HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7121  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 4:05 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,043
FM,
What if the rail track was a rail/trail corridor that connected the Granary District with the Ballpark, etc. I'd rather keep that then have the freeway enter at 300 west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7122  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 3:48 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
I too would rather have a Trax or streetcar line run into the granary along that corridor, I don't anticipate that it would be the choice for a train though, as I would estimate they would want the potential to run a loop. Essentially sending a train into the Granary from the 7th S/200 W intersection.

A trail on the other hand would be pretty nice along that corridor. I think that could still be accomplished, with a little rearranging, while still placing the on/off ramp on 300 W.

If I ultimately had to choose either a trail along that corridor, or taking down the off ramp between 300 W and W. Temple, I would choose the later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7123  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 4:12 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
I too would rather have a Trax or streetcar line run into the granary along that corridor, I don't anticipate that it would be the choice for a train though, as I would estimate they would want the potential to run a loop. Essentially sending a train into the Granary from the 7th S/200 W intersection.

A trail on the other hand would be pretty nice along that corridor. I think that could still be accomplished, with a little rearranging, while still placing the on/off ramp on 300 W.

If I ultimately had to choose either a trail along that corridor, or taking down the off ramp between 300 W and W. Temple, I would choose the later.
Somewhere I read or heard that the city has envisioned turning the 9th south off-ramp into a park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7124  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 9:10 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
Somewhere I read or heard that the city has envisioned turning the 9th south off-ramp into a park.
Interesting. I could see using a portion of it for a small park, but I think a good portion of it would best used for development. Realistically if the ramp comes down, and Jefferson and Washington are connected, that neighborhood already has a decent size park, Jefferson Park, at Fremont Ave and W. Temple.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7125  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 9:24 PM
Reachforthesky Reachforthesky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
Interesting. I could see using a portion of it for a small park, but I think a good portion of it would best used for development. Realistically if the ramp comes down, and Jefferson and Washington are connected, that neighborhood already has a decent size park, Jefferson Park, at Fremont Ave and W. Temple.


The 9th S. Exit is an unusual exit. Does anyone know why it was build the way it was to begin with?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7126  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 5:08 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reachforthesky View Post
The 9th S. Exit is an unusual exit. Does anyone know why it was build the way it was to begin with?
It is the last of the viaducts over the railroad tracks. I-15 was built on the 'wrong' side of the tracks, meaning the exits had to cross over the railroad tracks in order to get to downtown. (You don't want a freeway exit dropping traffic off into a railroad crossing - what if traffic backs up onto the freeway?)

The trouble is, in the 1960's or 70's (whenever I-15 was built), there were many more railroad tracks in Salt Lake City than there are now. In addition to the tracks currently between 6th and 7th west, tracks also ran in the middle of 5th and 4th west, in order to access the Rio Grande and Union Pacific train stations. Passenger trains used these tracks up until the late 90's.

Here's what downtown looked like - note the viaducts on 4th, 5th, and 6th south.



The only viaduct that remains today is the 9th south exit, which is slightly different than the others. The exit is longer than what is built today in order to 'fly over' the railroad tracks, just like the other viaducts, but this one has the benefit of being built in the middle of the block, rather than down the middle of the street like the others. So, it was allowed to stay. (The railroad tracks it flies over were the ones that connected to the Union Pacific depot, and are now owned by UTA for a *potential* TRAX/streetcar line.)

In some ways, the viaduct is still necessary, as it crosses over TRAX at 2nd West. It could be argued that shortening the exit to 300 west would introduce more car-TRAX conflicts because more cars would cross the TRAX line at grade. It could also be argued that it would reduce the car-TRAX conflicts, as West Temple crosses the TRAX line two blocks to the north of the exit, while 300 West never crosses TRAX (until north of 'downtown').

I know as an urbanist I'm not supposed to like elevated freeways cutting through neighborhoods, but... I kind of don't mind this one...
I know, I know...

For starters, it's only two lanes each way, so it isn't as intrusive as a full freeway. Also, it's a lower-speed exit (the curve is signed as 35 mph), so it doesn't produce the same noise and vibration as a full freeway. Sure, many improvements could be made. It could have sound walls, it could have better bridges that make less noise under traffic loading and provide adequate space for full sidewalks underneath.

