Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[urban.cyclist]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

And this is why the majority of tax payers said NO to prop. 1. UTA can't be trusted.


http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37421511&nid=148...nd-trip-2-others-to-follow&s_cid=queue-5

I haven't looked into this more than just reading a few articles (including this one) But I feel like this it's just trying to find problems where There really aren't any. UTA didn't okay got the trip. It looks like it was a grey area and the media is trying to paint it as something awful.

It seems like controversy for the sake of controversy. Can't we just admit that we all do things we probably shouldn't, resolve to do better and move on?

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Bigger population = more taxpayers, besides we've already raised other transportation taxes that will go towards transportation. I much rather keep the money in my pocket then the pay for UTA's travel expenses.

Sometimes you're brash and we still love you so I'm gonna be brash with you. You don't know what you're — talking about with this. It's embarrassing. You're on a board that talks about urban planning and you'd think that through osmosis you'd at least pick up on a little bit of a clue of how fuel taxes work since we — talk about it every other month. So let me try this again.

We haven't raised fuel taxes at a federal level since 1993. Utah has made a tiny bit of headway in raising it in such a way that we can keep our house in order.

Gas tax is NOT re-distributive. It's not a percentage and it's the same on the dollar for every person buying. It doesn't adjust to inflation or go up or down with the price of oil.

More cars on the road means there are more roads but unlike say, 1970, we use a lot less gas to go a lot further with way more fuel efficient cars. Forget even how we make this work when electric cars break into the mainstream.

Each year as more cars hit the road we're getting less money for the roads all these new cars require. During George W. Bush the fund for this fuel money was subsidized by with general tax funds. Since the crackdown on spending and pork funding in the House of Representatives, the national fund for highways and transit has been running on fumes. And at a state level we're pretty tapped out too.

So the money is gonna come from something. And like everything else we kick down the road, it'll just come out of your property taxes. So have fun with that. I mean maybe it makes sense for you that people passing through our state should wear out our roads and pay less while you pay more. It's gonna happen even if you feel smug about Prop 1 failing.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

So, what's the deal? Are we taking the streetcar from 1100 East and then taking it to 700 E down 9th?

This was my thought.

I am disapointed in the design because I think the city needs what I call the "Nines Line". Halfway between BRT and a streetcar. BRT because it is a bus that takes advantage of trax stops, Streetcar because it makes frequent stops. It's not rapid transit but it also avoids the cost of rail. If the ridership demands a second car the stops are already in place, the traffic already accustomed and you can lay down rail. The Nines Line should begin at the 900 E 400 South Trax stop. It should run south to Ninth and Ninth, continue down 900 S and make a left on 2nd west to hit the central ninth trax stop, take Indiana west into Glendale, Stop at Ninth west, and finish somewhere around 1500 west Indiana.

This line is memorable cuz it has a theme(Nines) and it also hits many points important to residents and bridges communities. Stops include two Smith's groceries, Liberty Park, Ninth and Ninth, Central Ninth, Jordan River Park, what should become central Glendale, and if the downtown master plan comes to fruition another park at the 900 S on ramp.

The Nines Line.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Sometimes you're brash and we still love you so I'm gonna be brash with you. You don't know what you're — talking about with this. It's embarrassing. You're on a board that talks about urban planning and you'd think that through osmosis you'd at least pick up on a little bit of a clue of how fuel taxes work since we — talk about it every other month. So let me try this again.

We haven't raised fuel taxes at a federal level since 1993. Utah has made a tiny bit of headway in raising it in such a way that we can keep our house in order.

Gas tax is NOT re-distributive. It's not a percentage and it's the same on the dollar for every person buying. It doesn't adjust to inflation or go up or down with the price of oil.

More cars on the road means there are more roads but unlike say, 1970, we use a lot less gas to go a lot further with way more fuel efficient cars. Forget even how we make this work when electric cars break into the mainstream.

Each year as more cars hit the road we're getting less money for the roads all these new cars require. During George W. Bush the fund for this fuel money was subsidized by with general tax funds. Since the crackdown on spending and pork funding in the House of Representatives, the national fund for highways and transit has been running on fumes. And at a state level we're pretty tapped out too.

