Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by i-215

I love how everyone on the east bench (cough, cough U of U, cough, cough) berates west-siders for sprawling on 1/4 acre lots ... through the windshield of their awful Subaru Tribeca as they pull into their spacious Millcreek hillside lot.

Honestly, most people on the west side will eventually drive 4 miles or less to everything they need to do. I watched it happen in my home town of Magna. Today there's a Lowe's, Home Depot, Walmart, Kohl's, grocery stores, and plethora of small shops all within 4 miles of my childhood home.

I grew up far, far away from the "core" of SLC. Yet my father only drove 3.7 miles to work. My suburban neighborhood, circa 1960s and 70s was walkable enough for me to walk to school.

That's pretty green, IMO. So don't dog on my suburbs. Once employment and retail move out there, they work as good as any other section of town.




Even at BYU, which is certainly much more of a, well, "libertarian" urban planning program, I still shake my head. As planners, our job is to organize and help keep people's use of their land orderly. It's not to coerce a certain "vision." Utah has families. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of families. Do you really think you're going to pull 80% of the population into urban yuppie areas? You'd be mad to think so, or try and force it. Just as Phoenix how successful it's "anti-freeway = anti-sprawl" campaign of the 1970s. (BTW They are building huge loop freeways like mad now to try and serve an area that grew with or without the freeway). Eagle Mountain is another example of an area that was already exploding with only a single 2-lane road serving it.

People here are going to buy houses, and freeways are a great way of serving it. Initially many people may use the freeways to commute long distances, and it's not our legal place as planners to stop them or socially engineer them. But, as I mentioned above, over time all amenities come within a close range, greatly reducing driving. Eventually employment will head to Cedar Valley, with the mixed effect of increased sprawl, but reduced commuting.

"people" aren't out there building freeways though.. tax payers are...
and freeways are NOT sustainable and cost effective transportation models. They are costly to build, and maintain. They also promote the use of cars which clogs the air in many valleys of the west.
It isn't a urban yuppie vs. suburban family issue... but you certainly can make it about that if you want.
The real problem is that suburban living is exploitative and because of the focus of our hyper individualistic capitalistic society.. we don't see the big picture and in many cases refuse to see it. That in turn makes for market conditions to promote the personal cost effectiveness of suburban life.

for instance, When developers get their hands on cheap land far away from infrastructure,(it's cheap because of that reason) it allows for them to chop it up into quaint little cookie cutter homes, and even throw in a few parks for good measure just for cuteness effect... Well upon building this instant neighborhood, the tax payers of the entire state or county end up picking up the tab on infrastructure (freeways, police, fire, schools.. etc etc).. Why suburban sprawl is not sustainable is not because we're snobs that hate manicured lawns and swing sets and cute houses with little white fences.. It's because there are costs associated with it that are not accounted for in the marketplace structure.. Imagine if the cost of this freeway was not able to be paid for by the tax payers of the entire county or state transportation fund, but rather just the people out in the area where it serves..and rightly so it should be.. Or better yet, the cost of this freeway system passed on to the developer that bought the land who in turn will have to pass the cost on to people buying the houses. If that happened do you think suburbia would be the great option it is? the hidden costs of sprawl are not properly accounted for if they were, the american cityscape would be a Much different place...

So if the government is in the position of providing the infrastructure, they have a right and a DUTY to see to it that tax payer money is going towards infrastructure that isn't compounding costs over time and thus warranting further costs in the future. If that means their investment corrals people into a particular option or two or three.. so be it. If you don't like it.. pony up your own money in HOA fees or what have you and pay for what works best for where you are at.. afterall YOU are the one that is choosing to live out there..

[Wasatch_One]

In reality, there need to be both mass transit options and road/freeway options... sure cars pollute now, but its only a matter of time before all cars are running on either electricity or hydrogen which are both non-polluting.

I like urban hubs along mass transit, but I also like well planned road systems. Road will NEVER become obsolete... but we do need to make good use of land.

