Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Future Mayor]

If they are as legit and doable as the video suggests, this is an amazing concept. I too could see Mayor Becker getting on board with this, as you mentioned as a pilot program. 1300 S between State and I-15 is in need of a major rebuild, maybe they choose a section at a time and try it. While the attendance at Smith Ballpark isn't huge, it would be a very effective way to not only test them, but to promote them.

The possibilities are endless, they could be hooked into electric car charging stations. UTA could install them in their Trax Park and Ride lots, and funnel the energy into Trax itself. UTA could also do a pilot program and install them in the bus only lanes at the stations to start.

I wonder how long the initial payback takes after the initial cost of installation?

The city should require any new parking garages (not that I'm encouraging new parking garages), to have the top level, if exposed, solar panels. Imagine the energy that would be produced on weekends especially.

[DMTower]

I imagine they'll have to jump through political hoops and years of testing before this ever happens on a public road, but there is no reason why this couldn't be used in driveways and parking lots right now. I imagine the wear and tear would also be a lot less in parking areas and sidewalks.

[scottharding]

I think it would be really cool to see them utilized in public plazas too. Imagine how cool it would be to have Gallivan or the Sugarhouse plaza to have these panels, and how much they could add to the night performances and events.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by scottharding

I think it would be really cool to see them utilized in public plazas too. Imagine how cool it would be to have Gallivan or the Sugarhouse plaza to have these panels, and how much they could add to the night performances and events.

It would look kind of like the Sydney Opera House festival of lights only on the ground I wager

[Comrade]

It'd be awesome, but it's too forward thinking for America. We can't even get the government to spend $$$ on upgrading hundreds of bridges falling apart, I doubt they'd ever got on board with a massive public works project like this. Locally, we have a better shot - but even that will take time.

As great as the U.S. is at coming up with fantastic ideas, we really suck at utilizing 'em in our own cities.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Comrade

It'd be awesome, but it's too forward thinking for America. We can't even get the government to spend $$$ on upgrading hundreds of bridges falling apart, I doubt they'd ever got on board with a massive public works project like this. Locally, we have a better shot - but even that will take time.

As great as the U.S. is at coming up with fantastic ideas, we really suck at utilizing 'em in our own cities.

Thats because Obama just likes to use the fixing bridges excuse to raise taxes.. but then he spends the money on welfare and redistribution in order to buy elections.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Thats because Obama just likes to use the fixing bridges excuse to raise taxes.. but then he spends the money on welfare and redistribution in order to buy elections.

That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by Stenar

That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

It hurts my brain.

[DMTower]

It's funny how crazy some people are when it comes to Obama.

[scottharding]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Thats because Obama just likes to use the fixing bridges excuse to raise taxes.. but then he spends the money on welfare and redistribution in order to buy elections.

[Future Mayor]

I would like to see a developer take the initiative themselves, and build something with these solar panels, whether it be the top level of a parking garage, the driveways or some common space.

As I read "Walkable City" particularly the section about the bikeshare programs, I appreciate that Salt Lake City has a bike share program, and I love seeing people use it, however, I think it needs to continue to expand, (which I'm sure is in the plans).

Places that the bike share needs to be expanded to:
SLC Library
Liberty Park. (possibly north and south ends)
9th and 9th
Sugarhouse (multiple locations)
Trolley Square
Caputo's/Pioneer Park
Other neighborhood nodes; 3rd S 5th E, 9th S 2nd or 3rd E. 2nd S, 100 S 270 E. and many many others.

They expansion needs to occur in places that are already designed as a walkable neighborhood, with both housing and retail. It would be great if a developer building a new apartment building would pony up the money to install a station and a few bikes and donate them to the city, as part of the larger bikeshare network. I think the total cost would be offset by the increased interest and possible minor increase in rents.

[scottharding]

I was working with the bike share recently, and was talking to one of the main guys there. Their plan is to expand east first, up towards and including the U of U. So the nodes he mentioned were the 6th East/Trolley area, North Temple, and of course, in and around the U. I believe liberty park area was included in this next wave of expansion, but I don't think they'll get as far as 9th and 9th or Sugarhouse yet, which is too bad, because those areas are screaming for it. This is just what I was told. I/He could have been wrong or things could have changed.

