central city because the region is learning how to utilize the suburbs by, for example, building an easy-access transit grid.

[Urban_logic]

"Transit ridership at the University of Utah has leveled off since gas prices did the same, but the number of people who ride still surpasses initial expectations.

Currently, more than one-third of campus uses TRAX lines to commute to the U., connecting at one of four stations. From there, many use shuttle buses to get between classes and other buildings on the 1,100-acre campus.

Shuttle ridership has always been booming, but the price of gas influences TRAX riders more, as they topped 14,000 per day last fall when gas prices reached nearly $4.50 a gallon...."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705285404,00.html

[cololi]

1/5 th (8,000 square foot lots) acre development is not sustainable. That is 5 homes per acre, with about 10-15 people per acre (6,000-9,000 people per square mile). Cut that lot size in half with local street right of ways less than 50 feet and you can get there. Most older neighborhoods average 4-5000 square foot lots. really good ones have a mix of lot size, housing types, and land uses. They also have multiple connections for various modes of moving around. Until suburbs start addressing all of these things they will remain unsustainable. the other major influence is the current tax structure, which forces cities to compete against one another and promotes an attitude of any development is good development.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

It's important to remember that our country's best density examples (S.F. and NYC - the two densest cities in the country) have achieved their densities with suburbs.

These cities achieved density or enough "critical mass" before the automobile was even invented. The uprising of modern day suburbs around these cities came after the automobile, and have most likely undermined their growth to an extent. Luckily these cities already had enough critical mass and didn't tear down the majority of their buildings to accommodate the automobile with parking lots, thus, not disrupting the urban fabric, and therefore these cities have maintained their appeal as destinations to live work and play.

[Orlando]

exactly!

Let's compare two cities with the same metro population: Orlando, Florida & Portland, Oregon. both have 2 million.

Portland
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...pn=0.029646,0.071325&t=h&z=14&iwloc=addr

Orlando
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...pn=0.035361,0.071325&t=h&z=14&iwloc=addr

Portland developed extensively before the automobile, and has a cohesive urban character and plan. New developments, are developed within the existing grid, and enhance the synergy of urban experience.

Orlando, developed rapidly after the 70's when Disney moved in, but had little to no urban grid. So, today you have new highrises butting up to 1950's ranch houses not less than a 1/4 mile from the center of downtown. Orlando sprawls forever and is mostly low-density suburban development.

[MetroFanatic]

Originally Posted by i-215

You're talking about two different suburbs, here.

I'm not promoting exurb sprawl. There are some really bad attributes to extremely low density, that I don't particularly care for, myself.

I think I posted this example, before:



Now, I don't mean to single out your home town, Boiseguy, but here's the Eagle area.

Wow. Of all the neighborhoods to pick, I think that might be my aunt & uncles.

[Urban_logic]

How about Denver?



It seems to be doing alright with the automobile and massive suburban sprawl. Yes, it had a similar problem as SLC back in the 80's, but it has learned how to not only recover, but utilize its suburbs to its advantage. SLC is following right in its footsteps.

Or Houston:



It's a post-auto city and seems to have developed a nice central city despite massive suburbs and the automobile.

[delts145]

I follow what your saying UL, and would support many of your points. LOL, we probably should leave Houston out of the conversation though. Of the dozens of opinions I've heard from people who live or have lived there, few were very positive.

[arkhitektor]

Here's some fodder for local transit nay-sayers:

FrontRunner ridership in November and December fell sharply from this summer's highs and actually fell below initial daily ridership projections of 5900 daily users:


It seems that low gas prices, Legacy highway have taken a toll. I personally didn't ride FrontRunner as much in December but that was mostly because of being busy and out of my normal routine during the holidays. Hopefully ridership comes back up, it at least seemed to me like there were more people on board last month than in December.