Sprawl is inevitable... even if it is hugely urban, it will eventually expand outward as population increases.

[delts145]

Redwood expansion eases the commute

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705336988/Redwood-expansion-eases-the-commute.html


Looking south toward Camp Williams is the S.R. 68 expansion between Bluffdale and Saratoga Springs. A ribbon-cutting was held Thursday to celebrate the road's completion.

..."I don't think anybody anticipated the kind of growth that would take place in northwestern Utah County back then," Parker said.

That growth has left cities such as Eagle Mountain with a huge number of residents (23,000) and not enough thoroughfares.

"One of our big hindrances in Eagle Mountain is the lack of major roads," said Mayor Heather Jackson. "We're now going to start seeing the economic development hit the city."

Completion on S.R. 68 took 20 months, $72 million in taxpayer dollars, 280,000 man hours and 180,000 tons of asphalt...

.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Boiseguy

for instance, When developers get their hands on cheap land far away from infrastructure,(it's cheap because of that reason) it allows for them to chop it up into quaint little cookie cutter homes, and even throw in a few parks for good measure just for cuteness effect... Well upon building this instant neighborhood, the tax payers of the entire state or county end up picking up the tab on infrastructure (freeways, police, fire, schools.. etc etc)..

I do agree Utah probably needs to kick up the impact fees. Many cities in California are, surprisingly, quite good at trying to get $10-20 grand out of each new house to pay for infrastructure.

But I still roll my eyes when I hear New Urbanist types say their developments will save America. It's nothing but a bunch of hokey to get their development through a city council hearing.

Case in point:



This kookey "New Urbanism" development here in Hillsboro, Oregon is nothing more than a subdivision. Besides this welcoming "24 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE" sign as you enter ....



And an oppressive HOA feel, it's hardly the green dream the developers sold it to be. People will still drive. They all dump onto OR-8 (T.V. Highway) with no freeway access. Yet, because this is supposed to be a "green" neighborhood, the city doesn't take the cars into consideration. There's not enough parking, streets are narrow, etc.

So let's see ... we've ended up with a neighborhood that isn't fun to walk in OR drive in. Can you spell "future ghetto of tomorrow?"

I'm all for TODs. I'm all for mixed use developments. But I believe planners need to wake up and realize that despite sprawl's serious negative consequences, it will always constitute 80% of the housing stock. It's what people buy.

[Boiseguy]

I would agree with you on that... what's being pushed in many cases as urban sustainable developement is anything but..
To it's credit though, the footprint of that developement houses much more people than a typical neighborhood does.

Here in boise what has been happening is the city has been dividing lots up into halves and thirds to make way for row housing. It works well because it is clustered among already established houses and neighborhoods. The only complaints have been address changes causing messes with people getting their mail.
There's different approaches to the issue. You can't radically change what has already been done. But infill projects are certainly a way to densify population around existing infrastructure.
When it comes to new developement that expands the urban footprint a much different approach is needed. Each area is different and requires different demands. The biggest problem is not passing the cost of sprawl onto the tax payer.
And with the specific issue regarding the westside freeway.. wouldn't it seem more wise to wait until trax is completed before even going further with it? I mean, if you're going to heavily invest in rail out to that area, what is the logic behind building a freeway at the same time which will only undermine the origional investment in trax?? It may be very well necessary to build a freeway, but how do you know? you say people will always use cars and drive and I don't say they won't.. but how will you know if people wont ride the train more if you stopped giving them the car option so freely and easily?

[cololi]

215, are trying to say that the image you posted is representative of a "new urbanism" subdivision? Because it is no where near a new urbanism development. That is more representative of typical suburban development than anything else. With few exceptions, that is what you see being built today in suburbs all over the wasatch front. I take great exception of someone trying to pass off a subdivision like that has a good development. It sucks and should be recognized for what it is. No one should try to use that image to convince others that new urbanism is a bunch of "hokey". In fact, it does the complete opposite.

