Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Hatman]

To change the subject, how about that S-line streetcar?

Sethbrown4 uploaded some renderings to the Sugarhouse thread of the proposed apartments at the current terminus of the streetcar route, and the site plans offer some idea as to what is officially planned for the next extension:



As you can see, the new development will leave space on the south side for the streetcar extension, as well as for the continuation of the S-Line pedestrian trail. That's great. We all expected that. But then the eastbound/northbound track of the extension still makes that stupid little detour down to Simpson Avenue before turning north on highland drive.
I cannot describe how much this mostly insignificant detail irritates me, but it grates on me like nails on a chalkboard. As if the S-Line wasn't slow enough already on its own dedicated alignment, now they want to put it in mixed traffic and then have it detour around the block, traveling two sides of a triangle when it clearly should just travel one. I mean, why not just close the current Sugarmont Drive to traffic between McClelland St. and Highland Ave.? Close it off and use it as more dedicated ROW for the S-Line, both streetcar and pedestrian trail. Then, for consistency's sake, rename Simpson Avenue as Sugarmont Drive, so that the two become one continuous street. I mean, Simpson avenue is the much more utilized and much safer intersection, why not consolidate all the car traffic onto that street and give all of Sugarmont St along that block to the streetcar?

Current:


Reroute Sugarmont Drive to Simpson Avenue:


In the current design iteration, the designers are having the streetcar conform to car-oriented traffic patterns, and that clearly compromises the effectiveness of rail-based public transportation. If you're going to build a streetcar, at least try to design an effective stand-alone system.

And then, beside extending the streetcar to the Sugarhouse Plaza, there are the issues of double-tracking the thing for its entire length, increasing frequency to at least every 15 minutes (10 is better!), and then connecting the S-Line to the TRAX network so that streetcars can travel directly to downtown (no transfers!).... Is this asking too much?

[Hatman]

Here's another thought... How about instead of paying for each proposed streetcar project individually (S-Line extension, S-Line improvements, Granary Streetcar, 2nd South Streetcar, etc.), why not just have one project for one big streetcar line?

1) Connect the S-Line to the mainline TRAX tracks so that the streetcars stop at the TRAX platform instead of their own station. They will travel between Central Pointe station and Ballpark station like regular TRAX trains.
2) Rebuild the abandoned passenger mainline between the ballpark station and the intersection of 4th west and 4th south to a center-running lane-separated streetcar.
3) The streetcars turn west onto 4th south - a future TRAX line - and tie in with the existing TRAX line at the Intermodal Hub.
4) Continue on the existing TRAX line to Old Greektown Station
5) Continue east on a new alignment on Second South, extending however far the 2nd south streetcar is planned to go.

The Full route would look like this:


And the Downtown portion would look like this:


One Streetcar Line To RULE Them All. You board at 2nd South. Pass through the intermodal Hub, the Granary District, and the Ballpark Area. Then travel along the S-Line through South Salt Lake, then get off at the Sugarhouse Plaza. About 6.5 miles long, sharing about 1.8 of those miles with TRAX Light Rail. (Leaving 4.7 miles of streetcar tracks to be built, 2 of those being the existing S Line that only needs a second track.)
For comparison, Portland has two streetcar lines of 4.4 and 3.9 miles each (a total of 7.2 miles, since they share tracks), and they do share tracks with the local light rail lines. I think that shows that this proposal is feasible, and might be the best way to get all these planned segments built.

[s.p.hansen]

I just want to add my 2 cents to all the good points of view above.

Because we have such a linear urban development pattern along the Wasatch Front, I think the vast majority of us agree that we need to aim for the best kind of corridor possible for I-15 and FrontRunner. I-15 and FrontRunner bisect each county in our metro area and there is a sense of connectedness and unity that comes from building it all up. It's the really fringe people (I mean this in the sense of those believing in ideals over current experience and results) on both sides, be it New Urbanists or hardcore Suburbanists who will tell you that ramping up I-15 or building FrontRunner has been a mistake.

