HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9021  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2024, 3:59 AM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is online now
Exit 298
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Greater Los Angeles
Posts: 3,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockies View Post
$1.6B on that Salt Lake I-15 expansion that nobody wants(
Not trying to pick on you, but this type of language is why urbanists struggle to make headway on good goals to make cities more walkable, etc. An overwhelming majority of Utahns support I-15 expansion through Davis County. We have to start by acknowledging this fact (be it good or bad) if we want to get people excited about new ways to move around inside cities.

Otherwise we sound completely out of touch -- and then nobody will listen to good ideas we suggest.
__________________
(I've sadly learned...) You can take the boy out of Utah, but you can't take the Utah out of the boy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9022  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2024, 4:55 AM
rockies's Avatar
rockies rockies is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Utah
Posts: 273
I am not sure why you would cite that. Davis County is not the only county this project goes through? I am sure they would receive it well given they have like 2 other highways being built out and it is far less dense than other areas of the project. I am not even entirely against highway expansion but it does not negate the need for future transit or justify the insane difference in funding IMO

Maybe a majority of Salt Lake even supports a now $3.7B I-15 expansion into SL county (I did not know the price had grown from the original $1.7B) but I do not think it is overwhelming support or at least not significantly more than support for frontrunner improvements (again at least in SL). My point, albeit a little dramatic, was UDOT gets blank checks and transit gets pennies anyway
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9023  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2024, 11:33 AM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,000
I think with the money that UDOT gets, they should actively be pushing to build the RGP at the same time as the I-15 reconstruction.

For years, there was a plan in UDOT to add an HOV entrance/exit on North Temple for those traveling south from Davis County or wanting to go north. This way there is a benefit for using the HOV lane when heading south.

The idea was mostly scrapped with the building of the North Temple trax line.

With the RGP in place, there would be no freight or commuter rail crossing 2nd South. There is enough space available in the existing ROW to allow for constructing off/on ramps. This would provide direct access to downtown. It would work as a temporary alternative when the 6th North bridge is reconstructed as part of the I-15 reconstruction as well.

From the UDOT perspective, what is an additional few billion. They could access both Highway and Transit funds to pay for the overall project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9024  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2024, 5:34 PM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paniolo Man View Post
Cyclists shake hands with danger to save a few seconds at the 600 West crossing.

Video Link
I used to live in the Bridges apartments that you can see in the picture, and trust me when I say this is nothing. That is an hourly occurrence lol and honestly they weren't in any real danger, there was plenty of space in front of that train. I saw more than a few closer calls than this, and I myself have even crawled between stopped freight rail cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by i-215 View Post
Not trying to pick on you, but this type of language is why urbanists struggle to make headway on good goals to make cities more walkable, etc. An overwhelming majority of Utahns support I-15 expansion through Davis County. We have to start by acknowledging this fact (be it good or bad) if we want to get people excited about new ways to move around inside cities.

Otherwise we sound completely out of touch -- and then nobody will listen to good ideas we suggest.
Where are you getting the numbers that an "overwhelming majority" of people support the expansion? What about the people in the neighborhoods actually being affected? I would bet the overwhelming majority of people in the neighborhoods that are going to be directly affected are opposed to it. And just because most people support it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Additionally, the average person does not understand the concept of induced demand. UDOT knows it, and flat out ignores decades of research proving its existence. They literally deny that it's real.

If I were to guess, the majority of people in Utah also support better transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9025  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2024, 3:33 AM
jodapop jodapop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Posts: 4
Hi all,
The TechLink TRAX study includes the possibility of a new line that goes into the research park at the U. The first image I shared is part of the proposal, but it seems so close to Hogle Zoo. The second image is the alignment that makes the most sense to me.

Why not just take it the rest of the way? Funding is a concern, of course, but the marginal benefits seem pretty high to me.


I'm new to this forum. I made these maps and my friend suggested I share them here.