New urbanism is about more than narrow streets and not enough parking. It is more about connections for people to walk, bike, and yes, drive, being able to have transportation options, being able to have housing options, being able to live close to where you work, shop, play, etc. I see not a single one of those things in that aerial. You need to have a better understanding of new urbanism concepts before you start representing it as something it is not. Go read the charter of the Congress for New Urbanish and then you might understand the concept a bit better.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by i-215

This is terrible, there's no connectivity, it's just a giant cul de sac. In fact, it's worse than a cul de sac, and will only create a heavier traffic burden on the collector street! There's no attempt for a connection to the businesses next door! In order to walk or drive to the businesses, you'd have to go out on to the busy road and through a parking lot to get there. If there were just an existing grid that all these streets could tie into, and a few more pocket parks, this development could actually be quite good.

[i-215]

Good. So we all agree this development, along with oh so many in the greater Portland area are rubbish.

I love when they shove a stupid neighborhood like this next to a MAX (LRT) station and call it a T.O.D. UGH!!!!!!!!!

I'm for connectivity. I'm against cul-de-sacs, which not only hinder pedestrians, but also hinder driving. But I do feel there is a market to vary the size of lots from 1 acre to 0.25 to and 1/8th to condos and high-rises. I agree we need more variety, as I'd love to buy a "studio condo" or rent a "studio apartment" since I'm single, but none exist. Well, a few do ... in downtown, which is 45 miles from where I work in Provo.

So, again, don't get me wrong. I'm not against TODs. I'm not against density. But I am against the mindset that density "must" replace low-density.

More density spots? Sure. Only in-fill, no more sprawl? No.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by i-215

I do agree Utah probably needs to kick up the impact fees. Many cities in California are, surprisingly, quite good at trying to get $10-20 grand out of each new house to pay for infrastructure.

But I still roll my eyes when I hear New Urbanist types say their developments will save America. It's nothing but a bunch of hokey to get their development through a city council hearing.

Case in point:



This kookey "New Urbanism" development here in Hillsboro, Oregon is nothing more than a subdivision. Besides this welcoming "24 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE" sign as you enter ....



And an oppressive HOA feel, it's hardly the green dream the developers sold it to be. People will still drive. They all dump onto OR-8 (T.V. Highway) with no freeway access. Yet, because this is supposed to be a "green" neighborhood, the city doesn't take the cars into consideration. There's not enough parking, streets are narrow, etc.

So let's see ... we've ended up with a neighborhood that isn't fun to walk in OR drive in. Can you spell "future ghetto of tomorrow?"

I'm all for TODs. I'm all for mixed use developments. But I believe planners need to wake up and realize that despite sprawl's serious negative consequences, it will always constitute 80% of the housing stock. It's what people buy.

I know what you are complaining about here. This could probably be said about Daybreak, too. It has to do with location, location, location. The downfall of these 'New Urbanist' subdivisions is that they are usually isolated islands NOT located close to denser areas. A better new urbanist vision is something like Market Station or the new stuff going on in Murray(I forget the name). A prime example in Portland would be the Pearl District or even the South Waterfront. These developments are trying to integrate itself in and around already existing infrastructure. A lot of the suburban 'new urbanist' developments, like Daybreak, are usually some parcel of land somewhat detached and not really pieced closer to existing infrastructure. Daybreak is way in the heck out there! (that's myUtah roots coming through there with the 'heck') There's empty land between it and Bangerter Highway! As nice as it is, it falls short in many ways. There needs to be land development rules that prioritize and persuades development closer to existing infrastructure and visa versa, rules that punish/penalize for developing big subdivisions, etc. so far away from existing infrastructure.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I know what you are complaining about here. This could probably be said about Daybreak, too. It has to do with location, location, location. The downfall of these 'New Urbanist' subdivisions is that they are usually isolated islands NOT located close to denser areas. A better new urbanist vision is something like Market Station or the new stuff going on in Murray(I forget the name). A prime example in Portland would be the Pearl District or even the South Waterfront. These developments are trying to integrate itself in and around already existing infrastructure. These developments like Daybreak are usually some parcel of land somewhat detached and not really pieced closer to existing infrastructure. Daybreak is way in the heck out there! (that's myUtah roots coming through there with the 'heck') There's empty land between it and Bangerter Highway!