I hate how dependant I am on driving and I hate how even Salt Lake City, which is miles ahead of most American cities in affordability to live in and with access to public transit still feels like a suburb in many ways. But I have always loved and continue to love seeing I-15 get beefed up. I know that it does not ultimately make traffic better in the sense that driving car on a road is about supply and demand and shorter commute times and ease of access makes driving more affordable (increases supply) and thus incentivizes more trips (increased demand) which quickly catch the road back up to capacity. But I think given the importance of automobiles in our culture and given the challenges other states are having with the maintenance of their primary corridors, there is something really impressive, and dare I say beautiful, with the state of I-15 in our metro as a primary piece of infrastructure. It says a lot about the economic health of our state when you drive down it (both that it's new and nice and that it's full of cars).

What has made Utah Pragmatic is that Envision Utah marketed carpooling and public transit as "Freedom" and "Choices". If your only means of travel down the narrow Wasatch Front Metro is by car and you can't opt out for an alternative, you don't have choices and if you have can't choose you are less free. And getting back to this idea of I-15 being our common corridor, I think it's really a no brainer how we ended up with our longest transit line and best freeway in this area after we committed to stepping up our people moving infrusture in 1997.

Utah doesn't have the GDP of many bigger states, even those struggling with balancing their budgets. Our I-15 is one of the many sprawling freeways of California or Texas. We have to wait to rebuild it in sections and we have to commit to things like bonds. And even though we build them faster and cheaper at a great level of quality, these new sections of freeway are no small task financially for our state. And outside of I-15 when it comes to Transit or Freeways (or Highways) I think it is totally fair game to get our ideological knives out and to drop the Pragmatism.

1. If you're a homeschooler out in Eagle Mountain and you want to live far away from the gay liberals in Salt Lake City and want a better highway or a new freeway so it's easier to get from there to the rest of the metro so you can meet with your open carry militia group, you better be willing to pay for it on your own (as a community). Maybe raise your property taxes or devote more impact fees towards that end.

2. If you consider yourself a young urban millennial who hates cars but you're living along 1300 East between Trax and the S Line Streetcar because it's cuter and whiter than the places along TRAX or the Streetcar, you'd better be willing to pay for it yourself from property taxes, ESPECIALLY if you're the person who wants a streetcar instead of light rail because that would be more ideal for the kind of street YOU want to live on.

[Future Mayor]

One issue with potentially sharing tracks with Trax and Streetcar is that yes, currently our Streetcars are just a different color scheme of our Trax cars with a speed regulator on them, however there are a few reasons UTA choose to do this 1) Ease or maintenance, since the S-line would only have a few cars there was no need for an additional facility 2) Availability - the traditional vehicles used for street cars are on a serious back order, even more so for the Heritage style vehicles. So rather than wait to open the line with street car vehicles, UTA choose to re-brand a few of the cars they already had.

One question I have, is that when the streetcar network is built out, will UTA continue to use the cars the S-line uses or will it transition to a streetcar designed vehicle, yes the cars will need to run on Trax lines to get to maintenance yards, but are the streetcar specific vehicles designed to go Trax speeds?

I have always liked the idea of a line going west into the Granary, from the Main line just north of Ballpark, and I wonder if streetcar or Trax would be the best for that, particularly if a stadium was ever built in the neighborhood. Vivint, while getting a make over and should last another 15 - 20 years, eventually the Jazz will need a new arena and that may be a great neighborhood for it to be built. Also depending on how the Granary develops is there going to be more demand for transit in the area and would Trax from the south be better or would a transfer from the Blue/green/red to Streetcar be better?

If the blue/green/red lines increase their frequency would there even be room (time wise) on that section of track for another Trax or the streetcar? Currently on weekdays the Blue, Green and Red line come every 15 minutes, so there is a train every 5 minutes at the Central Point and Ballpark stations. If those frequencies are increased during commute times, due to demand, to every twelve minutes, that puts a train in that section every 4 minutes. Is there enough time in either of those time tables to add another train, without significantly impacting cross traffic at 21st, 17th, and 13th S, particularly since two of those are I-15 on/off ramps?

Most of these are just questions that I am asking, not saying one is better than the other.

