Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[skierforlife17]

Delts those are some excellent points you bring up. As for the Studio in Park City concept I have a hard time believing that a large studio lot would be built out a quinn's junction. The area is very expensive to begin with and it wind could also be a serious issue out there. With that, I could seriously see some sort of Ranch built there much like SkyWalker Ranch where there is a large facility designed for post production and sound. This kind of thing would fit perfectly into Park City and are usually designed to be very luxurious since studio execs, directors, and actors spend lots of time there once production is complete.

[Urban_logic]

In regards to North Temple, I must say that I support the pedestrian-friendly option. It truley will be a hard sacrifice to give up the concrete pads, but I think it will be better because pedestrians are the ones who have a more intimate relationship with the street. In the train, riders won't even know the difference between cement pads vs gravel rail beds. I think its worth it to sacrifice something TRAX riders will hardly notice to make North Temple more walkable for pedestrians. Yes, the street will look a bit more tacky without the cement pads, but I like the idea of having trees and pedestrian ammeneties

[TANGELD_SLC]

Since you don't live on west side SLC, I can understand why you would think that urban, but that's MY neighborhood and frankly we are sick of being given second best and inferior development. I say do it in concrete now and plan for trees later down the road.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

Since you don't live on west side SLC, I can understand why you would think that urban, but that's MY neighborhood and frankly we are sick of being given second best and inferior development. I say do it in concrete now and plan for trees later down the road.

You are right, I do not live in the area. However, I do feel like the street will look more attractive overall with the pedestrian ammeneties. I wouldn't consider this as "second best and inferior development", though I can see why you feel this way. The tracks will be "second best and inferior", but the street overall, I believe, will look very attractive and superior. Would you rather have inferior tracks, or inferior walkability? Like I said, it is certainly a sacrifice, but I think it's worth it.

[cololi]

I wish that they would have nixed the concrete in the 400 South line. The extra money could have been used for improvements outside the curb, like paying for easements on private property to add wider sidewalks and maybe on street parking. That would have completely changed the feel of 400 South. I would hate to see the same thing happen on N Temple.

Ballast track is not second hand or inferior. It is actually much better because it costs less to maintain. UTA blows out and de-ices the track on 400 S every single night. If you have ever been around at 3-4 in the morning and heard how loud that process is or dealt with the amount of dust that gets kicked up, you would hate it. With a ballast track, they don't need to do it, so it saves them maintenance cost. They have also had to spend a lot of money repairing concrete between the tracks due to the wear and tear. You really only need concrete at the stations and intersections.

[Future Mayor]

While the Balast track is less expensive to build and less expensive to maintain I do have to say that the concrete is much much more attractive and gives it more of a seamless look. To me it looks much more integrated like it is part of the existing street rather than a train cutting through an existing street.

Maybe they could choose either the landscaping or cemented tracks and impose a minor "RDA" area fee to businesses fronting N. Temple to pay for the other. Maybe a temporary 2-5-10 year % increase, just as they do with the CBD. This increase could be based on the increase over prior year sales (prior to construction and trax opening). So if the RDA tax was .01% of the increase a business who sold $250,000 a year prior to trax construction and sold $300,000 the first year after completion they would simply be taxed $500 that would go towards landscaping or future cementing of the tracks. This is just a rough example, with made up figures, but I think you get my point.

I think it would be much easier to come in a widen the sidewalks and ad landscaping with those funds. Maybe they could do the same thing with businesses facing 400 S. This would give them some funding to buy right of ways and make additional pedestrian oriented improvements.

[DMTower]

If they don't embed the tracks to begin with it's going to be a lot more difficult for them to come back and do it later once people are already relying on the airport line. IMO embedding the tracks should be done first because you can come back and widen a sidewalk a lot easier without the disruption to commutes.

[arkhitektor]

I think I'm in the "embed the tracks now, improve the sidewalks later" crowd.
Having the gravel and ballast tracks visible just looks terrible in my opinion, plus there's the issue of coming back and trying to do it later.

I don't know if this is at all feasible or if it could be done over ballast track, but I like how a number of european cities have grass over their tracks. This would look pretty sweet, I just don't know if it would work with our climate.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by cololi

I wish that they would have nixed the concrete in the 400 South line. The extra money could have been used for improvements outside the curb, like paying for easements on private property to add wider sidewalks and maybe on street parking. That would have completely changed the feel of 400 South. I would hate to see the same thing happen on N Temple.

Ballast track is not second hand or inferior. It is actually much better because it costs less to maintain. UTA blows out and de-ices the track on 400 S every single night. If you have ever been around at 3-4 in the morning and heard how loud that process is or dealt with the amount of dust that gets kicked up, you would hate it. With a ballast track, they don't need to do it, so it saves them maintenance cost. They have also had to spend a lot of money repairing concrete between the tracks due to the wear and tear. You really only need concrete at the stations and intersections.

