Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

What ever happened with the S line phase II? I remember hearing about people arguing if it should go down 11th east or not... they ever get anything cooking on this?

It never secured federal funding and I don't think it was given priority in the SLC budget either. That's why we're seeing the South Salt Lake portion get double-tracked but no progress on the SLC portion.

It's still in the plans but it's looking like it might be a while before it secures funding.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

It never secured federal funding and I don't think it was given priority in the SLC budget either. That's why we're seeing the South Salt Lake portion get double-tracked but no progress on the SLC portion.

It's still in the plans but it's looking like it might be a while before it secures funding.

Bummer... would be nice if they could at least get it up to highland drive and 2100... just one more stop

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

It never secured federal funding and I don't think it was given priority in the SLC budget either. That's why we're seeing the South Salt Lake portion get double-tracked but no progress on the SLC portion.

It's still in the plans but it's looking like it might be a while before it secures funding.

It's kind of pathetic as of now. 20 minute intervals is kind of the opposite point of a street car. Even with the extra double-tracking it'll only reach Trax levels. A streetcar should be running every 10 minutes or so.

With that said, there's about 1,000 new units under construction along the S-Line spread over nearly 5 projects.

[bob rulz]

If there's anything that points to the viability of the streetcar, it's how much development it's spurring.

Double-tracking and extending at LEAST to 21st & 11th should be a priority. I agree 20 minute intervals are absurd.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

If there's anything that points to the viability of the streetcar, it's how much development it's spurring.

Double-tracking and extending at LEAST to 21st & 11th should be a priority. I agree 20 minute intervals are absurd.

How many of those residents park in on-site garages and drive? Bet it is presently over 90%.

I worry T.O.D. really just spurs Los Angeles-style urbanization where there is 1.2 spaces per unit and all we get are point generators that add a lot of concentrated vehicle traffic.

10-minute service would help fix that, though. Continuing the line up to 400 South TRAX would *really* help. As it is, the S Line is basically the transit equivalent of a cul-de-sac. It isn't presently designed to attract a lot of rider traffic.

[asies1981]

Update on the Transit Master Plan. Any rail projects or expansions will be under a new mayor. Rail is not a priority for our current mayor.

[Liberty Wellsian]

If either Erin Mendenhall or Derek kitchen ran for mayor they would have my vote.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Update on the Transit Master Plan. Any rail projects or expansions will be under a new mayor. Rail is not a priority for our current mayor.

...what is a priority for our mayor?

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by i-215

How many of those residents park in on-site garages and drive? Bet it is presently over 90%.

I worry T.O.D. really just spurs Los Angeles-style urbanization where there is 1.2 spaces per unit and all we get are point generators that add a lot of concentrated vehicle traffic.

10-minute service would help fix that, though. Continuing the line up to 400 South TRAX would *really* help. As it is, the S Line is basically the transit equivalent of a cul-de-sac. It isn't presently designed to attract a lot of rider traffic.

There is nothing "Los Angeles-style" about TOD-oriented urbanization. Your 90% is pure speculation, and even if it's true now, it's bound to go down over time. And even if 90% of them have cars and use them, the presence of a walkable community and the S-Line nearby means they might use those cars less than they would otherwise. That's not an option in "Los Angeles-style" suburbanization that just encourages more use.

Certainly the presence of the S-Line is one of the major selling points of those new projects, and the demand wouldn't be there without it. I've heard nothing but positive comments about the S-Line corridor from people who live near it and have been to it. It's not just the streetcar, it's the greenspace corridor that runs alongside it. It is undoubtedly a major selling point of those complexes. And the S-Line is definitely not a "cul-de-sac". It is a connection between a major TRAX hub that connects to all 3 TRAX lines, and a highly walkable neighborhood that people can spend a lot of time in without ever getting into their car.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what you're saying would help here. You want to extend the S-Line up to the 400 South TRAX? That defeats the purpose of a streetcar. Streetcars are supposed to be short and low-speed. Nobody would ride a streetcar from 21st South to Sugarhouse to 4th South. The point of a streetcar is not supposed to be a connector between two transit lines. The point of a streetcar is to be a pedestrian extender, and they're working on that with the density and the greenspace along the corridor. Not to mention 11th East is very residential up to that point. I don't want to run a streetcar along that road because it's mostly old, single-family homes. Streetcars should encourage residential density and commercial development. It works where it is because it was previously just an abandoned railroad with vacant lots and warehouses running alongside it.