TechLink proposal:

Hogle Zoo alignment:

Last edited by jodapop; Mar 24, 2024 at 9:17 PM. Reason: Images were a lot bigger than I expected. I put spoiler tags to make them less unwieldy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9026  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2024, 6:22 AM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is online now
Exit 298
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Greater Los Angeles
Posts: 3,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob rulz View Post
Where are you getting the numbers that an "overwhelming majority" of people support the expansion? What about the people in the neighborhoods actually being affected? I would bet the overwhelming majority of people in the neighborhoods that are going to be directly affected are opposed to it. And just because most people support it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Additionally, the average person does not understand the concept of induced demand. UDOT knows it, and flat out ignores decades of research proving its existence. They literally deny that it's real
Sigh. Look, I don't want to get into a whole "cars vs fuck cars" thing here. That's about as lame as two religions bickering over Bible verses.

But fine. Let's go. (begrudgingly stands up from couch)
  • Where are you getting the numbers that an "overwhelming majority" of people support the expansion?

Considering the state has built:

1996: I-15 Salt Lake County reconstruction
2006: I-15 South Valley (106th to Bangerter)
2011: I-15 Utah County Reconstruction
2017: I-15 Point Project

All of which flew through the EIS project with broad support from the communities the road went through. Look, I've lived in Oregon. Hell, I had NO CAR in Oregon for over a year. And I can tell you this: When there is broad public opposition to a project, it stalls out and never gets built. (See: Rose Quarter EIS)

I struggle to believe that suddenly a swing of 1,000,000+ Utahns just happen to now oppose a Davis County project comparable to the four the came before it (and would match the freeway's profile to everything south of it).

You're correct. I have no polling data to show support. You also have none to show a significant shift to oppose. And inertia is strong.
  • What about the people in the neighborhoods actually being affected?

Like every transportation project before it (road, rail, airport, etc.), the neighborhood are a stakeholder in the process. (Not the stakeholder in the process).

"The team has collaboratively worked with local elected officials and community leaders to build a list of key stakeholders representing local residents, business owners, and other interested participants." (Draft EIS, p.9)

No one stakeholder gets a say. But collectively, stakeholders have come up with these goals:

Improve Safety (mainline and interchange operations, bike/ped crossings)
Connect Communities (support Frontrunner double-tracking, consistent with city land use plans)
Strengthen Economy (replacing aging infrastructure, reduce travel delay until 2050)
Improve Mobility for All (transit connections, bike/ped facilities, freeway operations)

(see "Alternatives," p.2-5)
https://i15eis.udot.utah.gov/wp-cont...ternatives.pdf

A good public involvement process should put something together that alleviates many of the concerns each group has without removing value from the project overall. This includes evaluating a "no build alternative" (Draft EIS, p.17).

To address the neighborhood north of North Temple, the current plan shows REMOVING the SPUI interchange and replacing it with a conventional diamond (easier for pedestrians to cross). They also could add an undercrossing at 300 North to better restore the street grid. As the neighborhood abrutly ends two blocks east, this would be a neighborhood access and not a collector ("cut through") route for cars.

(see: "Alternatives," p.2-24)
https://i15eis.udot.utah.gov/wp-cont...ternatives.pdf

But what about all the houses they're going to demolish, you ask?

2.3.4.2 Property Impacts states:

"Optimize the design of I-15 mainline to include retaining walls to reduce the number of relocations."

"Optimize the design of I-15 mainline east and west to reduce property impacts"

"Explored north and south shifts at all interchange cross streets to minimize property and business impacts where feasible."

"Develop the horizontal and vertical alignments to inform potential right-of-way and easement extents"

(see "Alternatives," p.2-25)
  • I would bet the overwhelming majority of people in the neighborhoods that are going to be directly affected are opposed to it.

Probably. I didn't get complete say when they moved the prison to Magna, either. No stakeholder gets total say.

In fairness, people who live in those neighborhoods also zoom down roads through other people's neighborhoods, too.
  • And just because most people support it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Now finally, you're arguing something dependable.

Yes. Planners may make a good case as to why an I-15 expansion would not be the best use of transportation dollars.