So the money is gonna come from something. And like everything else we kick down the road, it'll just come out of your property taxes. So have fun with that. I mean maybe it makes sense for you that people passing through our state should wear out our roads and pay less while you pay more. It's gonna happen even if you feel smug about Prop 1 failing.

So the majority of us apparently don't have a "f****** clue"? I'm all for urban development, but not if UTA keep's abusing their funds and then have the nerve to ask for more from us hardworking citizens. How ironic that one day we got news about proposition 1 failing and then quite literally the following day we get news article about UTA board members stepping down due to another "business trip". The majority of the voters are not stupid. Just because you choose to turn a blind eye towards your beloved UTA, doesn't mean most of us are willing to. UTA needs to show us that they can be responsible with their budget before they ask for more.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

So the majority of us apparently don't have a "f****** clue"? I'm all for urban development, but not if UTA keep's abusing their funds and then have the nerve to ask for more from us hardworking citizens. How ironic that one day we got news about proposition 1 failing and then quite literally the following day we get news article about UTA board members stepping down due to another "business trip". The majority of the voters are not stupid. Just because you choose to turn a blind eye towards your beloved UTA, doesn't mean most of us are willing to. UTA needs to show us that they can be responsible with their budget before they ask for more.

You said "bigger population = more tax payers" for roads. I proved you wrong instantly and have before that on this subject. And it never sticks. So on this issue you are a stupid voter.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Sometimes you're brash and we still love you so I'm gonna be brash with you. You don't know what you're — talking about with this. It's embarrassing. You're on a board that talks about urban planning and you'd think that through osmosis you'd at least pick up on a little bit of a clue of how fuel taxes work since we — talk about it every other month. So let me try this again.

We haven't raised fuel taxes at a federal level since 1993. Utah has made a tiny bit of headway in raising it in such a way that we can keep our house in order.

Gas tax is NOT re-distributive. It's not a percentage and it's the same on the dollar for every person buying. It doesn't adjust to inflation or go up or down with the price of oil.

More cars on the road means there are more roads but unlike say, 1970, we use a lot less gas to go a lot further with way more fuel efficient cars. Forget even how we make this work when electric cars break into the mainstream.

Each year as more cars hit the road we're getting less money for the roads all these new cars require. During George W. Bush the fund for this fuel money was subsidized by with general tax funds. Since the crackdown on spending and pork funding in the House of Representatives, the national fund for highways and transit has been running on fumes. And at a state level we're pretty tapped out too.

So the money is gonna come from something. And like everything else we kick down the road, it'll just come out of your property taxes. So have fun with that. I mean maybe it makes sense for you that people passing through our state should wear out our roads and pay less while you pay more. It's gonna happen even if you feel smug about Prop 1 failing.

Ummmmmmm this

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

So the majority of us apparently don't have a "f****** clue"? I'm all for urban development, but not if UTA keep's abusing their funds and then have the nerve to ask for more from us hardworking citizens. How ironic that one day we got news about proposition 1 failing and then quite literally the following day we get news article about UTA board members stepping down due to another "business trip". The majority of the voters are not stupid. Just because you choose to turn a blind eye towards your beloved UTA, doesn't mean most of us are willing to. UTA needs to show us that they can be responsible with their budget before they ask for more.

You do realize that that trip could bring jobs to SLC, a new very important partner for transit, and was paid for by a private PAC. So... your money wasn't spent. Personally I would like to see reform to UTA(maybe make it part of UDOT and share funding) but this is getting ridiculous. We need transit and the people that were against prop 1 conveniently seem to have forgotten that 60% of it was to go to the city and county to pay for roads, sidewalks, bike paths, etc. How do we pay for those things when people are using less and less gas but have the same habits?

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Ummmmmmm this

Succinct.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

You do realize that that trip could bring jobs to SLC, a new very important partner for transit, and was paid for by a private PAC. So... your money wasn't spent. Personally I would like to see reform to UTA(maybe make it part of UDOT and share funding) but this is getting ridiculous. We need transit and the people that were against prop 1 conveniently seem to have forgotten that 60% of it was to go to the city and county to pay for roads, sidewalks, bike paths, etc. How do we pay for those things when people are using less and less gas but have the same habits?

