Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by shakman

If I could add, there is a surge of population returning to the inner cities. Could possibly be a reason for the paradigm shift.

I'd say it's because people are no longer easily influenced by the auto and oil industry's propaganda, like: "What's good for GM is good for America," and so forth. Now the American People are understanding how efficient mass-transit is, and how inefficient automobiles are, and therefore they are starting to understand the the efficiency of cities, and the inefficiency of the suburbs, which were built for the automobile, in most cases only for the automobile.

[WeST]

While I am no fan of the Obama Administration, I think that he will do some real good in how transportation dollars are allocated. I think we will see a real shift toward more equity in funding and hopefully a streamline of the ridiculous EIS process.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I'd say it's because people are no longer easily influenced by the auto and oil industry's propaganda, like: "What's good for GM is good for America," and so forth. Now the American People are understanding how efficient mass-transit is, and how inefficient automobiles are, and therefore they are starting to understand the the efficiency of cities, and the inefficiency of the suburbs, which were built for the automobile, in most cases only for the automobile.

I would say that's some of it, but only a minor part of it. I think people that are moving to the inner city are doing so because they enjoy having everything they need right out their front door. I wouldn't say they are simply moving there because the are no longer influenced by the "Propaganda." They enjoy city life car or no car and having greater access to mass transit is simply a piece of the overall pie.

When I lived in downtown Cleveland, I lived there because I enjoyed what it had to offer and it was close to nearly everything I was involved in, however I still needed a car to go to the grocery store. SLC is lucky that even without the new planned Harmons there is a couple of downtown grocery stores that are within someone easy access.

[MetroFanatic]

So apparently UTA might have to scrap their idea of the North Temple viaduct. They have $50 million and it's going to cost them $75 million.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by MetroFanatic

So apparently UTA might have to scrap their idea of the North Temple viaduct. They have $50 million and it's going to cost them $75 million.

North Temple viaduct is an add on to the project by the City. UTA plan was to build a separate bridge for the train. Either way, this could have major implications on the entire project.

[WeST]

I posted the story yesterday in the wrong thread, but it doesn't paint a very good picture. It also discusses the possibility of Becker having to choose between aesthetics and functionality. If that is true I can't imagine not choosing function. There are many things that can be added later. I trust Becker will make a reasonable and good decision. Why don't we really blow the budget and bury the rail yard...problem solved.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by WeST

I posted the story yesterday in the wrong thread, but it doesn't paint a very good picture. It also discusses the possibility of Becker having to choose between aesthetics and functionality. If that is true I can't imagine not choosing function. There are many things that can be added later. I trust Becker will make a reasonable and good decision. Why don't we really blow the budget and bury the rail yard...problem solved.

The story is buried in all the crap in the SLC thread. That thread has turned into a giant pile of poo and I don't really want to look at it for awhile.

This is a lot bigger than simply aesthetics and function. The City does not own the land under the bridge, at least on the east half of the viaduct. An earth filled bridge would require acquiring the land under it. Given that those property owners are pretty good businessmen, they will likely realize that they have the City by the short ones and drive up teh price. The city does own a right of way for the road and for the LRT. Creating a drit fill bridge eliminates the possbility of ever connecting 500 West under the viaduct. The space under the viaduct is viable land that can be used for beneficial purposes. I think it is Milwuakee that has located their public market under a viaduct. many place have built buildings, skate parks, parking structures, etc. under viaducts.

The flip side, if they don't rebuild the viaduct and weave the line under the bridge and then up and over the rails, is that it is basically ensuring the viaduct remains as is for a very long time and exponentially increases the construction costs in the future because you would have to protect the rail line during demolition and reconstruction.

I still think 600 W is a far better option than messing with the viaduct.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by cololi

The story is buried in all the crap in the SLC thread. That thread has turned into a giant pile of poo and I don't really want to look at it for awhile.

This is a lot bigger than simply aesthetics and function. The City does not own the land under the bridge, at least on the east half of the viaduct. An earth filled bridge would require acquiring the land under it. Given that those property owners are pretty good businessmen, they will likely realize that they have the City by the short ones and drive up teh price. The city does own a right of way for the road and for the LRT. Creating a drit fill bridge eliminates the possbility of ever connecting 500 West under the viaduct. The space under the viaduct is viable land that can be used for beneficial purposes. I think it is Milwuakee that has located their public market under a viaduct. many place have built buildings, skate parks, parking structures, etc. under viaducts.