I think inferiority is all in the eye of the beholder. I like the cement beds for down town, but I think seperating the roadway along North Temple and adding the ballast track wouldn't look too bad - down town would look terrible with out the cement pads!! If they had done the ballast track along 4th South starting just after the library (6-8th East-ish) onward toward the University, I don't think it would have looked too bad.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

While the Balast track is less expensive to build and less expensive to maintain I do have to say that the concrete is much much more attractive and gives it more of a seamless look. To me it looks much more integrated like it is part of the existing street rather than a train cutting through an existing street.

Maybe they could choose either the landscaping or cemented tracks and impose a minor "RDA" area fee to businesses fronting N. Temple to pay for the other. Maybe a temporary 2-5-10 year % increase, just as they do with the CBD. This increase could be based on the increase over prior year sales (prior to construction and trax opening). So if the RDA tax was .01% of the increase a business who sold $250,000 a year prior to trax construction and sold $300,000 the first year after completion they would simply be taxed $500 that would go towards landscaping or future cementing of the tracks. This is just a rough example, with made up figures, but I think you get my point.

I think it would be much easier to come in a widen the sidewalks and ad landscaping with those funds. Maybe they could do the same thing with businesses facing 400 S. This would give them some funding to buy right of ways and make additional pedestrian oriented improvements.

That is a good point - we can always go back and add the pedestrian ammenities later. The track would be a bit harder to upgrade. Out here where I live, along the mid-Jordan line, ballast track deffinately isn't a problem because it doesn't go down a roadway - so it's cheaper and still looks good. As for North Temple, cement would be more attractive. As you can tell, I don't really have a hard-set opinion on the issue, but I think I am leaning toward the ballast track. I suppose I'll leave that decision up to you guys there in SLC

[Urban_logic]

I have a question for you guys:

What route will the Airport line follow to get out of down town? Will it come from the hub - go north along 6th West, then snake over toward North Temple and cross the viaduct? Or will it break from the Arena Station - turning North onto 3rd or 4th West, cross the viaduct, then continue down North Temple?

[Zionide]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

I have a question for you guys:

What route will the Airport line follow to get out of down town? Will it come from the hub - go north along 6th West, then snake over toward North Temple and cross the viaduct? Or will it break from the Arena Station - turning North onto 3rd or 4th West, cross the viaduct, then continue down North Temple?

I believe there is still some debate about this (someone better informed, please correct me), but the consensus is currently at your second option: from Arena, then down 400 West to North Temple.

Personally, though I do think it would be ideal to have the airport line meet the hub directly, I think 400 West is a much better route than 600 West. But I'm not particularly objective as I have personal stake in property around 600 West.

Plus, the viaduct ends on the east side of 600 West, so doesn't the direct-from-hub route mean no Trax over the viaduct?

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by Zionide

I believe there is still some debate about this (someone better informed, please correct me), but the consensus is currently at your second option: from Arena, then down 400 West to North Temple.

From the Airport TRAX section of rideuta.org:

The line is currently being re-examined to determine the most suitable alignment from downtown Salt Lake City to the Salt Lake International Airport. Information will be added to this section of the web site as the line develops.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

Since you don't live on west side SLC, I can understand why you would think that urban, but that's MY neighborhood and frankly we are sick of being given second best and inferior development. I say do it in concrete now and plan for trees later down the road.

I grew up in Rosepark and understand what TANGLED SLC is saying about being neglected by the government. I think generally that happened, but on the other hand most of the tax revenues were coming from the east side of the city. I think most of the neglect, as far as development goes, has been from developers who didn't want to enter a depressed area such as RP. Embedded track would seem to be the best option if we want to create a stunning gateway to Salt Lake. I don't know how many people realize the immense potential NP has.

As a side note, anyone looking for a great real estate investment should look seriously at Rosepark and areas approximate to it. Prices there are still cheap and considering what investment is being made in the general area, proximity to downtown and its big yards that can allow for additions, this area will boom like Liberty Park neighborhoods and Avenues have. Your welcome.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by Zionide

I believe there is still some debate about this (someone better informed, please correct me), but the consensus is currently at your second option: from Arena, then down 400 West to North Temple.

Personally, though I do think it would be ideal to have the airport line meet the hub directly, I think 400 West is a much better route than 600 West. But I'm not particularly objective as I have personal stake in property around 600 West.

Plus, the viaduct ends on the east side of 600 West, so doesn't the direct-from-hub route mean no Trax over the viaduct?