However there are a lot more gas stations today then in the 1970s, alot more people at the pumps today then in the 1970s, and alot more recreational vehicles ( RVs, boats, four wheelers for example )ttoday then in the 1970s. Sure we are using less gasoline per trip as we get more bang for buck, but we have ALOT more people filling up nevertheless. I guarantee we have more semi trucks shipping in gallons of gasoline into the state now then decades ago. We have over 3 million people living in this state now, with the average age of being around 31 years old as one of the youngest states in the nation, with an unemployment rate of 3.75% that's a hell of a lot of taxpayers.
Instead of our local government trying to squeeze even more out of us honest hard-working citizens who pay taxes why don't we go after those damn panhandlers who we see at every freeway exit and get them to pay taxes since we all know that any donations they get they don't! But that's another subject for another day.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

However there are a lot more gas stations today then in the 1970s, alot more people at the pumps today then in the 1970s, and alot more recreational vehicles ( RVs, boats, four wheelers for example )ttoday then in the 1970s. Sure we are using less gasoline per trip as we get more bang for buck, but we have ALOT more people filling up nevertheless. I guarantee we have more semi trucks shipping in gallons of gasoline into the state now then decades ago. We have over 3 million people living in this state now, with the average age of being around 31 years old as one of the youngest states in the nation, with an unemployment rate of 3.75% that's a hell of a lot of taxpayers.

Fuel efficiency since 1975 has improved as of 2013 over 75%!!! What was the population in 1975? The population of the United States was 216 million; it's now 318.9 million. So let's see here, we have roughly 50% more people than we did then using 75% more fuel efficient vehicles than they did in 1975. Then of course we can factor in inflation which we haven't adjusted the federal tax for since 1993 which is a little over 50% more now since then. Do you understand how this creates diminishing returns? We have to expand our roads and build more of them for all the new cars, trucks, boats, RVs, etc. But we're getting diminishing returns because of inflation and greater efficiency. So the problem is actually worse now precisely because there ARE more vehicles.

Now we have about 50% more people having to fill their car a lot less often in a system which can only charge a fixed amount per gallon. If you buy a hybrid and use only 1/3 of the amount of fuel you used before, that means you're mooching off of people who pay more to build those roads by consuming less gas. More people means more roads and less trips to fill the tank means less tax money for the Federal Gummamint.

Check out this link
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/420r13011_EPA_LD_FE_2013_TRENDS.pdf

In 1975 over 60% of vehicles in the US had 8 cylinders in their engines. Now it looks like it's closer to 10%. Four cylinder engines went from 20% to around 55%.

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Instead of our local government trying to squeeze even more out of us honest hard-working citizens who pay taxes why don't we go after those damn panhandlers who we see at every freeway exit and get them to pay taxes since we all know that any donations they get they don't! But that's another subject for another day.

The only response I have for this rambling and victimization is that homeless people don't really commute using freeways... So they aren't really using the product of these gas taxes and they aren't paying them which kind of makes them a non issue for this discussion. But, Tesla people are using the freeway and paying the same amount of gas taxes as homeless people.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Fuel efficiency since 1975 has improved as of 2013 over 75%!!! What was the population in 1975? The population of the United States was 216 million; it's now 318.9 million. So let's see here, we have roughly 50% more people than we did then using 75% more fuel efficient vehicles than they did in 1975. Then of course we can factor in inflation which we haven't adjusted the federal tax for since 1993 which is a little over 50% more now since then. Do you understand how this creates diminishing returns? We have to expand our roads and build more of them for all the new cars, trucks, boats, RVs, etc. But we're getting diminishing returns because of inflation and greater efficiency. So the problem is actually worse now precisely because there ARE more vehicles.

Now we have about 50% more people having to fill their car a lot less often in a system which can only charge a fixed amount per gallon. If you buy a hybrid and use only 1/3 of the amount of fuel you used before, that means you're mooching off of people who pay more to build those roads by consuming less gas. More people means more roads and less trips to fill the tank means less tax money for the Federal Gummamint.

Check out this link
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/420r13011_EPA_LD_FE_2013_TRENDS.pdf

In 1975 over 60% of vehicles in the US had 8 cylinders in their engines. Now it looks like it's closer to 10%. Four cylinder engines went from 20% to around 55%.



The only response I have for this rambling and victimization is that homeless people don't really commute using freeways... So they aren't really using the product of these gas taxes and they aren't paying them which kind of makes them a non issue for this discussion. But, Tesla people are using the freeway and paying the same amount of gas taxes as homeless people.