I mostly like it because I want to see the old railroad tracks beneath it turned into a 'linear park', similar to the S-Line. As much as I complain about the streetcar aspect of the S-Line, the linear park idea is fantastic. We ought to build walkways and green space next to all our TRAX lines - and that connection between the Ballpark station and the granary district is too good of an opportunity to let go to waste.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7127  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2017, 8:12 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,433
Interview with UTA CEO Jerry Benson on air quality. It had some great comparisons that I'm sure will be just as fascinating to you as they were to me.
http://www.good4utah.com/good-mornin...lean/653921715

I must have missed an announcement somewhere, but I was surprised to hear that UTA will be taking delivery of 5 all-electric buses this spring, to 'see how those work.'
Prepare to be amazed, UTA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7128  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2017, 8:48 PM
ImaJem ImaJem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Provo, Utah
Posts: 43
UTA reform bill passes first stop

Are you guys aware of this?
Legislation would change how UTA Board is selected, ban new partnerships with developers.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/4924548-1...ses-first-stop

Quote:
"A bill to reform how the Utah Transit Authority is governed easily passed its first stop on Thursday.

The Senate Transportation Committee voted unanimously to pass SB174 by Sen. Wayne Harper, R-Taylorsville, and sent it to the full Senate.

It follows years of controversy over high UTA executive salaries and bonuses, extensive international travel, sweetheart deals with developers and, most recently, whether its meetings should be open to the public.

Some critics had called for UTA board members to be elected to increase accountability.

Instead, Harper's bill, as now amended, would have eight members appointed by local cities and counties — drawn into districts based on how much transit tax they pay and their population. Members would be confirmed by the state Senate."
What are your thoughts? I hope this can further increase transparency with UTA, but I'm unsure about how this would affect TOD's

Also, did any of you guys attend the Life on State [street] workshop last night?
It sounded interesting, but only heard about it day-of via twitter.
__________________
Try out my favorite web browser: Vivaldi
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7129  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2017, 10:57 PM
ThePusherMan's Avatar
ThePusherMan ThePusherMan is offline
One Thing At A Time
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaJem View Post
Also, did any of you guys attend the Life on State [street] workshop last night?
It sounded interesting, but only heard about it day-of via twitter.
I went. It was actually really encouraging. Lots of young people advocating for complete streets and BRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7130  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2017, 10:17 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 19,535
Nothing could be more productive and exciting right now than to put BRT on State Street! I would like to see that become a priority that moves to the top of the UTA list.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7131  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2017, 4:16 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Nothing could be more productive and exciting right now than to put BRT on State Street! I would like to see that become a priority that moves to the top of the UTA list.
I couldn't agree more. It would have to be designed correctly though, as the Max line on 35th is stupid. Yes they added BRT, and some of it is in protected lanes, but they maintained the massive highway with the same number of lanes creating a completely pedestrian unfriendly atmosphere along the route. A State Street BRT should include a reduction in lanes to two in each direction, instead of three. If the BRT works efficiently and is designed correctly it will take a large amount of vehicles off the road.

I actually think a Special Assessment District should be created along the corridor, to help fund it properly. It could be put in place, after construction is completed in order to pay off the bond quicker. The properties along the line, as we are starting to see happen on N. Temple, and have seen on 4th South for the last few years, will benefit greatly in increase in property values, increases in rents and higher density development potential.

Clevelands BRT was installed along a major E/W corridor that connected Downtown to Case Western University and The Cleveland Clinic. The street was formerly two lanes and a turn lane in each direction, with curb side parking along much of the route. They reduced it to one lane in each direction and retained the parking. The amount of investment along the line, once construction started was massive, in the hundreds of millions. It reduced the need to drive between those destinations, allowing for a reduction in lanes, and added thousands of new residents and workers along the line.

I see three major spines, all converging into downtown with serious population. N. Temple, 4th S, and State St BRT/Trax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7132  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2017, 10:55 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,433
BRT down State Street would be huge. I keep hearing the idea thrown around, but I haven't ever heard of any concrete plans to do it. I suspect UTA and other governments will come out with lots of plans once the Provo-Orem line is open and successful - and then we might see a Frontlines-style expansion for BRT the way that LRT+FrontRunner expanded after it was shown to be a success. I hope it takes less than a decade, though.

PusherMan, how imminent did change seem at the meeting? BTW, I like your road design.