[jubguy3]

I'd like to pitch in on the black line (as someone who would use it). First off, WHY ARE YOU CALLING IT THE BLACK LINE? what are the pseudoprimary colors? Black is not one of them yellow works much better and resorting to non-primar/secondary colors doesn't fit with the naming system. Secondly, it SHOULD NOT BYPASS DOWNTOWN. AT ALL. The purpose of the line is to connect the U to the airport, downtown, and a frontrunner. Bypassing downtown would reduce ridership. The system is also here to connect visitors from the airport back up to the U. Also, it is meant to increase downtown frequency to 5 min for easier mobility. Would rerouting the *cough* yellow line *cough* to slcntrl only connects the u to a frontrunner.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I'd like to pitch in on the black line (as someone who would use it). First off, WHY ARE YOU CALLING IT THE BLACK LINE? what are the pseudoprimary colors? Black is not one of them yellow works much better and resorting to non-primar/secondary colors doesn't fit with the naming system. Secondly, it SHOULD NOT BYPASS DOWNTOWN. AT ALL. The purpose of the line is to connect the U to the airport, downtown, and a frontrunner. Bypassing downtown would reduce ridership. The system is also here to connect visitors from the airport back up to the U. Also, it is meant to increase downtown frequency to 5 min for easier mobility. Would rerouting the *cough* yellow line *cough* to slcntrl only connects the u to a frontrunner.

The naming of the line the black line is very purposeful, the same reason the Red Line was named the Red Line. The naming of the red line wasn't just a nifty coincidence. Black is the third color of the University of Utah. Red/White and Black. If they stuck to primary colors, Red, Yellow, Blue, then the Green line would be the Yellow line and UTA would be out of color options, and couldn't add anymore lines.

I think there are benefits to both the airport alignment and the SL Central Alignment, and for the time being both options take riders to and through downtown, and both options connect with Front Runner. While the airport route connects students and fans to north temple and the Airport, routing it to SL Central connects it to many additional people as well. Taking the line to SL Central could really activate life in the Depot/Gateway District with students wanting to live downtown and have convenient access to trax, it could help to spur more possible development in that area. The same can be said about the Airport route as well, however it doesn't necessarily provide "downtown" type living out along N. Temple.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

The naming of the line the black line is very purposeful, the same reason the Red Line was named the Red Line. The naming of the red line wasn't just a nifty coincidence. Black is the third color of the University of Utah. Red/White and Black. If they stuck to primary colors, Red, Yellow, Blue, then the Green line would be the Yellow line and UTA would be out of color options, and couldn't add anymore lines.

I think there are benefits to both the airport alignment and the SL Central Alignment, and for the time being both options take riders to and through downtown, and both options connect with Front Runner. While the airport route connects students and fans to north temple and the Airport, routing it to SL Central connects it to many additional people as well. Taking the line to SL Central could really activate life in the Depot/Gateway District with students wanting to live downtown and have convenient access to trax, it could help to spur more possible development in that area. The same can be said about the Airport route as well, however it doesn't necessarily provide "downtown" type living out along N. Temple.

Ok, so here are some more colors to start off with - purple (considering FR, this would probably be ignored), orange, pink, teal, etc. Obviously there are more colors than red, green, blue, and yellow (and black) and the color black doesn't really fit in with the saturated feel of the lines (much like how the s line chose to differ in branding and max differs with numbers). The point of the 4th south TRAX extension is to act as a shuttle between the U and salt lake central. The yellow line acts as a local service geared less towards commuters (albeit northeast siders like me) and more towards increasing frequency and eliminating the transfer at courthouse. UTA lost quite a few riders when the original arena - university line was replaced with the red line. I feel like the 4th south TRAX extension would be useful if it matched FrontRunner's schedule for commuters but doesn't offer the same ridership as an airport - university line. Basically, i think the *COUGH COUGH* yellow line *COUGH COUGH* serves a different purpose than the, lets say orange commuter line, for out of county/ sl proper people than what the yellow line tries to accomplish. I also like the plan of stopping it at the stadium - we can finally get something up foothill drive even though UTA has suddenly become scared of building rail and is leaning towards BRT (hey, its better than nothing). Back to colors - Portland uses yellow as a fourth color. The expo line also acts as a local connector too. See the similarity? All we need to do to become Portland is build a TRAX station 280 feet under ground /s.


EDIT: I made a mistake in mentioning that uta should use primary colors. I meant color wheel colors, and no, yellow is not a primary color.

[jubguy3]

While I'm here, I might as well voice my opinions on the lack of the east side's rapid transit. In the network study (yes I took the time to read it) and the network map:http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/Netwo...p_9Oct2013.jpg, you can see that all the east side gets is some shitty BRT (i.e. we hate the east side, here is some fake BRT so we might as well over-do it). However, true rapid transit is ignored. I feel slightly frustrated with the UTA board because I know exactly why this is this way - UTA sees no capital development potential for east side (hell, if sugarhouse is the way it will be in 5 years right now, there would be no streetcar (or if the corridor was already developed)). Which is a better candidate for rapid transit? The sprawling behemoth of west valley where its a 20 minute walk to something .5 miles away, or the tightly knit area south of the university (i.e. yalecrest, north sugarhouse)? UTA says west valley only because there is development potential. Building the 5600 west MAX bugs me the most because the far stretches of the valley get BRT even though it is more economically and ecologically responsible to enhance the higher density east side? UTA doesn't want to go there so we end up with shitty fake BRT and no rapid transit. The east side should and does need rapid transit, be it TRAX or MAX. We could, for example, mirror the route of the 220 (except to 9000 south trax) with BRT (no guideways north of 21st or 27th) and have an improved bus service on 1st south and up the whole highland / 13th corridor. Lots of people live and work around there, but are stuck with cars because "oh the east siders must be pretentious snobs!" and "they make more than the average income, they obviously dont want to help out the enviroment!". I do (gasp i even live in southwest harvard yale) and the lack of rapid transit annoys me to no end (im sure you could tell). Essentially, UTA needs to stop ignoring the east side and give true rapid transit here.
Adieu