The only problem is most of these panhandlers are not really "homeless". If you've ever witnessed a shift change you will notice that so many of these panhandlers would get into their vehicles that is parked in a nearby parking lot afterwards. And I've been surprised on just how new some of their vehicles are. Basically a lot of these people are free loaders who are cheating the system.
Ok look at it this way, if all the homeless shelters are located downtown then how the hell do we have so many "homeless" people clear down at South Towne mall in Sandy off of 10600th?

As for the gas tax, that wasn't even my main argument to begin with. I was talking mainly about proposition 1 which is a tax increase on property tax. Since we actually got to vote on this and UTA has such a bad image, it really comes as no surprise why It didn't pass in this county. I understand what you're saying about gasoline, but we are being taxed more than one way when it comes to transportation. Let's see we have sales tax, state tax, property tax, gas tax, Plus traffic violation citations that can all factor into transportation cost one way or another. Case and point, we as hardworking tax paying citizens can be tax in multiple ways for the same thing. If one tax goes up, then another goes up or attempts to and then another and another until it becomes a domino effect which becomes quite a burden for us taxpayers. The giving tree can only give so much.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

As for the gas tax, that wasn't even my main argument to begin with. I was talking mainly about proposition 1 which is a tax increase on property tax.

Prop 1 is a sales tax increase (I stand confirmed that you were not sufficiently educated on this issue before voting).

They tried a gas tax increase and it didn't go so well.

They tried sales tax.

Property tax is next and it's harder to stop that with a vote.

So that's most likely where it's going to be.

People visiting town pay for gas and products with sales tax. They don't pay for property tax, but you do!

[delts145]

Perhaps I don't know the full story, but recently two of the people I have donated to regularly I've run across at an area grocery store. Their dirty destitute rags had become clean and attractive clothing. One I could tell recognized me and seemed a little embarrassed. To tell the truth, I wasn't that surprised by the discovery.

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

The only problem is most of these panhandlers are not really "homeless". If you've ever witnessed a shift change you will notice that so many of these panhandlers would get into their vehicles that is parked in a nearby parking lot afterwards. And I've been surprised on just how new some of their vehicles are. Basically a lot of these people are free loaders who are cheating the system.
Ok look at it this way, if all the homeless shelters are located downtown then how the hell do we have so many "homeless" people clear down at South Towne mall in Sandy off of 10600th?

[Makid]

Sorry, this is long but, to add in here...

One thing to remember regarding population numbers in Utah, nearly 50% of the numbers are minors and they don't work and don't contribute to the Sales tax numbers.

For example:

A couple both work and decide they are going to have a child. Their population goes up 50% but their income stays the same or in some cases drops (stay at home parent). After a couple of years, they have another child. Their population in the span of say 4 years has double. Yet their income has stayed either the same or dropped. This means their spending doesn't increase, it just shifts from one type to another. Not an increase nor decrease in overall spending.

When you hear about the population of Utah doubling in the next 15 years, you need to realize that at least 60% of that population will be minors and 30% of the existing population will still be minors. So even though Utah will have a population nearing 6 million, only 2.5 million will be eligible to work. With Utah trying to do more single income house holds, that drops it down to around 1.75 Million workers.

That is still more than now but only about 30% more. That 30% is not enough to offset the increased costs for the infrastructure needs. The need for additional schools and recreation will come from everyone's property taxes. This puts a larger burden on the elderly, disabled and those without children.

Now onto the UTA issue. Everyone talks about mishandling of funds but no one congratulates UTA for reigning in costs, saving $300 Million on the recent rail expansions (that is our money saved) or using the increased revenue and savings for service expansion.

Everyone complains about salaries and bonuses. Now let's talk about them. Bonuses have been cut to a max value of $7,500 a year. The executives have stated they are not going to accept a bonus for at least 2 years and the board is going to consider ending them. So bonuses are a non-issue.

Now let's talk about salary. Nearly 50% of the executive salary is benefits. This is medical, retirement, vacation time, sick leave and so forth. So even being less generous, take their wages and subtract 40% for benefits (they don't ever see these funds anyway so why should they be counted).

