Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5 - Page 25

ajiuO · #**481** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 5:56 AM**

I wonder why they decided to leave that there. Just look how 400w and other parts of 300w have been enhanced with the removal of extended over passes. I think removing that would have been a huge enhancement to the area.

I wish there were still some old aerial shots... it seems like the 600s exit use to extend all the way to 200 west, but then there was also a circular off ramp on to 300w... now it’s all the way back to 600 west. It cleaned that area up a lot. It use to be so getto. I remember going to car auctions that they use to have under the freeways with my grandpa...

ajiuO · #**482** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 6:29 AM**

Actually, I was able to get a shot of the old overpasses and freeway exits.

i-215 · #**483** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I wonder why they decided to leave that there. Just look how 400w and other parts of 300w have been enhanced with the removal of extended over passes. I think removing that would have been a huge enhancement to the area.

If I ventured a guess, removal of the viaduct would require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because it involves an Interstate. A study certainly could be done, but it would cost a bit and require a few years. Replacing structures "as-is" requires no approval.

Two other issues that come to mind:

2. The railroad at 300 West is probably privately owned, and if it's U.P., could take yeeeeeears to come to an agreement to get them to sell (as I understand, U.P. is slower than government to work with).

3. There may be insufficient horizontal space between 400 West and 300 West to make the vertical drop from clearing the 400 W bridge and being at street level for 300 W.

Edit: Scratch that last one. The other viaducts drop a level from 500 W to 400 W with no problem.

Liberty Wellsian · #**484** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

If I ventured a guess, removal of the viaduct would require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because it involves an Interstate. A study certainly could be done, but it would cost a bit and require a few years. Replacing structures "as-is" requires no approval.

Two other issues that come to mind:

2. The railroad at 300 West is probably privately owned, and if it's U.P., could take yeeeeeears to come to an agreement to get them to sell (as I understand, U.P. is slower than government to work with).

3. There may be insufficient horizontal space between 400 West and 300 West to make the vertical drop from clearing the 400 W bridge and being at street level for 300 W.

Edit: Scratch that last one. The other viaducts drop a level from 500 W to 400 W with no problem.

I'm not certain but I think UTA owns it. It runs from 1300 s Trax to 4th West Trax. Even if they don't it is absolutely useless to a rr.

ajiuO · #**485** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 12:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I'm not certain but I think UTA owns it. It runs from 1300 s Trax to 4th West Trax. Even if they don't it is absolutely useless to a rr.

UTA was recently purchased by a company called Cloverleaf Industries. From what I hear they want to dismantle the street car.

i-215 · #**486** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 12:39 AM**

Rats. I was hoping the county would tell me who owned it.

I do agree that if Union Pacific (U.P.) does not own it, the city would('ve) be(en) smart to purchase it to shorten the viaduct. Even a heartless Roger Rabbit villain like me sees the practical benefits of connecting to 300 West. Oh well, too late.

Marvland · #**487** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 2:43 PM**

Another murder in Rio Grande.

goldcntry · #**488** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajiuO

UTA was recently purchased by a company called Cloverleaf Industries. From what I hear they want to dismantle the street car.

Well played ajiuO, well played. Is that a rabbit in your pocket or are your just happy to see me?

wrendog · #**489** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvland

Another murder in Rio Grande.

Victim is not dead, so not murder yet, but sheesh it seems to be getting ugly over there.

Liberty Wellsian · #**490** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

I do agree that if Union Pacific (U.P.) does not own it, the city would('ve) be(en) smart to purchase it to shorten the viaduct. Even a heartless Roger Rabbit villain like me sees the practical benefits of connecting to 300 West. Oh well, too late.

http://www.slccouncil.com/contact/

i-215 · #**491** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

http://www.slccouncil.com/contact/

Eh, it's too late. I do think it would require a multi-year E.I.S. study, involved UDOT (since the state owns the viaduct), and they are now spending millions to replace the bridges.