Originally Posted by jubguy3

...what is a priority for our mayor?

I've been asking that question since she was elected.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Update on the Transit Master Plan. Any rail projects or expansions will be under a new mayor. Rail is not a priority for our current mayor.

I read a good chunk of that draft master plan recently and I think it's excellent. While I do agree that there should be definitive plans for a 100 South or 200 South streetcar and more streetcar/rail connections downtown, I don't want to see this continually delayed and debated on. The more it's delayed, the less likely it is to happen. I don't want the SLC Council to blow it because they want to get so much done so quickly. Of course I want to see a lot more done, but there's a definitive and good plan for the Stage 1 improvements and they need to be done sooner rather than later.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

There is nothing "Los Angeles-style" about TOD-oriented urbanization. Your 90% is pure speculation, and even if it's true now, it's bound to go down over time.

It won't happen if there is 1.2 spaces per unit. There needs to be 0.0-0.2 spaces per unit for it to be truly T.O.D. If parking is available, it will be used.

Problem is, it's chicken and the egg -- transit needs to be in place first, and what we have is woefully inadequate to require/allow 0.0-0.2 spaces per unit. And there's no way banks will lend on that.

On the flip side, banks will lend on 1.2-3.0 spaces per unit, no problem. But that's basically a suburban apartment complex stacked on top of itself. You could have the best transit in the world next door and people will still park and drive.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

...

Anyway, I'm not really sure what you're saying would help here. You want to extend the S-Line up to the 400 South TRAX? That defeats the purpose of a streetcar. Streetcars are supposed to be short and low-speed. Nobody would ride a streetcar from 21st South to Sugarhouse to 4th South....

Toronto has a streetcar line that is 15 miles long. 2100 S to 400 S is only 2 miles. I think making a somewhat parallel extension to the existing line will make it easier for people downtown to get to Sugar House as well.
Also, on its way to 400 South, it could hit the 9th and 9th neighborhood.

[jubguy3]

All I know is that the streetcar has to go... somewhere. Currently its both slower and less convenient than the 21 bus because it operates on slower frequencies. The S-Line corridor is still "dead". TOD can't entirely create a vibrant community, but it should instead be recognized as an addition to existing communities. If the S-Line is going to set itself apart it has to connect existing communities with new development. Considering that the plans have already been created for the S-Line extension, I'm particularly disappointed that Biskupski isn't taking any action on this.

Part of me wishes that the S-Line funds were used towards BRT in sugarhouse and the corridor was envisioned as a linear park as part of the parley's trail system. I honestly don't think the S-Line is and was the right fit for sugarhouse, but seeing as that we already built it, at least the city or UTA could take some action on extending it and making it useful to the rest of sugarhouse.

Vox recently posted a video about streetcars in America and they showed SLC as an example of a streetcar system, like DC and Atlanta's, that has underperformed on ridership expectations - and I think Vox is implying that it's underperforming because it was designed around TOD, not mobility.

[bob rulz]

It does go somewhere. It goes to Sugarhouse. It's not like it dead-ends in a suburban parking lot. It goes ALMOST to the heart of highly-walkable Sugarhouse. And is it not connecting existing communities with new development? It's not as if Sugarhouse sprung out of nowhere, and it connects to all 3 TRAX lines.