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

While I'm here, I might as well voice my opinions on the lack of the east side's rapid transit. In the network study (yes I took the time to read it) and the network map:http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/Netwo...p_9Oct2013.jpg, you can see that all the east side gets is some shitty BRT (i.e. we hate the east side, here is some fake BRT so we might as well over-do it). However, true rapid transit is ignored. I feel slightly frustrated with the UTA board because I know exactly why this is this way - UTA sees no capital development potential for east side (hell, if sugarhouse is the way it will be in 5 years right now, there would be no streetcar (or if the corridor was already developed)). Which is a better candidate for rapid transit? The sprawling behemoth of west valley where its a 20 minute walk to something .5 miles away, or the tightly knit area south of the university (i.e. yalecrest, north sugarhouse)? UTA says west valley only because there is development potential. Building the 5600 west MAX bugs me the most because the far stretches of the valley get BRT even though it is more economically and ecologically responsible to enhance the higher density east side? UTA doesn't want to go there so we end up with shitty fake BRT and no rapid transit. The east side should and does need rapid transit, be it TRAX or MAX. We could, for example, mirror the route of the 220 (except to 9000 south trax) with BRT (no guideways north of 21st or 27th) and have an improved bus service on 1st south and up the whole highland / 13th corridor. Lots of people live and work around there, but are stuck with cars because "oh the east siders must be pretentious snobs!" and "they make more than the average income, they obviously dont want to help out the enviroment!". I do (gasp i even live in southwest harvard yale) and the lack of rapid transit annoys me to no end (im sure you could tell). Essentially, UTA needs to stop ignoring the east side and give true rapid transit here.
Adieu

I think that UTA is right to go the BRT route for the east side, but even that will be fought by NIMBY's. Because the east side is so fully established there will be insane amounts of push back against Trax or a streetcar (although a streetcar would be more likely approved than Trax). If done right a BRT can be almost as sexy as a streetcar or light rail and is more economical. Just trying to expand the streetcar a few blocks up 1100 East (an established neighborhood) in liberal and transit friendly SLC was an uphill battle. Imagine the battle the more conservative and established neighborhoods further south would bring against UTA. BRT is rapid transit and sadly probably the most likely to happen along the east bench.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by asies1981

I think that UTA is right to go the BRT route for the east side, but even that will be fought by NIMBY's. Because the east side is so fully established there will be insane amounts of push back against Trax or a streetcar (although a streetcar would be more likely approved than Trax). If done right a BRT can be almost as sexy as a streetcar or light rail and is more economical. Just trying to expand the streetcar a few blocks up 1100 East (an established neighborhood) in liberal and transit friendly SLC was an uphill battle. Imagine the battle the more conservative and established neighborhoods further south would bring against UTA. BRT is rapid transit and sadly probably the most likely to happen along the east bench.

The uphill battle was because of the fact that people didn't understand that the streetcar wasn't a commuter service. It was also because 11th is so narrow and it would be hard to run a streetcar up 11th.

Fuck the NIMBY's that are anti-transit. Also, the east side is fairly liberal to begin with (at least north eastern, in comparison to the western suburbs excluding daybreak).

[Future Mayor]

I really don't get why you have such an issue with the BLACK LINE. Red and Black go to the University, and imagine that the Universities colors are RED, White and BLACK. NOT A COINCIDENCE.

Regarding Phase II of the S-line. There was a very vocal minority that was against the S-line continuing up 11th to 17th S. They did a neighborhood poll and most of the residents were for the extension up 11th. I am glad that Mayor Becker stood his ground on the alignment, and that the vote occurred when it did, as Jill Remington Love was set on the alignment and Erin Mendenhall isn't sure she supports that alignment.