Oh well, we'll try again in 20 years.

asies1981 · #**492** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 8:10 PM**

The 4th West is officially complete. I toured the building last night after a ribbon cutting ceremony.

Liberty Wellsian · #**493** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 9:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by asies1981

The 4th West is officially complete. I toured the building last night after a ribbon cutting ceremony.

Good lord I'm glad my cost for housing is locked up.

delts145 · #**494** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 10:53 PM**

Interesting and encouraging that they estimate that about 70 percent of the tenants moving in are from out of state. Looks like Downtown Salt Lake City will not have to depend on Utahns only to populate a booming vibrant downtown.

airportvids · #**495** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 12:01 AM**

Our stupid liquor laws continues......
http://fox13now.com/2017/08/04/utah-...ormon-musical/

ANNNNND this is why nobody will ever think of us as a "real City"

Stenar · #**496** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 12:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportvids

Our stupid liquor laws continues......
http://fox13now.com/2017/08/04/utah-...ormon-musical/

ANNNNND this is why nobody will ever think of us as a "real City"

I didn’t even know you could take any drinks into the seating area of the theatre itself. That sounds like a bad idea. There’s nowhere to put your glasses, like the shelf at Brewvies.

i-215 · #**497** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 1:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Good lord I'm glad my cost for housing is locked up.

Quote:

Rents range from $1,250 for a studio to $4,810 for a deluxe two-bedroom apartment.

I'm screwed.

For that kind of money, why wouldn't I just live in Seattle or Los Angeles?

bob rulz · #**498** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 5:25 AM**

http://www.sltrib.com/pb/news/politi...work-out-first

It really does sound like they're trying to come up with a more comprehensive, long-term solution here. Of course, it could just be all talk, but I'm hoping that some of the ideas floated and briefly discussed in here are actually seriously considered and implemented.

joscar · #**499** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

Rats. I was hoping the county would tell me who owned it.

I do agree that if Union Pacific (U.P.) does not own it, the city would('ve) be(en) smart to purchase it to shorten the viaduct. Even a heartless Roger Rabbit villain like me sees the practical benefits of connecting to 300 West. Oh well, too late.

UTA acquired all of UP's old Provo Subdivision mainline from 900 South to Point of the Mountain in the early 1990s; this includes the track in question.

I would guess the right-of-way for the track that runs north of 900 South, down the middle of 400 West (and once ran further north to just before 200 South, where it jogged slightly west to go north behind the Union Pacific Depot) has gone back to the city. Sections of the track are still in place in the middle of the road, but signs do say the track is out of service; although perhaps UP still claims it?

In the early 2000s UTA purchased more of the old Provo Subdivision mainline, this time the section from Point of the Mountain south to "Hardy" in Lindon. UP still owns the very southern portion of this old mainline—called the Provo Industrial Lead—from Hardy to where it merges with their current mainline near the Orem FrontRunner Station. Eventually I'm sure UTA will purchase the rest of the line, and you'll be able to take TRAX from Salt Lake to Orem, where you can then board the BRT if needed.

As for the diagonal section in question, I'm sure UTA would protect is as much as they could. It's just too expensive and difficult to get property for rail lines. Even if if they might only one day somehow use it.

Their right-of-way around the Point of the Mountain was recently the subject of an expensive lawsuit, since it isn't being actively used. The US government ended up paying $24 million to maintain this section of the right-of-way for UTA and the walking/bike trail. GENEVA ROCK PRODUCTS, INC., and FOX RIDGE INVESTMENTS, LLC, on their behalf and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES. I believe how it works is the US government actually owns the property, and then just allows railroads the right-of-way.

TonyAnderson · #**500** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Good lord I'm glad my cost for housing is locked up.

I was recently looking up availability in some newer SLC / Milcreek apartments and nearly everything was booked, many of them with no vacancies for months. The market seems to be crazy strong right now in this area.