I realize that the S-Line is not the MOST ideal of designs, but I don't think design is the fundamental problem with it. The problem is that the lack of double-tracking has made the headtimes far too high. Not to mention its poor implementation into the Central Pointe station (it feels like the beginning of it was tucked away into a hidden corner). Of course, it also comes into Sugarhouse on the back-side, but for anybody who's aware of it or looking for it, it's very easy to walk to still.

Of course, the fact that Biskupski hasn't given priority to it is extremely disappointing, but it's not as if all hope for it getting properly completed is dead.

I don't think we can properly judge the S-Line for another 5-10 years, after we've seen the glut of residential development + The Crossing really take hold, and as Sugarhouse continues to densify. Hopefully Biskupski can be convinced to give it more priority, or the city council or UTA can do something about it (I don't know what the exact breakdown of powers between the mayor and city council in Salt Lake is, but surely the mayor doesn't hold absolute power over the funds?).

Originally Posted by Stenar

Toronto has a streetcar line that is 15 miles long. 2100 S to 400 S is only 2 miles. I think making a somewhat parallel extension to the existing line will make it easier for people downtown to get to Sugar House as well.
Also, on its way to 400 South, it could hit the 9th and 9th neighborhood.

Well, I'll have to look at that streetcar then. I suppose it's not too long. In reality I think my biggest problem with extending it to 400 South is, as I said, streetcars encourage and are supposed to lead to higher-density residential and commercial development, and I don't think high-density development is what we need through that area of the city. I wouldn't be opposed to BRT down, say, 700 East, but I don't like the idea of a streetcar going through the beautiful single-family residential neighborhoods of the Harvard-Yale and 9th and 9th areas. The S-Line was developed on a corridor of warehouses and vacant lots. If you can prove me wrong by providing examples where going through a neighborhood like that has been successful for a streetcar though then please do. I'm not going to consider myself an expert by any means and my opinion isn't inflexible. But in my head and based on how I feel about that area of town when I walk through it, a streetcar doesn't seem like the right fit.

Anyway, I think the ridership numbers for the S-Line being disappointing are overblown. It's gone up 36% in its first 3 years. Most of us knew it would take time to reach its full potential, and it's still nowhere near it. It's not because the base design is bad, or because it doesn't go anywhere (you guys are really underestimating Sugarhouse as a desirable destination in its own right), but because it hasn't received enough attention from an infrastructure standpoint. We just have to trust that will come with time (hopefully sooner rather than later).

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Vox recently posted a video about streetcars in America and they showed SLC as an example of a streetcar system, like DC and Atlanta's, that has underperformed on ridership expectations - and I think Vox is implying that it's underperforming because it was designed around TOD, not mobility.

If that is what they are implying, they are exactly right. It is insightful that the planing and funding for this line was done by Salt Lake City, and that UTA only agreed to operate it. It brings up the age old chicken-and-egg question of 'Does transit exist to make good cities - or do cities exist to make good transit?' I advocate for cities being changed in order to make good transit, but I realize that I am just one voice.

I've already made my thoughts on the S-Line public, I'm tempted to repost them, but I wont.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by i-215

It won't happen if there is 1.2 spaces per unit. There needs to be 0.0-0.2 spaces per unit for it to be truly T.O.D. If parking is available, it will be used.

Problem is, it's chicken and the egg -- transit needs to be in place first, and what we have is woefully inadequate to require/allow 0.0-0.2 spaces per unit. And there's no way banks will lend on that.

On the flip side, banks will lend on 1.2-3.0 spaces per unit, no problem. But that's basically a suburban apartment complex stacked on top of itself. You could have the best transit in the world next door and people will still park and drive.

Ha. Now I know why I was thinking of chickens and eggs. I also agree with this - TOD that features too much parking isn't true TOD, and won't benefit the city the way a true TOD would.

So, since much of the 'TOD' built in Utah seems to come with massive parking garages, I think it's worth discussing how economical it is to convert a parking garage into a more useful space.