[Future Mayor]

As for the road alignment, I always thought that they should take down Zions Bank and align Sugarmount, on a substantial curve of course, to line up with Wilmington, and leave the road that goes south of the former DI and meets up with the movie entrance.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

One question I have, is that when the streetcar network is built out, will UTA continue to use the cars the S-line uses or will it transition to a streetcar designed vehicle, yes the cars will need to run on Trax lines to get to maintenance yards, but are the streetcar specific vehicles designed to go Trax speeds?

Some streetcar designs can go TRAX speeds. TRAX tops out at 55 mph, and HERE is one that travels at 50 mph. Often these designs are intentionally limited to certain speeds because the route they are designed for is slow surface streets. But other places follow the TRAM-TRAIN model, which requires faster tram cars. Should UTA want to change the type of vehicle it uses (it would be cheaper not to, but if they really wanted to), there would be options for it to choose from capable of TRAX speeds.

I have always liked the idea of a line going west into the Granary, from the Main line just north of Ballpark, and I wonder if streetcar or Trax would be the best for that, particularly if a stadium was ever built in the neighborhood. Vivint, while getting a make over and should last another 15 - 20 years, eventually the Jazz will need a new arena and that may be a great neighborhood for it to be built. Also depending on how the Granary develops is there going to be more demand for transit in the area and would Trax from the south be better or would a transfer from the Blue/green/red to Streetcar be better?

I don't know what transit demand will be, but I would hope that any rail line built through the Granary District will be built to TRAX standards, with center-running tracks in exclusive lanes, and with stations that can be built out to four car-lengths later on if an upgrade becomes justified. By building an upgradeable streetcar line first, perhaps that will grow demand and development faster than the line is built later on.
I also support using longer consists on the streetcar line, up to 2 cars for added capacity. There is precedent for this. Streetcars often used to tow around unpowered 'dummy' or 'trailer' cars when they were the principle means of transport in the pre-car days.

If the blue/green/red lines increase their frequency would there even be room (time wise) on that section of track for another Trax or the streetcar? Currently on weekdays the Blue, Green and Red line come every 15 minutes, so there is a train every 5 minutes at the Central Point and Ballpark stations. If those frequencies are increased during commute times, due to demand, to every twelve minutes, that puts a train in that section every 4 minutes. Is there enough time in either of those time tables to add another train, without significantly impacting cross traffic at 21st, 17th, and 13th S, particularly since two of those are I-15 on/off ramps?

I hope TRAX increases frequencies to 12 minutes very soon - at least during the rush hours. A train every 4 minutes would be fantastic. But NYC can run trains every 2 minutes during peaks, so it isn't a theoretical limit. (Theoretically, the limit is closer to 73 seconds, depending on the vehicles.) If UTA were to upgrade its signalling and switching control systems, I think they could run the TRAX+Streetcar segment between Ballpark and Central Pointe at 2 minutes as well. TRAX could run every 12 minutes, and the streetcar could run every 8 (streetcars ought to run more frequently than LRT!).
As for the impact this would have on the traffic at grade crossings, it may not be as big of a problem as people may suppose. If a train comes every minute (every 2 minutes, but two directions), and if the crossing gates are down for 20-30 seconds, that makes each of those crossings similar to the traffic lights at State Street. Traffic trying to cross state street must stop for about a minute before getting only a few seconds of green. It would be similar at TRAX crossings. But ideally (and perhaps eventually) TRAX ought to be grade separated. At 17th south, TRAX could go on a bridge over the road. At 21st and 13th south, those roads are going to need to go over/under the TRAX line. But those are projects that can be started after TRAX/Streetcar frequencies increase, rather than needing to be done before, IMO.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

As for the road alignment, I always thought that they should take down Zions Bank and align Sugarmount, on a substantial curve of course, to line up with Wilmington, and leave the road that goes south of the former DI and meets up with the movie entrance.

Removing Zions Bank was one of the original proposals, and as far as I know, I thought it was still on the table.

[i-215]

I've heard a lot about the 5-lane rule, which is that once a highway gets 5 lanes wide any additional lanes have a diminished return

I've heard similarly in a traffic flow class I took. You can fudge it a little bit with a separated double-track carpool plus five general purpose lanes plus a few more in a collector distributor system -- hence how Route 401 in Toronto got so fat.

But yes, 10 general purpose lanes in one direction is not a smart way to go. And that's coming from me. That's why even in Los Angeles freeways rarely have more than 5 general purpose lanes (CA-91 has 7, but two are separated express lanes).