Wow. Once we get past the initial car vs. pedestrian front, I'm amazed how much we really do agree on (even UrbanBoy and I agree that the Hillsboro development there is terrible!)

Yes, I agree. That was my biggest complaint with Portland was that Metro would plunk down high-density, supposedly "walkable" neighborhoods in terrible places. It was as if any space was a good space for a New Urbanism development, and that may be partly why I'm so jaded about them.

Pearl District is great. The Irvington area across the river was wonderful. I actually lived there for six months as an LDS missionary, and it was a fantastic place for riding around on bike. In Salt Lake, areas near the Gateway and Sugarhouse are great places for New Urbanism. I'm fine with that. Areas near rail stops, downtowns, etc.

But New Urbanism is terrible in other areas, as we've documented in the past few posts. I don't believe we can handle 100% of our new growth through infill. For infill to succeed, the prices have to skyrocket. Notice how all the cool, urban neighborhoods are nearly always expensive? That's why I still justify the need for new low-density areas, and the arterials, commuter rail, and freeways that accompany them.

[Orlando]

Sorry about the mischaracterization 215 earlier. I do think, however, that it is good to have mixed-uses and denser residential near LRT and other mass transit stops located in the suburbs. I believe Orenco station in Hillsboro might be a good example.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Boiseguy

"people" aren't out there building freeways though.. tax payers are...
and freeways are NOT sustainable and cost effective transportation models. They are costly to build, and maintain. They also promote the use of cars which clogs the air in many valleys of the west.
It isn't a urban yuppie vs. suburban family issue... but you certainly can make it about that if you want.
The real problem is that suburban living is exploitative and because of the focus of our hyper individualistic capitalistic society.. we don't see the big picture and in many cases refuse to see it. That in turn makes for market conditions to promote the personal cost effectiveness of suburban life.

for instance, When developers get their hands on cheap land far away from infrastructure,(it's cheap because of that reason) it allows for them to chop it up into quaint little cookie cutter homes, and even throw in a few parks for good measure just for cuteness effect... Well upon building this instant neighborhood, the tax payers of the entire state or county end up picking up the tab on infrastructure (freeways, police, fire, schools.. etc etc).. Why suburban sprawl is not sustainable is not because we're snobs that hate manicured lawns and swing sets and cute houses with little white fences.. It's because there are costs associated with it that are not accounted for in the marketplace structure.. Imagine if the cost of this freeway was not able to be paid for by the tax payers of the entire county or state transportation fund, but rather just the people out in the area where it serves..and rightly so it should be.. Or better yet, the cost of this freeway system passed on to the developer that bought the land who in turn will have to pass the cost on to people buying the houses. If that happened do you think suburbia would be the great option it is? the hidden costs of sprawl are not properly accounted for if they were, the american cityscape would be a Much different place...

So if the government is in the position of providing the infrastructure, they have a right and a DUTY to see to it that tax payer money is going towards infrastructure that isn't compounding costs over time and thus warranting further costs in the future. If that means their investment corrals people into a particular option or two or three.. so be it. If you don't like it.. pony up your own money in HOA fees or what have you and pay for what works best for where you are at.. afterall YOU are the one that is choosing to live out there..

Excellent points!!!!

[WeST]

Originally Posted by Orlando

A lot of the suburban 'new urbanist' developments, like Daybreak, are usually some parcel of land somewhat detached and not really pieced closer to existing infrastructure. Daybreak is way in the heck out there! (that's myUtah roots coming through there with the 'heck') There's empty land between it and Bangerter Highway! As nice as it is, it falls short in many ways. There needs to be land development rules that prioritize and persuades development closer to existing infrastructure and visa versa, rules that punish/penalize for developing big subdivisions, etc. so far away from existing infrastructure.