The flip side, if they don't rebuild the viaduct and weave the line under the bridge and then up and over the rails, is that it is basically ensuring the viaduct remains as is for a very long time and exponentially increases the construction costs in the future because you would have to protect the rail line during demolition and reconstruction.

I still think 600 W is a far better option than messing with the viaduct.

It seems that most of the experts on this issue (I include you in that) feel that 600 W is the best. It seems that this is purely a political decision so far. It is frustrating that we would potentially pay $75 million to keep a few landowners happy. I feel for the 600 W folks, but at some point the sticker shock has got to make Becker take a serious look at using some of his political capital and doing the 600 W route.

Also, do you think the Mayor/Council have handled this well? Has this taken them off guard? It seems amazing how far they were off on cost estimates. This could turn into a real political and developmental boondoggle.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by cololi

I still think 600 W is a far better option than messing with the viaduct.

Me too. I wish they'd just build it on 600 W.

[delts145]

GM says Volt to get 230 miles per gallon in the city

http://www.heraldextra.com/business/article_5c1c0836-6796-543d-ac86-6839520fe361.html


Photo/Carlos Osorio

.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by WeST

Also, do you think the Mayor/Council have handled this well? Has this taken them off guard? It seems amazing how far they were off on cost estimates. This could turn into a real political and developmental boondoggle.

I'll answer that after a decision is made. But, for those who are interested, I urge to participate in the Planning process. Keep an eye on here to participate in the North Temple Planning process and get updates on the City's portion of the project.

[WeST]

Does anyone know if there are or ever have been discussions for Rocky Mountain Power to sell their land on N. Temple and close or move their Gadsby plant? It seems that this is prime real estate and with EPA regulations getting stricter, may be inevitable that they move it out of a population center. That would open up a large chunk of developable land.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by WeST

Does anyone know if there are or ever have been discussions for Rocky Mountain Power to sell their land on N. Temple and close or move their Gadsby plant? It seems that this is prime real estate and with EPA regulations getting stricter, may be inevitable that they move it out of a population center. That would open up a large chunk of developable land.

Or perhaps land for a community permaculture garden. Unless you don't think food is a good investment.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by delts145

GM says Volt to get 230 miles per gallon in the city

http://www.heraldextra.com/business/article_5c1c0836-6796-543d-ac86-6839520fe361.html


Photo/Carlos Osorio

.

See these are some of the benefits associated with the rise in gasoline. It creates focus on alternatives. I was also thinking this car would be great for pizza delivery drivers.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Or perhaps land for a community permaculture garden. Unless you don't think food is a good investment.

Or a vertical farm would fit nicely on a plot that size

[esirhgih]

Maybe someone can enlighten me and help me change my mind, but I see no point in building a vertical farm in a place like Utah where there is so much empty land. There's nothing that you could do there that you couldn't do in a large greenhouse in the west desert for 100x less cost.

I like the idea of adding greenspace and vegetation to other buildings that already serve other purposes, but building an entire skyscraper for the sole purpose of farming is light years away from making any economic sense. They have what, one peach tree in the example above? That's enough peaches for two or three families. Unless people are going to be willing to start eating a far smaller variety of fruits and vegetables, the idea of growing everything that one eats locally is a pipe dream. There's no way that we can continue to consume the same variety of produce that we do and grow all of it in Utah, in vertical farms or otherwise.

[DMTower]

Go to http://www.verticalfarm.com/. It explains it all there. I've posted my views on it before but I'm feeling lazy this time.

[urbanboy]

I think this sort of farm would use water more efficiently, and loose less to evaporation. Also, fresh food can be grown year round.

[DMTower]

^^^ It also points out on the website that the food grows much faster than it would normally so output is several times greater per square foot than a land farm. How we got to this point on the transit thread is beyond me, but this kind of farm also saves on gasoline and lowers the carbon footprint because delivery is local.

[esirhgih]

Yeah, I'm not trying to say that there is no place for non-traditional growing methods, or that I disagree with the efficiency of growing indoors or the water conserved, just wondering why it needs to be done in a highrise in the city. Couldn't you build a large greenhouse at the edge of town with the same SF and accomplish the same thing? Just because a highrise farm is cool, doesn't mean it makes sense.