I think before we consider elevating the express lanes and double-decking I-15, we'd be smarter to upgrade Frontrunner to run at higher speeds. As I understand, the system was designed for future electrification and acceleration (though I may be wrong). If the train went 100+ miles per hour, it would get a lot of committed motorists (like me) out of the car.

I drive from Provo to SLCo about 1-2 times per week. I take Frontrunner maybe once every 2-3 months. But if the train went substantially faster than freeway speeds (to offset trip-end bus transfers) than I'd probably take it once a week.

UTA should fall under UDOT's (increased) funding.

I'm okay with that ... IF the Utah Transit Authority were dissolved and a new state agency called Utah Department of Transit was formed to provide state oversight and management of our rail and bus systems. I'm tired of the special service district that keeps getting away with murder because it technically isn't a state agency. If UDOT kept trying to close meetings like UTA does, some heads would roll.

It also brings UTA under the oversight of the State Transportation Commission for approvals. AFAIK the way things are set up UTA is kind of rogue and does whatever it wants (appoints its own board, approves its own budget).

What has made Utah Pragmatic is that Envision Utah marketed carpooling and public transit as "Freedom" and "Choices".

I totally agree! Portland felt so punitive to motorists. Los Angeles, besides the cool downtown Metro routes, feels impossible to get around without a car. I can't even access LAX via fixed guideway transit.

I feel we are getting it right. Lots of transit -- phased implementation (single track of Frontrunner with option to double track, saving corridor for Mountain View Corridor and West Davis Hwy, etc.) Our future will be a mixture of infill and sprawl, rather than pure sprawl.

or a new freeway so it's easier to get from there to the rest of the metro so you can meet with your open carry militia group

Oh geez. LOL!

[Liberty Wellsian]

I agree that UTA should be part of UDOT. Mostly because I want to see UDOT spend some of its budget on transit. I would like to see them under one roof and for UDOT to have substantial air quality improvement targets.

I don't think that we should be investing in more streetcar lines and Trax as much as BRT. I think we should focus on upgrading the rail that we have(double tracking and electrification of Frontrunner) and developing a comprehensive true BRT network. I think that an ambitious BRT system would be heavily used. Maybe in 15-20 years we will be talking about making the carpool lane bus only?

[ImaJem]

Speaking of BRT, can anyone tell me if there have been developments on the provo-orem Brt line? Last I heard, they were going to start construction in late July. UTA has been kind of quiet about it since May...

[Hatman]

^^^
Supposedly things like utility relocation work has already started. These things begin really slowly, and I wouldn't expect to see things like the actual road widening or BRT lanes happening for quite a few months. But rest assured, things are moving. Last I heard, everything is still on schedule to be completed in early 2018 - and since UTA does its 'change days' in April, we can be pretty confident that it will open to the public in April 2018.
That may sound like a long time, but that's less than two years away. Imagine how much longer it would take to build something like this if it were a rail project!

BTW, welcome.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by i-215

I'm okay with that ... IF the Utah Transit Authority were dissolved and a new state agency called Utah Department of Transit was formed to provide state oversight and management of our rail and bus systems. I'm tired of the special service district that keeps getting away with murder because it technically isn't a state agency. If UDOT kept trying to close meetings like UTA does, some heads would roll.

It also brings UTA under the oversight of the State Transportation Commission for approvals. AFAIK the way things are set up UTA is kind of rogue and does whatever it wants (appoints its own board, approves its own budget).

I know so little about the politics of how these governing bodies work. I know UTA has a special district, and that the bus systems in Logan and Park City are separate from it. If UTA became a part of UDOT, would that mean UDOT would eventually have to take over those bus systems too? There would be trade-offs to that, with one of the largest benefits being better integration between systems. Like a more reliable/convenient bus between SLC and Park City, and maybe eventually a FrontRunner line in the I-80 median (since by that point both FrontRunner and I-80 would be owned by UDOT, so no need for negotiating ROW and the like.)