I was listening to the interview with the CEO of Proterra, an electric bus manufacturer. There are amazing things happening with electric buses. Though I generally believe that autonomous taxis and vans will spell the end of most bus routes, State Street is one place where buses - especially BRT - will have a permanent home. Whenever BRT comes to state street, I hope by then UTA can go fully electric.

Proterra buses in Chicago:
Video Link

Article and audio interview with the CEO:
https://electrek.co/2017/02/13/elect...-proterra-ceo/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7133  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2017, 8:36 PM
ThePusherMan's Avatar
ThePusherMan ThePusherMan is offline
One Thing At A Time
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
PusherMan, how imminent did change seem at the meeting? BTW, I like your road design.
I think that it is absolutely a high priority to improve State Street. They said they would take all the data and input from the public analyze it via fancy algorithms propose changes. Meetings... Revise... meetings.. revise, and then they said that they said that they would be selecting 3 project areas in which to implement initial changes. What I think that means is that we will probably see some hubs get beautified in the relative near future but as far as BRT and protected bike lanes... well, we could all be dead by then haha.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7134  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2017, 9:30 PM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
Somewhere I read or heard that the city has envisioned turning the 9th south off-ramp into a park.
I have previously advocated on here for a tunnel between 3rd West and West Temple and putting the never completed Olympic Park on top. I've never read anything about the city actually wanting to put a park there though. I think that if you did put a park there you could sell the park that Jefferson Street runs into and turn it into a TOD.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7135  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2017, 7:09 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,024
3rd Quarter of 2016 ridership has been released by APTA:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf

Weekday Averages:
Bus: 69.1K
Trax: 64.2K
FrontRunner: 16.7K

Total Average Weekday UTA Ridership: 158.7K
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7136  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2017, 11:58 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,433
Thanks for posting.
Comparing 3rd quarters for 2015 and 2016, TRAX is down 1.84% and FrontRunner is down 4.34%. Ridership has clearly plateaued for both systems, and I blame capacity, not demand. Until TRAX is running every 12 minutes - or better, every 10 minutes during peak hours, they aren't going to get many more riders. FrontRunner's problems are much more severe. They've got to think so much bigger than adding an additional Comet car - they need to start doing the planning and fund raising for double-tracking (and even electrifying) now, otherwise FrontRunner ridership will continue to stagnate and perhaps even decline.
Again, this is a capacity issue. The trains that are running right now are jam packed during peak hours, and unless UTA is able to run more trains at higher frequencies, there is simply no more room for more riders.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7137  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2017, 12:25 AM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,433
Also, this from the main Salt Lake City development thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottharding View Post
Link to article about the Downtown Rising updated Action plan that was announced earlier today:
http://kutv.com/news/local/local-law...ng-action-plan

and pdf of the plan itself:
http://downtownrising.com/_files/DTR..._2017Final.pdf
Page 13 is about transit. Mentioned is a bus circulator route rather than a TRAX circulator on 4th south, the stupidly self-inflicted problem of finding funding for the extension of TRAX to the new airport terminal, a vague word of support for a hypothetical a streetcar line, and a mention of how the grand boulevards of 5th and 6th south ought to be more 'dignified, green, and monumental.'
And no mention of the Black Line.

I'm disappointed that all the plans we've been hearing for better transit downtown seem to have stalled. A bus circulator is a good idea, but we'd been led to believe that we'd get TRAX along 4th south to make a TRAX circulator. Once the intersection at Main & 4th South is improved, then UTA can also run the belated BLACK LINE between the University and the Airport 24/7. Then there is the whole streetcar dream that really shouldn't be that hard to lump together with the 4th south TRAX extension.

But it doesn't look like anyone is really all that interested in making this stuff happen any time soon - just talking about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7138  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2017, 1:50 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
Also, this from the main Salt Lake City development thread:



Page 13 is about transit. Mentioned is a bus circulator route rather than a TRAX circulator on 4th south, the stupidly self-inflicted problem of finding funding for the extension of TRAX to the new airport terminal, a vague word of support for a hypothetical a streetcar line, and a mention of how the grand boulevards of 5th and 6th south ought to be more 'dignified, green, and monumental.'
And no mention of the Black Line.

I'm disappointed that all the plans we've been hearing for better transit downtown seem to have stalled. A bus circulator is a good idea, but we'd been led to believe that we'd get TRAX along 4th south to make a TRAX circulator. Once the intersection at Main & 4th South is improved, then UTA can also run the belated BLACK LINE between the University and the Airport 24/7. Then there is the whole streetcar dream that really shouldn't be that hard to lump together with the 4th south TRAX extension.