The City Council will be making a final decision very soon. I think it will come down to whether or not they can make fund it. There is still some uncertainty on the availability of stimulus money for the rebuild of the viaduct.

Personally, not going down 600 West with a tunnel and going to 400 West with a station on a new viaduct absolutely kills the hub and the development potential around it. In twenty years, we will look back and wonder why we did that and spend millions more trying to correct the problem.

[Future Mayor]

I agree 100% cololi.

I have said all along that I think the best route is the 600 West route because if uses the hub as just that, a Central Station(hub). I understand the concern about a viaduct in the 600 W neighborhood and I think the best solution would have been to send Front Runner below grade around 100-300 North and brought it back to the surface at Central Station. Then trax could simply run at grade up 600 N to N. Temple. The second (hub) or transfer point below the N. Temple viaduct really will hurt the potential of Central Station.

If a traveler is headed from SL INT to Ogden and have to stop at the hub, they may be inclined to check out the bustling neighborhood around the hub while they are there and catch FR in an hour or so, but transferring at the N. Temple transfer station will create no pedestrian activity.

I am sorry Zionide and others that have homes or property in the 600 W neighborhood but for the long range future of the city, the 600 W option new viaduct or not is the best option. imho

Speaking of City Council, when are they having the vote on the route?

[T-Mac]

Here is my proposal for the Airport line: Why not have the airport line start at the Central Hub and then use the Frontrunner rail to 600 West and then have it branch off from there to go north on 600 West to North Temple and then turn west on North Temple and off to the airport you go. Wouldn't UTA already have the rail rights there shouldn't be a problem with both of them using the same track, is there? Seems a lot easier and cheaper than having to build another station and viaduct. What do you think? What are the problems with this?

[Zionide]

Originally Posted by T-Mac

Here is my proposal for the Airport line: Why not have the airport line start at the Central Hub and then use the Frontrunner rail to 600 West and then have it branch off from there to go north on 600 West to North Temple and then turn west on North Temple and off to the airport you go. Wouldn't UTA already have the rail rights there shouldn't be a problem with both of them using the same track, is there? Seems a lot easier and cheaper than having to build another station and viaduct. What do you think? What are the problems with this?

I was wondering that, too. I think it's a good idea, but there must be some catch I'm not aware of.

And though less attractive to me personally, I do recognize that the 600 West makes route makes more sense. I had just seen a UTA rendering somewhere that showed the 400 West option, and assumed they were leaning that way.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by T-Mac

Here is my proposal for the Airport line: Why not have the airport line start at the Central Hub and then use the Frontrunner rail to 600 West and then have it branch off from there to go north on 600 West to North Temple and then turn west on North Temple and off to the airport you go. Wouldn't UTA already have the rail rights there shouldn't be a problem with both of them using the same track, is there? Seems a lot easier and cheaper than having to build another station and viaduct. What do you think? What are the problems with this?

Different gauge track prevents light rail cars from running on heavy rail lines. There are other issues too, like the LRT catenaries aren't high enough to allow the frontrunner cars to pass under them. The NTSB and federal regulations prevent LRT cars from operating on heavy gauge rails, regardless if they are used for freight or passenger rail. The other problem is that the freight lines are on the west side of the frontrunner line, so trax has to cross them regardless. Even if the Trax ran in the same right of way as front runner, they would have to ramp over or under the freight lines.

[Justnslcsugarhood.]

Originally Posted by WeST

I grew up in Rosepark and understand what TANGLED SLC is saying about being neglected by the government. I think generally that happened, but on the other hand most of the tax revenues were coming from the east side of the city. I think most of the neglect, as far as development goes, has been from developers who didn't want to enter a depressed area such as RP. Embedded track would seem to be the best option if we want to create a stunning gateway to Salt Lake. I don't know how many people realize the immense potential NP has.

As a side note, anyone looking for a great real estate investment should look seriously at Rosepark and areas approximate to it. Prices there are still cheap and considering what investment is being made in the general area, proximity to downtown and its big yards that can allow for additions, this area will boom like Liberty Park neighborhoods and Avenues have. Your welcome.

I'm not a huge fan of gentrification, I hope the neighborhood grows and develops but in a way that allows those who live there to keep living there for the years to come.

[T-Mac]

Originally Posted by cololi

Different gauge track prevents light rail cars from running on heavy rail lines. There are other issues too, like the LRT catenaries aren't high enough to allow the frontrunner cars to pass under them. The NTSB and federal regulations prevent LRT cars from operating on heavy gauge rails, regardless if they are used for freight or passenger rail. The other problem is that the freight lines are on the west side of the frontrunner line, so trax has to cross them regardless. Even if the Trax ran in the same right of way as front runner, they would have to ramp over or under the freight lines.

Makes sense.