Building transit is a tricky balance between what is needed, where it is needed and what potential current and future ridership can justify building it and what type gets built. Part of the investment in transit such as BRT and Light Rail needs to encourage redevelopment, resulting in more walkable neighborhoods and overall increase in ridership. It's hard to simply get people to jump on Trax or even BRT along Foothill, just because it is there. Some will, but because there is a large portion of single family dwellings immediately fronting Foothill it is going to be difficult to see much of an increase in ridership than what a bus may currently serve, unless swaths of land in very developed neighborhoods are converted to Park & Ride lots, or unless the neighbors are willing to see areas along Foothill be upzoned to allow for more density.

Transit brings redevelopment, as is proof with what we see in Sugarhouse. Many of those projects were only proposed, and many weren't prior to the S-line announcement, and they have occurred because of the S-line. Yes some would have still occurred, but not as many and in as such a time frame. Transit, rail BRT brings redevelopment, when connected to a larger system, so it's understandable why UTA may favor rail and true BRT into areas that have more redevelopment potential.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I really don't get why you have such an issue with the BLACK LINE. Red and Black go to the University, and imagine that the Universities colors are RED, White and BLACK. NOT A COINCIDENCE.

Regarding Phase II of the S-line. There was a very vocal minority that was against the S-line continuing up 11th to 17th S. They did a neighborhood poll and most of the residents were for the extension up 11th. I am glad that Mayor Becker stood his ground on the alignment, and that the vote occurred when it did, as Jill Remington Love was set on the alignment and Erin Mendenhall isn't sure she supports that alignment.

Building transit is a tricky balance between what is needed, where it is needed and what potential current and future ridership can justify building it and what type gets built. Part of the investment in transit such as BRT and Light Rail needs to encourage redevelopment, resulting in more walkable neighborhoods and overall increase in ridership. It's hard to simply get people to jump on Trax or even BRT along Foothill, just because it is there. Some will, but because there is a large portion of single family dwellings immediately fronting Foothill it is going to be difficult to see much of an increase in ridership than what a bus may currently serve, unless swaths of land in very developed neighborhoods are converted to Park & Ride lots, or unless the neighbors are willing to see areas along Foothill be upzoned to allow for more density.

Transit brings redevelopment, as is proof with what we see in Sugarhouse. Many of those projects were only proposed, and many weren't prior to the S-line announcement, and they have occurred because of the S-line. Yes some would have still occurred, but not as many and in as such a time frame. Transit, rail BRT brings redevelopment, when connected to a larger system, so it's understandable why UTA may favor rail and true BRT into areas that have more redevelopment potential.

First off, thank you for the correction about the 11st east minority. From what I heard there was a group of people who wanted it up 21st but I looked it up and apparently that group was small. Secondly, i still think yellow fits better with the color scheme. Most other transit systems that have a RGB color designation with those three colors have added yellow or gold to the system (atlanta, portland, etc).

About the foothill BRT - i imagine it heading up lincoln highway in to park city as an actual frequent service to and from summit county (to the U) which could also mean UTA could a) transform stadium in to an important transfer hub or b) add rapid transit up mario capecci and down north campus drive and 2nd south (probably not, as it would have some redundancy). I think that foothill has a lot of potential as an arterial and I'd like to see it upzoned and its suburban elements (i.e. whatever the mall on 13th is called) redone to be a walkable community for students to get access to the university easily. The bus on foothill already is not very good in that it has little frequency and does not run the length of wasatch after foothill to act as a park and ride connector for the wasatch park and rides (39th, 62nd, maybe to 94th/20th?). Foothill has some undeveloped parcels and in addition to needing upgrades (due to congestion), a BRT could get wedged in a project plan so as to make foothill more pedestrian friendly but also less congested.

Again, I disagree that the goal of transit should be redevelopment. Why not serve preexisting communities with better transit and initiatives to encourage transit (i.e. free months) when we encourage a shittily repackaged version of sprawl for transit (i.e. 5600 west corridor... WHY SO FAR AWAY?) redevelopment? The sugarhouse project, main street trax (and otherwise downtown service), future DT streetcar, and salt lake central are good examples of using what we have and making it better for the preexisting communities. We can spur transit development anywhere and I think where we already have well designed, historic and also non historic communities with existing stores, shops, and parks is the best place to boost (smaller but higher quality) development.

Since I'd like to fit one more thing in to this post, id like to ask you about what you would think of turning main street and 2nd in to a pseudo transit mall? You could move all bus service on state street to main street (as well as buses that turn left or right on second before main street up to main street and continue on their regular routes) and have main street gain status as both a trax (kinda) hub and a transit mall? You could run some of the buses on the trax right of way if scheduling permits (i.e. 4xx buses during rush hour could be kept on state street) and just use the trax stops as bus stops? 2nd south, with a future streetcar, could also get upgraded from just a bus arterial to a transit arterial, making transfers easier and the transit system more centralized (in addition to SLCS). Do you think there would be logistical issues with this?

edit about foothill - the whole foothill corridor could get student housing with minimal condemnation of existing single family housing