But it doesn't look like anyone is really all that interested in making this stuff happen any time soon - just talking about it.
I was under the impression that the intersection of 4th South and Main was nearly at capacity so far as Trax is concerned. I think the plan is to increase the frequency of the trains that already exists overtime which would be problematic if you ran yet another line through that intersection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7139  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2017, 4:13 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,433
^^^
Yeah, the intersection at Main & 4th is capacity constrained, but that's because the junction was designed and built on the cheap, and it seriously needs to be upgraded.
This section of TRAX, between the Stadium and Main Street was rushed to completion before the 2002 Olympics, and opened less than 3 months before then (in December of 2001). The junction at Main and 4th was designed to be built FAST, so they took some shortcuts. The most obvious short cut was that there is only one motor for two switches, meaning that if you want to align a switch from the northbound position to the eastbound position, both the northbound and southbound switches are thrown together. This alone reduces the available capacity by half; imagine you've got a train about to turn from north to east (Main to 4th), from west to north (4th to main) and then one going straight south on Main. None of these movements interfere with one another, yet with the way the switch is built, it is IMPOSSIBLE for all three movements to happen all at once, because all the switches would be thrown in the wrong directions. Each movement would need to happen one at a time.
Then there is also the outdated signaling systems, the slow motors, etc. The switch is definitely going to need to be rebuilt one day, and the designers are probably pretty impressed that it has lasted this long. One of the reasons they justified doing this project on the cheap is that they thought that junction would be totally rebuilt into a 4-way 'grand union' intersection once work began on the airport line, which was thought at the time to be an extension of the University Line (FrontRunner came along and threw a wrench into the TRAX original master plan).
UTA is only just now fixing other 'done on the cheap before the Olympics' quirks along the downtown section; they only just got the two switches on 7th south to work automatically from TRAX HQ, rather than have a dude drive over in a truck and throw them by hand:
http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_...o-improve-trax
And if I were to speculate as to why they haven't fixed 4th and Main on their own, it is because they got a grant a while back ($2 million) to start running the BLACK LINE. They claimed they needed $4 million more, but the city and state didn't give them any money, and the federal government sure won't. Why does it take $6 million to start running TRAX trains you already own on track that already exists? Because there is a junction that needs to be upgraded, and UTA wants some one else to pay for that (or at least help pay for it). And so we wait for the BLACK line, instead of riding it.

My point is that when they say 'it is capacity constrained,' think 'my 8 megabyte flash drive has no more space.' The correct answer is to upgrade the flash drive, not be content with what we've got.
I personally won't be satisfied until there are SIX TRAX lines converging on a grand-union junction on Main & 4th, each operating at 10 minute headways. The Red, Blue, and Green lines remain as they are, then add in the Black line turning from 4th to Main towards the Airport. Add in a TRAX circulator that makes a loop from Main to Salt Lake Central via a 4th South line, and then extend the Blue line from Salt Lake Central station along 4th south as well, all the way up to the University. (The University line already has the high-block platforms for ADA able to handle the old Classic cars used on the Blue line, so why not?)
If each line runs at a 10 minute frequency, that means a train arrives at the intersection every 50 seconds. Compare this to the current schedule of a train every 150 seconds, and you'll see its only 3x more than what our current outdated switch can handle. It's totally doable, and the only track that needs to be built is the extension along 4th south to Salt Lake Central Station, about 1 mile. I honestly can't see why this sort of thing isn't even in the planning phases; it is more low hanging fruit, it is like putting the last piece of a puzzle in place. 1 last mile of track downtown and the operational potentials go exponential.

Last edited by Hatman; Feb 16, 2017 at 4:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7140  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2017, 4:54 PM
UTPlanner's Avatar
UTPlanner UTPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 940
I think that the low gas prices have to be taken into consideration as well when discussing transit ridership. I personally know a few guys that did not drive their trucks/SUV's downtown to work from the suburbs a few years ago and rode transit, but due to low gas prices they often drive.

Regarding transit expansion do not expect anything to happen under the current administration. The Mayor is admittedly opposed to a downtown streetcar and pulled all future funding from the RDA budgets. Her vision or general lack of vision is extremely car-centric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:30 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.