[ImaJem]

Originally Posted by Hatman

^^^
Supposedly things like utility relocation work has already started. These things begin really slowly, and I wouldn't expect to see things like the actual road widening or BRT lanes happening for quite a few months. But rest assured, things are moving. Last I heard, everything is still on schedule to be completed in early 2018 - and since UTA does its 'change days' in April, we can be pretty confident that it will open to the public in April 2018.
That may sound like a long time, but that's less than two years away. Imagine how much longer it would take to build something like this if it were a rail project!

BTW, welcome.

Thanks for the reply! I've been following the brt project for a while now, I'm just getting a little impatient!
I really enjoy your posts! I check your blog sometimes, and thats how I made it here!

[s.p.hansen]

Northern Utah County in 'crisis' as traffic woes threaten economic development

KUTV

(KUTV) One of the fastest-growing areas in Utah is facing a crisis, and it's causing some businesses to stay away, state leaders say.

Lehi, the once small town in northern Utah County, has experienced tremendous growth during the past few years. It's become known as a technology corridor with high-paying jobs and lots of new people.

But the area hasn't kept up.

Just ask Brian Emery. He lives in Lehi's Traverse Mountain neighborhood and works just across the freeway, less than two miles away. That's a commute of just five minutes -- on a good day.

Trouble is, those good days are becoming much rarer.

"It can take 20 to 30 minutes to get from my garage to the parking lot," Emery said as he prepared to leave for work.

It's the same story for Kyle Humphrey. He lives in the same neighborhood and manages Pizza Studio, not far from Thanksgiving Point.

His commute home can be horrendous, he says.

"If it's after 5:00, the longest I've taken is about 45 minutes," Humphrey said. "Less than three miles."

Traffic almost shuts down at certain times of the day, and it's starting to shut out some of the very companies attracted to that area in the first place.

"There are people now -- business people -- who are saying, do we really want to go there?" said Val Hale, director of the Governor's Office of Economic Development. He says employee complaints about traffic are scaring some companies away.

"It's to the point now where unless it's solved, it will become a negative for that area," Hale said.

Facing a crisis

"It is a crisis," said Lehi Mayor Bert Wilson. "There's absolutely no doubt about it."

Wilson says his city's sudden growth caught everybody off guard.

"Who would have ever guessed that we would have seen this kind of growth in the north end of the valley?" Wilson said.

And the congestion is only getting worse.

"This is the Silicon Slopes," Emery said. "This is where all the big businesses are now and people are moving here for the convenience of commuting a short commute, and it's the opposite."

Here's what's really surprising. For the last few years the state has been widening I-15. But state lawmakers, who hold the power of the purse, chose to put off funding reconstruction between Thanksgiving Point and Lehi Main Street -- the place where the most growth is occurring.

Rep. Jake Anderegg (R-Lehi) told 2News the stretch of highway is more expensive to work on due to the number of bridges. He said it will cost the state $450 million.

"It's a pretty major fix to do it right," Anderegg said.

Workers will need to widen the freeway, renovate the Thanksgiving Point interchange, install a new bridge across I-15, and add frontage roads.

The catch? Construction isn't scheduled to begin until roughly 2020. That means relief for this bottle-necked area could be years away.

"If we add another 4,000 to 6,000 jobs over the next 18 months there at Thanksgiving Point," Anderegg said, "that just doubles or triples the problem."

What can be done?

Widening I-15 is just part of the solution. Ask anyone who spends any time around there and they'll tell you, there needs to be more.

"I think public transit would help," said Humphrey, the Pizza Studio manager.

Utah County has a transportation plan. It includes installing TRAX lines from Draper to Lehi and eventually to Orem, but not until at least 2025 -- nine years away.

"I think we're in crisis now," said Anderegg, adding there is talk of moving up the timeline on the I-15 reconstruction, but nothing has happened yet.

"I think they need to start investing right away," added Hale, the governor's economic development chief.

But therein lies the final rub -- money. Making all these improvements will cost billions of dollars. Anderegg, a Republican, knows that is a tough sell.

"We're a very conservative area and we don't like taxes," he said. "And yet these roads won't build themselves."

Utah County voters resoundingly defeated Proposition One, which would have funded some transportation improvements.

Utah County Commissioner Greg Graves says county leaders are doing the best they can with limited resources, but they need more money.

Does that mean voters need to raise taxes and be willing to spend money on transportation?