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/time-think-living-old-parking-garages/

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-car-future-real-estate-20170405-story.html

The idea goes like this:
1) A transit line with low utility is built - like the S Line with 1 car ever 20 minutes.
2) Developers are allowed to build bigger developments in the vicinity of the transit line; however, they build with the same ratio of parking the would elsewhere (or something close to it) because they and everyone else can plainly see the transit line is of low utility (aka, 'it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵').
3) The developments along the transit line fill the low-utility transit line to its very low capacity; this brings on calls for transit utility to increase by lengthening trains and increasing frequency. The improvements are made, and the transit line achieves at least moderate utility.
4) An increased capacity of the transit line increases property values along its corridor. Rent prices rise. Demand for housing along the corridor also increases. Developers look to find a way to increase the number of units they have on-site, so they do the one thing at their disposal: They take parking spaces in their garages, and turn them into apartments too. Or turn them into luxury features (gyms, pools, lounges, whatever) to justify the high rent prices. They are allowed to get rid of parking spaces like this because the transit line actually works (aka, 'it doesn't 🞵🞵🞵🞵 anymore') and most of the people in the developments can depend on it.

(There is also the scenario I predict in which ride-sharing and autonomous vehicles also decrease the need for parking spaces)

And then, this virtuous cycle increases. More ridership spur more improvements which spur more development which spur more ridership. Of course, this only works when the transit agency is given the means for improvements, which is far from certain.

(I think UTA ought to receive its funding based on a metric of ridership, not just whatever is made in sales taxes. Like, if UTA got $X per rider, $Y per passenger mile, and $Z for every ADA rider, UTA would be much more rider-oriented, rather than development-oriented.)

OK, that's too many different ideas or one post. My question is this: Do the new modern parking garages being built as part of the TODs in Salt Lake have the capacity to be converted into anything other than parking garages? Because if they do, I don't mind them so much. If they don't, then...

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

The idea goes like this:
1) A transit line with low utility is built - like the S Line with 1 car ever 20 minutes.
2) Developers are allowed to build bigger developments in the vicinity of the transit line; however, they build with the same ratio of parking the would elsewhere (or something close to it) because they and everyone else can plainly see the transit line is of low utility (aka, 'it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵').
3) The developments along the transit line fill the low-utility transit line to its very low capacity; this brings on calls for transit utility to increase by lengthening trains and increasing frequency. The improvements are made, and the transit line achieves at least moderate utility.
4) An increased capacity of the transit line increases property values along its corridor. Rent prices rise. Demand for housing along the corridor also increases. Developers look to find a way to increase the number of units they have on-site, so they do the one thing at their disposal: They take parking spaces in their garages, and turn them into apartments too. Or turn them into luxury features (gyms, pools, lounges, whatever) to justify the high rent prices. They are allowed to get rid of parking spaces like this because the transit line actually works (aka, 'it doesn't 🞵🞵🞵🞵 anymore') and most of the people in the developments can depend on it.

That could work.

[Hatman]

Here's a fun game: Can anyone guess what this is a picture of?

[stayinginformed]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Here's a fun game: Can anyone guess what this is a picture of?

The final piece of the Jordan River Parkway Trail between North Temple and 200 South!!!

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by stayinginformed

The final piece of the Jordan River Parkway Trail between North Temple and 200 South!!!

Precisely!

http://www.slcgov.com/construction-has-b...hich-will-complete-popular-45-mile-trail




My picture is from the perspective of looking south. In the front you can see the construction of the ramp up to the steel arch bridge. The far abutment is visible between two power poles. After going down the ramp, the trail will cross the tracks in the foreground at-grade, between the red switch stand and the bridge. From there the trail will continue north along the river until reaching North Temple, connecting with the existing Jordan River Trail/Legacy Parkway Trail/Rio Grande Rail Trail all the way north to Ogden.
It will be glorious.