You are wrong in your critique of Daybreak. For starters, this development is only detached in the short term. They have designed this extremely well for future developments to interface nicely with it. As long as others are required to design in a like manner. This development is nothing like that pile of garbage 215 posted. 30 years from now people will look at that development as very forward thinking.

Second, that land along Bangerter is empty because it isn't owned by Daybreak! I think some of it is state owned and the rest is private. I think that a park would be great there or maybe some more retail/office, but not many want to live close to noisy old Bangerter.

I think many on this forum drink the Kool Aid of anti sprawl zealots, who regularly exaggerate the downsides of suburban sprawl. Sure sprawl has its negatives, but so does high density. While one is more environmental, the other is social.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by WeST

You are wrong in your critique of Daybreak. For starters, this development is only detached in the short term. They have

Second, that land along Bangerter is empty because it isn't owned by Daybreak! I think some of it is state owned and the rest is private. I think that a park would be great there or maybe some more retail/office, but not many want to live close to noisy old Bangerter.

The point is that it is an island now waiting to be connected! This is like most suburban subdivision development in that it was a parcel of undeveloped land with a lot of undeveloped land surrounding it. Sure they have a connection to some highway, but there are gaps in between and they are like islands. The fact that someone owns the other properties that separate it from Daybreak is a problem! This is exactly my point! In sprawl like development it is a 'leapfrog' development. You essentially are leaping over undeveloped land to develop another parcel of land. Herriman or Eagle Mountain are extreme examples of that. Dayreak is Kennecott trying to do the best they can with the land they own. If regional planners had more control over this situation, they would have placed Daybreak's commercial core near an existing major Highway!!! No, but instead they placed their major commercial area in undeveloped desert land! Not smart thinking! Sure, it is the center of Kennecott's land, and that's the problem, too. If it was just for the needs of the residents just in Daybreak, that would be fine. But, they are attracting large companies to locate there, which will require people to commute into the Daybreak center WHICH IS ON THE FRINGE OF SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT! Sure they've made sure that there will be connections in the future, ie. new freeway(which is what started this latest round of sprawl discussion). But, the whole point of our anti-sprawl arguing is to develop denser closer to existing infrastructure not further out!

[SLC Projects]

"American Fork Bridge Moving"
• Video Link
I was there last night from around 11:30 to 1:00 this morning. While I was there the bridge was over the freeway, but crews were having a hard time and the wheels kept sinking in the dirt. A few times the bridge had to back up and then move forward again. This went on for about an hour. But here is a video I put together of what I got. It moves very slowly so you will need to look at a object {the spot lights in the background or the workers standing} to see it move. Enjoy.

[Orlando]

Thanks, Lee!

[Future Mayor]

Does someone have a nice image of FrontRunner that they have taken themselves that I can use here at work for a transportation open house I will be attending?

I can get a lot of images but since it is official city business I need to have a picture with permission to use the image.

[delts145]

Hey Future Mayor, Go over to the Transportation Thread at the SkyscaperPage. DENrising, formerly SLCrising has taken some great pics of FrontRunner. He's a super nice guy, and I'm sure he'd be happy to share. Here's the link, http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=150074

Oh, and there's an excellent question posed on the thread recently by a Chicagoan. Someone might want to venture a friendly answer.

[DENrising]

Future and Delts, you can use my image.

[delts145]

Sysco unveils retrofitted natural gas-fueled truck

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705339029/Sysco-unveils-natural-gas-truck.html


Greg Dahl of Applied LNG Technologies explains how the Sysco truck's new engine works. (August Miller, Deseret News)

...On Friday, food service distributor Sysco Intermountain rolled out its latest green project, a tractor-truck retrofitted to use compressed natural gas.

The tractor averages more than 50,000 miles a year along the Wasatch Front and the company says the retrofit will reduce particulate matter by 400 pounds annually. The CNG also will reduce the amount of diesel fuel the company uses by almost 15,000 gallons. The CNG can travel on one gallon as far as 50 gallons of diesel will go — and right now it's only 94 cents a gallon...

.