"I would say yes," Graves said, "unless we can come up with another alternative to doing so."

Otherwise, he says, there's no way the county can keep up.

"I'm really worried," said Graves.

So for now, people like Emery and Humphrey are out of luck -- trapped in a situation that's only getting worse.

"We want to come home, spend time with our family, and decompress from work," said Emery. "We don't want to deal with traffic stress."

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-county-in-crisis-as-traffic-woes-threaten-economic-development

[s.p.hansen]

A few points to go off of with that above posted article:

1. Lehi pretty much admits it had no real plan for all this growth.

2. People were attracted to Lehi because of the convenience of living above where they work and commuting there by car.

3. Utah County in general has proven to be the most difficult place in Utah to raise any taxes to invest back into growth for the general region.

Consider Salt Lake City, it took it decades after the rise of the automobile and the fall of the old streetcar system to come up with a comprehensive strategy for both rebuilding the freeway and better configuring it and to create a decent public transit option. We're what, a decade and half into the dramatic rise of Northern Utah County?

How long did Salt Lake City have to start talking about light rail before we got the ball rolling to getting it done? Lehi is potentially in for a very bumpy ride (pun intended).

The State is in very good economic shape and could probably handle making a sooner than expected 1.5 billion dollar investment (through a bond) in that region.

Think of all the things we'd have to build there all at once. You need all the new bridges and better configured freeway exits and entrances. You need to build the new interchange that will eventually connect to the built out Mountain View Corridor. And you need to invest in TRAX to extend it down to at least where Adobe and the Outlets are and more buses servicing these busy residential and commercial roads.

Or you know, these companies could have just relocated to Salt Lake City instead where all of these things existed already...

Either way, from a Salt Lake City booster point of view, this is hilarious and vindicating.

From a state employment growth point of view it's probably best that they intervene soon and expedite some serious investment in the infrastructure in that area.

[Future Mayor]

One issue facing this type of growth is how pro-developer the State Government is. Developers are only responsible for their improvements and very limited amount of other improvements at or near their site. They have no financial responsibility or traffic that they cause, that is they left up to the city to somehow fund, of UDOT or the County if the roads are owned by them.

The developers of all these 5 story office buildings at Thanksgiving Point were required to put things like curb, gutter and sidewalk, and only a portion of the road right in front of their parcel. State law does not allow the city, county or state to make the developer responsible for off-site impacts that the development effects.

Case in point, Eagle Mountain/Saratoga Springs. All those developers reeped the benefits of being able to sell all those new homes, but had no obligation to anything to improve the surrounding areas that were effected by all those new homes, they had no financial obligation to what created failing streets and intersection on Lehi Main St and Redwood Road. So the state then has to come up with the money to improve those roads.

I worked for a high end developer while I was in Cleveland. They were working on a very high-end mixed use development in an affluent suburb of Cleveland and part of the process was traffic modeling. It was show that the new development would cause the interchange that served the community to fail, once the development was built out. The develop had to pony up the money to improve the interchange, in order to keep the interchange at the pre-development level of service.

Utah developers need to pay actual impact fees, not just those levied by the city. It's the same issue with gas, it's greatly subsidized by other funding sources so impact fees are not even close to the true cost of impacts. If there are areas that have existing infrastructure and could be redeveloped cheaper than exurban development with true impact fees, there would be much more densely populated areas with much less traffic and commute times. That is another problem that SLC is struggling with with their impact fees. By state law, impact fees can't be used for upgrades to existing facilities, and must be used for new services. So places like Salt Lake City, that have demand for housing don't have the ability to use the impact fees that are collected because of the restrictions put on how they can be used. If they were allowed to upgrade utility mains in the area, those not directly related to the project, or put some money to fixing sidewalks in the neighborhood, or upgrading equipment at a park, that would be a huge benefit to the city and both the existing and new residents.