A good idea, for good idea's sake, doesn't succeed on its own. Advocated for the idea have to sell the idea to enough other stakeholders to make an overwhelming voice in the process. That sort of public opinion shaping takes generations. One that takes accepting the cold splash or reality and working with where people ARE, so you can invite them toward the opinion you want to lead them to.

Running around naively believing that "the vast majority of people don't want I-15 expansion" is not a good starting place.

(and the argument comes around to where I started)
  • Additionally, the average person does not understand the concept of induced demand. UDOT knows it, and flat out ignores decades of research proving its existence. They literally deny that it's real

It's because induced demand doesn't happen immediately. I-15 through Salt Lake County is still outperforming its pre-1997 performance during rush hour. (Yes, as bad as it seems now, I-15 was horrible back in the 90s). When people see decades of benefit before demand catches up with the infrastructure, they'll shrug and say, "So what? We get 30 years of benefit. Worth the money to me."

Induced demand gets messy. Ever try to explain it to a non-engineer/planner? I have. They shrug it off and say, "Well, Utah's population has doubled since then."

They have a point. What matters is not if traffic doubled due to population, but rather, is each motorist traveling more VMT per person over time. But most people don't grasp that traffic is not ("traffic = number of people") but rather ("traffic = number of people X distance traveled").

Salt Lake County, like I-405 through Los Angeles, will likely never see significant widening again south of downtown, simply because they're run out of land to widen the freeway. Business buyouts (and double-decked lanes) are prohibitively expensive. The cost would be eye-popping and get people's attention.

But what about back in the 90s when there was an open median and clear zones to the sides of the freeway? It's very difficult to persuade most people why it's bad to not take advantage of paving lanes on space the state already appears to own.

----

Anyway, I hope you see my post not as my "paving over" your advocacy for some good urban planning practices. But planners need to stop complaining and face reality. Improvement is not revolutionary, it's evolutionary. They've made good headway. Hell, back in the 1990s, engineers didn't know ANY planning practices. Now the state are trying to bring "complete street" practices into their design -- which still following their legislative mandate to keep I-15 flowing, even temporarily.

If a planner in this process of screaming "no freeway widening" (which WILL happen), they may be missing out on opportunities to help spend UDOT's money to shape that neighborhood into something that's great for people on foot or on bike.
__________________
(I've sadly learned...) You can take the boy out of Utah, but you can't take the Utah out of the boy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9027  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2024, 4:54 PM
downtownslcresident downtownslcresident is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jodapop View Post
Hi all,
The TechLink TRAX study includes the possibility of a new line that goes into the research park at the U. The first image I shared is part of the proposal, but it seems so close to Hogle Zoo. The second image is the alignment that makes the most sense to me.

Why not just take it the rest of the way? Funding is a concern, of course, but the marginal benefits seem pretty high to me.


I'm new to this forum. I made these maps and my friend suggested I share them here.

TechLink proposal:

Hogle Zoo alignment:

Link is broken
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9028  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2024, 8:06 PM
Nebula3lem123's Avatar
Nebula3lem123 Nebula3lem123 is offline
high-floor train enjoyer
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Location: South Jordan, Utah
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownslcresident View Post
Link is broken
I got the link to work, the post somehow cut it in half but I was able to splice

the 2 halves together.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9029  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2024, 9:18 PM
jodapop jodapop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebula3lem123 View Post
I got the link to work, the post somehow cut it in half but I was able to splice

the 2 halves together.

Thanks for fixing the link and posting it, I'm not used to this markup language. I edited the original link so it should be fixed now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9030  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2024, 12:11 AM
Nebula3lem123's Avatar
Nebula3lem123 Nebula3lem123 is offline
high-floor train enjoyer
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Location: South Jordan, Utah
Posts: 45
Ok so here was the problem here, this is what you posted for the image:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...032/image.png?
ex=660ddce3&is=65fb67e3&hm=432809f2e04d6c834e2b7c83fdd3249c2dbc97355ab40ed2dbfac7a165bb0656&

So basically whatever happened when you were copying the message link, it got

shortened somehow, leading to the "/attachmen...032/img.png?" in the link.

