Quote:
Originally Posted by bob rulz
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.