[Hatman]

I admit that my first reaction to people complaining about traffic around the Silicon Slopes is pure, gleeful schadenfreude. After all, what do you expect if you develop a huge big population/jobs/retail center away from all the things (transit, bike paths...) that reduce or mitigate congestion?
But thinking more slowly, and considering that the whole I-15 corridor will become developed anyway, I can see how there is an opportunity here to really demonstrate the benefits of multi-modal transportation. Sure the highway interchages will be expanded, and sure the whole freeway will be widened between AF and the Point (it is planned, of course, but UDOT is holding out because of the need to construct at least the first phase of a large junction between the MVC and I-15) - but with that, if we can also get things like better transit coverage and more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure built, perhaps people will see that it wasn't the added cars that reduced their misery, but the fact that they are no longer forced to use one.
I have an Uncle that lives in that Truman-Show-esqe neighborhood west of I-15 at the point (where all the houses look exactly the same and all the lawns are neatly trimmed all exactly the same way and...). He works in the Adobe building, which can be seen from his condo; it isn't more than a mile or two away. But he drives to work through the diverging diamond interchange under I-15, and he agrees that it often takes over half an hour to get home from work. He has a bike, but he says the diverging diamond interchange is to miserable/dangerous for him to get through there on it. So, why not include a pedestrian bridge over I-15 as part of any planned upgrade to the intersection? Here's a map:


By moving the main route of cyclists/pedestrians away from the freeway interchange, it will create a safer and more enticing route for people to get across the freeway without a car. (I would have made this a tunnel, but that section of I-15 is currently being rebuilt as we speak, so that boat already sailed.) Also, buy building another bridge over FrontRunner by the narrows (a place where people already frequently walk across the tracks for access to the river) a trail could be created to link the Jordan River Trail with the rest of the neighborhood/trail system. Another connection to the Jordan River Trail could be created through the golf course farther south, to make a more direct connection for people commuting from the south. Then, use any remaining funding to paint bike lanes along these major cycling routes.
Honestly, these are some pretty low-hanging fruits in an effort to curb congestion. Like Future Mayor said about impact fees, these things probably should have been paid for by the developers when the neighborhood/offices were first planned in the first place. But better late than never, I guess...

[Hatman]

Here's one more thought on the Lehi area: A BRT/Bus-Plus link between the Lehi FrontRunner Station and the future site of the Adobe TRAX station? It would involve a bus route along Executive Parkway from the FrontRunner station to Thanksgiving Way. At that intersection, a new underpass/tunnel will be built when that section of I-15 is rebuilt in the next couple of years (either 2018 or 2020). This underpass/tunnel will connect to the Frontage Road on the east side of I-15, which will put the BRT/Shuttle on a direct shot to the future LRT station site.

Overall length is almost exactly 1 mile. I included a stop at the intersection of Executive Parkway and Thanksgiving Way, which would be less than 800 ft of walking from the water tower plaza area at Thanksgiving Point. The road here is 50 feet wide. If it were to be widened only 5 feet, there would be room for two through lanes, one left turn lane, and two bus lanes, all 11 feet wide. The two station platforms would be on either side of the road.
The underpass/tunnel itself wouldn't need to be transit exclusive. If the signals at both ends of the tunnel are built with the right phasing, the buses could be given priority to pass through when needed. And of course, it would be good to include wide sidewalks and bike lanes through the underpass/tunnel.

The point of this idea (and the other pedestrian bridges idea) is to provide alternatives to the current bottleneck arrangement, in which there is only one way to cross I-15. This problem must be solved if there is to be any fluidity of traffic in the area. I am especially concerned for transit in this area, because what's the point of riding into work on FrontRunner if you then have to wait for the shuttle bus to sit in 30 minutes of traffic? Especially if you could avoid all that by driving in on I-15 and exiting to the east, thereby avoiding all the pain of that interchange.
I think this is another very easy low-hanging fruit that can be planned into the next round of inevitable freeway expansion.

[Future Mayor]

I like both those ideas. I hadn't really thought about the bike issue and trying to navigate through the interchange.

Lehi did some poor planning in the past, not having any additional I-15 crossings other than the Highland Hwy/TP the Lehi Main St, State St and the interchange by Lehi Block, all but one are interchange crossings.

The additional multi-modal crossing at Executive Way is a great idea, hopefully Lehi and MAG are pushing for that so that it gets considered in the next project.

[i-215]

The I-15 project through Lehi will include 1-to-2 new bridges. That should improve pedestrian connectivity somewhat.

https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=26698210159198162