Originally Posted by i-215
Ideally a street should serve all users. I do agree that in downtown, State Street under-serves the pedestrian and bicycle traffic that is prominent.
It sounds like you use the word ideally like I would say "Ideally no child would ever get cancer and all marriages would be happy." I would say we don't have to hope for an ideal world. We just need a world better planned.
It's also important to remember that some streets need to serve cars, too. State plays a very important role in meeting regional mobility goals when you get into Murray, Sandy, etc. I admit I sit on a weaker case in the central business district, though.
I totally agree. My comments acknowledge the need for a balance which includes cars because the car is an awesome invention and has many positive externalities. This comment indicates where you and I may come from different philosophical backgrounds. I believe that "regional mobility goals" is a euphemism for subsidizing sprawl. If we spend a lot of money reducing the commute times of those who live further and further out, this is a subsidy to that person. Instead I would prioritize the local resident and their trips over the needs of the transient driver. FYI, I live in Murray so I am one of those who benefits from this subsidy when I do drive instead of TRAX.
Sort of. In the central core, I do agree that the street needs some TLC. At minimum a raised median and narrowed lanes would help. It would be interesting to look at traffic volumes to see if reducing from 6 (3 each way) down to 4 (2 each way) would be do-able. It sure would be nice to free up some space for some bicyclist facilities.
I agreed.
That's what 700 East is designed to do. Move a buttload of trips. It serves a role in keeping parallel streets quiet is because 7th East "takes one for the team."
This is where you and I may view sprawl differently.
Planners are a bit too enthusiastic in their view that a road diet will always be accommodated by a mode shift to walking, cycling, etc. I wish they were right, because we could solve all capacity issues by eliminating capacity.
In actuality, at best maybe 5-10% of travelers will shift modes. The rest simply shift to parallel routes.
Agreed, but I would argue that is because the car is still heavily benefiting from substantial subsidies that still make it attractive for people to not consider alternative forms of transport. I contend that to fully fund the transportation budget for roads and highways we need to increase the gas tax by at least $1. If you did that along with not prioritizing the commuter, you would see plenty of clamoring for BRT, LRT, bus and commuter rail.
Debatable. Commercial property along 700 East does great. But do we really want to spread the cancer out by pushing traffic off 7th onto 9th and Highland and 13th north of I-80?
I would invite you to drive along this road. The residential properties are not doing well. It is unsafe, unhealthy and negatively affects those values. While some commercial properties do well, I would argue that a road like that incentivizes bad developments because they want to move their customers away from the road as much as possible. Therefore big setbacks and terrible street engagement. The residential is properties could theorectically be converted to commercial, but that does help the individual who goes to sale their home and realizes few want to live on such a street or even within a block.
If traffic noise drops property values as you say, I'd think spreading it throughout many neighborhood streets would be a lot worse than consolidating it into one big facility.
Agreed,but I would like to unwind the system we currently have and eliminate many of those trips or have them move to other forms of transport.
I do think a few more signalized pedestrian crossings are possible, and can be meshed into the existing signal timing to activate when platoons of traffic aren't going by.
That may be true for local streets, but this is a state highway (US-89). State highways serve entire regions. A balance needs to be struck between mobility needs and local needs.
I would call it a sprawl subsidy.
Outside urban cores, not ever street can be a 20 mile-per-hour lane lined with people drinking coffees at sidewalk cafes. Even the biggest urbanite on this board will, at times, rely on regional mobility to travel outside their neighborhood.
Agreed. I also believe in a hierarchy of streets and would not want them to all be sleepy streets. With that said that is not what I envision. Curently this street serves cars period. You can have it still move a substantial amount of cars and serve other people too. I would propose no more than two lanes either direction with BRT down the center, wider sidewalks with landscaping, lanes reduced to 10' and a design speed of 30-35. Bikes lanes with physical separation so to greatly enhance the perceived and real sense of safety. As bikers increase you would give them slight signal priority. Zoning would need to be changed along the corridor to promote a mixed use type of development.
---------------
I think of the phrase, "Can't the Farmer And The Cowman be Friends?" from Oklahoma. In this case, it's can't the planner and the engineer be friends.
We are both working together to make livable, great cities. In the 20th century, I agree engineers ran away with meeting capacity and mobility and "ghettofied" many urban areas in SLC.
It can be equally bad if planners run away and damage mobility and capacity requirements.
I hope the 21st century is one that strikes a balance.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