After that portion, the text wasnt added to the link. I was able to splice it

together because the section that got shortened had a link markup on it and i

was able to copy-paste that link and place the rest on the end, which resulted

in the actual image.

Heres the correct link:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1218430861138071553/1220142107927253032/image.png?ex=660ddce3&is=65fb67e3&hm=432809f2e04d6c834e2b7c83fdd3249c2dbc97355ab40ed2dbfac7a165bb0656&

Notice the large amount of numbers between "attachments/" and "/image.png"?

These were removed in the original, likely because of an incorrect tag usage,

format it such as this:

[img]COMPLETE link here[/img]

Last edited by Nebula3lem123; Mar 25, 2024 at 12:19 AM. Reason: Seems skyscraper page automatically shortens links, when I first posted this it had the same problem as your original post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9031  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2024, 10:08 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
I like the alignment to the Zoo. I think the public would be a lot more excited about a line to the zoo than one that only goes to an office park. I also like how you avoided the intersection at Sunnyside and Arapeen, especially since there is a fire station there that would oppose new traffic controls.

I'm curious why the zoo station looks like it is at the back of the Zoo. Why not get closer to the front door?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9032  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2024, 7:16 AM
kickback256 kickback256 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebula3lem123 View Post
I got the link to work, the post somehow cut it in half but I was able to splice

the 2 halves together.

Love the overall alignment. From a track maintenance perspective – I'd just as soon cut out that last 90º turn and build the potential station/EOL on the north side of Sunnyside, eating into the This Is The Place parking lot. Not only does it get you slightly closer to the front door, it would also significantly reduce noise associated with tight non-superelevated curves, which the zoo would probably prefer. Loud squealing every 7 or 8 minutes with arrivals and departures is a massive deterrent, for the visitors and particularly the animals. Plus, reducing the insane amount of rail and flange wear those tight curves produce is a real bonus. AND you save the zoo from having to relocate their maintenance facilities, while the only property sacrificed with a Sunnyside station is some extra parking. Of course, there's the issue of a better pedestrian crossing through Sunnyside, but I'm sure we could make something happen.

Last edited by kickback256; Mar 27, 2024 at 9:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9033  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:44 PM
jodapop jodapop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
I like the alignment to the Zoo. I think the public would be a lot more excited about a line to the zoo than one that only goes to an office park. I also like how you avoided the intersection at Sunnyside and Arapeen, especially since there is a fire station there that would oppose new traffic controls.

I'm curious why the zoo station looks like it is at the back of the Zoo. Why not get closer to the front door?
A friend of mine who works in the research park said he has coworkers who are excited about the Orange Line getting them closer to work, but they're a lot more excited at the idea of taking their kids to the zoo on the weekends using TRAX.

I was assuming the south entrance was still being used, but using street view, it looks like it hasn't been used in a long time! I admit, it has been a while since I visited. I'm going to play around with alternate alignments.

The other reason for that alignment was keeping the option open for an easier, future extension to Foothill. There may be a better way to achieve that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9034  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:49 PM
jodapop jodapop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickback256 View Post
Love the overall alignment. From a track maintenance perspective – I'd just as soon cut out that last 90º turn and build the potential station/EOL on the north side of Sunnyside, eating into the This Is The Place parking lot. Not only does it get you slightly closer to the front door, it would also significantly reduce noise associated with tight non-superelevated curves, which the zoo would probably prefer. Loud squealing every 7 or 8 minutes with arrivals and departures is a massive deterrent, for the visitors and particularly the animals. Plus, reducing the insane amount of rail and flange wear those tight curves produce is a real bonus. AND you save the zoo from having to relocate their maintenance facilities, while the only property sacrificed with a Sunnyside station is some extra parking. Of course, there's the issue of a better pedestrian crossing through Sunnyside, but I'm sure we could make something happen.
Excellent points I hadn't considered. I forgot about that squealing at the 90º turns. Definitely not good for the animals or guests. I had no idea about the wear on the rail and flanges, but it makes a lot of sense.

I appreciate your optimism toward getting a respectable pedestrian crossing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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