Many other transit agencies don't count the benefits in their salary information. So when you see salary comparisons, remember that UTA's are inflated against most others. This is why the independent study (not commissioned by UTA) showed that UTA's executive compensation is just below the median level for transit agencies.

Let's talk fully about stewards of our money. UTA has a service area nearly double that of the next largest transit agency. For population sake, it is even worse because of how spread out everyone is. This means that UTA has to do more with less. UTA has to prioritize what services and levels each area should get. This is done based on ridership and revenue received.

For this, SL County and Weber County are donors, this means they receive less service than they pay for. Davis and Utah County are receivers, they receive more then they pay for. Utah County even more so. The rest are less than .0025% for what they pay for to receiving.

This is why UTA has been increasing service in SL County recently as funds have become available.

Lastly, I just wanted to finish with this thought. UTA, using our money for projects has received nearly $2.5 Billion from the Feds for rail and rail items while UTA has paid out roughly $2 Billion (our money directly). This doesn't count the money from the Fed for the BRT Lines (Max and Orem/Provo). This means that UTA is able to do more than others because of what UTA is willing do do. That is to buy when things are cheap and plan ahead.

In all, UTA is the envy of nearly every transit agency because of what it has been able to accomplish in just less than 20 years. Adding roughly 200 miles of fixed transit (Rail and BRT), increasing ridership from under 20 Million a year to over 45 Million a year while receiving less revenue than its nearest comparable agency by either population or district size.

Also, those that complain about bus riders, Ridership is now within 5% of where it was in 2008. That is when all transit ridership was stated to have been over-inflated. This means that while some service was cut/scaled back, ridership on buses is higher than it ever has been.

So this, and everything else does show that UTA has been better stewards of OUR money than most think. Especially those that complain. Sure, there is room for improvement but not as much as the complainers like to think there is.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

So, what's the deal? Are we taking the streetcar from 1100 East and then taking it to 700 E down 9th?

That picture shows the Traxx stop on 2nd West. No streetcar is shown in that pic. Though, there is a streetcar route proposed along 9th, which would be much, much better for urban liveliness than any kind of bus.

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by Makid

Sorry, this is long but, to add in here...

One thing to remember regarding population numbers in Utah, nearly 50% of the numbers are minors and they don't work and don't contribute to the Sales tax numbers.

For example:

A couple both work and decide they are going to have a child. Their population goes up 50% but their income stays the same or in some cases drops (stay at home parent). After a couple of years, they have another child. Their population in the span of say 4 years has double. Yet their income has stayed either the same or dropped. This means their spending doesn't increase, it just shifts from one type to another. Not an increase nor decrease in overall spending.

When you hear about the population of Utah doubling in the next 15 years, you need to realize that at least 60% of that population will be minors and 30% of the existing population will still be minors. So even though Utah will have a population nearing 6 million, only 2.5 million will be eligible to work. With Utah trying to do more single income house holds, that drops it down to around 1.75 Million workers.

That is still more than now but only about 30% more. That 30% is not enough to offset the increased costs for the infrastructure needs. The need for additional schools and recreation will come from everyone's property taxes. This puts a larger burden on the elderly, disabled and those without children.

Now onto the UTA issue. Everyone talks about mishandling of funds but no one congratulates UTA for reigning in costs, saving $300 Million on the recent rail expansions (that is our money saved) or using the increased revenue and savings for service expansion.

Everyone complains about salaries and bonuses. Now let's talk about them. Bonuses have been cut to a max value of $7,500 a year. The executives have stated they are not going to accept a bonus for at least 2 years and the board is going to consider ending them. So bonuses are a non-issue.

Now let's talk about salary. Nearly 50% of the executive salary is benefits. This is medical, retirement, vacation time, sick leave and so forth. So even being less generous, take their wages and subtract 40% for benefits (they don't ever see these funds anyway so why should they be counted).

Many other transit agencies don't count the benefits in their salary information. So when you see salary comparisons, remember that UTA's are inflated against most others. This is why the independent study (not commissioned by UTA) showed that UTA's executive compensation is just below the median level for transit agencies.

Let's talk fully about stewards of our money. UTA has a service area nearly double that of the next largest transit agency. For population sake, it is even worse because of how spread out everyone is. This means that UTA has to do more with less. UTA has to prioritize what services and levels each area should get. This is done based on ridership and revenue received.

For this, SL County and Weber County are donors, this means they receive less service than they pay for. Davis and Utah County are receivers, they receive more then they pay for. Utah County even more so. The rest are less than .0025% for what they pay for to receiving.

This is why UTA has been increasing service in SL County recently as funds have become available.

Lastly, I just wanted to finish with this thought. UTA, using our money for projects has received nearly $2.5 Billion from the Feds for rail and rail items while UTA has paid out roughly $2 Billion (our money directly). This doesn't count the money from the Fed for the BRT Lines (Max and Orem/Provo). This means that UTA is able to do more than others because of what UTA is willing do do. That is to buy when things are cheap and plan ahead.

In all, UTA is the envy of nearly every transit agency because of what it has been able to accomplish in just less than 20 years. Adding roughly 200 miles of fixed transit (Rail and BRT), increasing ridership from under 20 Million a year to over 45 Million a year while receiving less revenue than its nearest comparable agency by either population or district size.

Also, those that complain about bus riders, Ridership is now within 5% of where it was in 2008. That is when all transit ridership was stated to have been over-inflated. This means that while some service was cut/scaled back, ridership on buses is higher than it ever has been.

So this, and everything else does show that UTA has been better stewards of OUR money than most think. Especially those that complain. Sure, there is room for improvement but not as much as the complainers like to think there is.

This is it. This is part of what's infinitely frustrating about the knee-jerk hyper-conservative reaction that automatically says "any taxes, for anything, is WRONG IT'S TAKING MONEY FROM HARDWORKING AMERIKUNS" ...when it's not. It's expanding services you wouldn't otherwise have, benefiting not only the larger community, but also you and your closed-minded, selfish little inbred family. (Certainly not meaning Makid, or even SLC Projects probably) ...instead of being informed on any particular issue, they see that it says "tax" and will vote against it no matter what.

Dollars-to-donuts most voters didn't even know that this would have anything to do with UTA, or even transportation or anything -- they just saw "tax" and voted against it. It happens with transit, it happens with civic projects, it happens with public education. And we — it up and try to make the most of it, and we end up about average in terms of where we could be. When we have the potential to be so much more. It's frustrating and it's sad, and even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they'll just go back into that booth and vote the same way again.

Dumbasses.

[Future Mayor]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the issue can be voted on at a ciyt level.

I know the all government entities want it to be passed at a County level, but I'd be interested to see if certain municipalities, Salt Lake City in particular, would put it on the municipal ballot next year if it doesn't make it on the county wide ballot.

The givers and receivers are the thing that frustrate me the most. SL County residents have seen the vision and have voted for the transit tax increases in the past, yet UT County, particularly north county is screaming so load that they need more service, but yet are not as willing to put as much skin in the game as SL County.

I am glad that UTA is increasing service levels in counties that are paying the higher tax and focusing on areas within those counties that have higher riderships.

I think if the municipalities went forward with the new increase that other cities would start to scream and yell, "why is SLC getting so much new service, lines etc, and we aren't" It would be a wake up call, which I think is what finally happened in UT County to get FrontRunner, they realized that you need to participate and be proactive in the transportation process, including funding.

I applaud UTA and the vision that they have had and the shear volume of projects that they have accomplished. No they aren't perfect and I appreciate Makids breakdown of how UTA salaries are compared to other agencies, I wasn't aware of many of those points.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Orlando

That picture shows the Traxx stop on 2nd West. No streetcar is shown in that pic. Though, there is A streetcar route proposed along 9th, which would much much better for urban liveliness.

Thank you for stating that. I too was confused why people were bringing up Streetcar in regards to the image.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Thank you for stating that. I too was confused why people were bringing up Streetcar in regards to the image.

It looked just like 9th and 9th to me with trax when I saw it last night. Wishful thinking.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the issue can be voted on at a city level.

I think cities can already increase the sales tax within their borders. SSL and Alta both have higher rates than other cities in SL County.

They would just need to increase it by the same amount and could have the same stipulations or could use the entire amount to fund transit.

This would drastically increase transit options within SLC. SSL could increase theirs as well to pay for double tracking the S-Line as well as expanding the greenbelt along the line.

I think doing that would also allow for speeding up the 9 line trail in SLC as well as their dedicated bus service and the Downtown Streetcar lines.