Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[i-215]

True. As I've learned seeing Los Angeles, the carrot is time savings. And that won't happen until Frontrunner is regularly faster than driving (which will probably happen in the next 10-20 years).

On the upside to decentralized urbanization, guys like me actually get a shot at affording urban living. The type of high-rise steel construction people dream of on this forum create rent prices that are prohibitively expensive for probably 80% of Utahns.

Multi-core urbanization pockets and TODs allow wood-frame mid-rises that offer urban villages and transit accessibility at lower prices that are closer to suburban apartment complexes.

(But who am I kidding on the urban life. I'm still an in-my-early-30s older Millennial who is just grateful for an affordable suburban basement to rent with roommates).

[delts145]

I keep bringing this up, but whether we like it or not, The Wasatch Front seems to follow much of the exact same play book as Los Angeles with it's development patterns. Anyone who has lived in both areas for a number of years understands the amazing number of similarities, including the topographical boundaries and limitations.

One of the double edged swords with SLC & Metro is perhaps it's excellent investment in highway infrastructure. It is still relatively convenient, and will be for a long time to come for commuters to live along the metro yet commute into Salt Lake or other areas of work not directly adjacent to their homes. My parents commuted into Salt Lake City for years from Alpine. Even though the metro is much larger now than when they commuted, that same commute now is sooo much easier, and even safer.

I think one of the positive trends that the Wasatch Front will be seeing in the near future, which mimics L.A., will be the acceleration of the restoration and redevelopment of it's historic town cores. Main streets in city's such as American Fork, Lehi, Pleasant Grove, Midvale, Murray etc. will make a full comeback as attractive, walkable urban villages. One of the things I appreciate about L.A. is it has made excellent progress at reestablishing the hearts of most of it's urban town cores over the past couple of decades. In essence, we'll be seeing a lot more Sugar House style cores along the Wasatch over the next 20 years.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by delts145

I keep bringing this up, but whether we like it or not, The Wasatch Front seems to follow much of the exact same play book as Los Angeles with it's development patterns. Anyone who has lived in both areas for a number of years understands the amazing number of similarities, including the topographical boundaries and limitations.

One of the double edged swords with SLC & Metro is perhaps it's excellent investment in highway infrastructure. It is still relatively convenient, and will be for a long time to come for commuters to live along the metro yet commute into Salt Lake or other areas of work not directly adjacent to their homes. My parents commuted into Salt Lake City for years from Alpine. Even though the metro is much larger now than when they commuted, that same commute now is sooo much easier, and even safer.

I think one of the positive trends that the Wasatch Front will be seeing in the near future, which mimics L.A., will be the acceleration of the restoration and redevelopment of it's historic town cores. Main streets in city's such as American Fork, Lehi, Pleasant Grove, Midvale, Murray etc. will make a full comeback as attractive, walkable urban villages. One of the things I appreciate about L.A. is it has made excellent progress at reestablishing the hearts of most of it's urban town cores over the past couple of decades. In essence, we'll be seeing a lot more Sugar House style cores along the Wasatch over the next 20 years.

Midvale needs apartments where the trailer park and car wash sit behind Main St. I also think that they should increase height limits between their historic Main St and the freeway. They can keep it single family but perhaps they can get some row homes in that neighborhood. I like how their Main st is tucked into a little corner and is its own thing rather than just a continuation of state st. It could be special but they need to start by making sure that more people live within walking distance.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Midvale needs apartments where the trailer park and car wash sit behind Main St. I also think that they should increase height limits between their historic Main St and the freeway. They can keep it single family but perhaps they can get some row homes in that neighborhood. I like how their Main st is tucked into a little corner and is its own thing rather than just a continuation of state st. It could be special but they need to start by making sure that more people live within walking distance.

I agree 100% with you on this one. Downtown Midvale is a unique place with a massive amount of character and charm.

I hadn't really thought about how to develop the surrounding area, but row houses, maybe up to three stories with accessory dwelling units in them might be a great idea, it might also be a prime area for form based code, restricting the mass, height and setbacks, but not necessarily how many units are in the building, could be one could be 6, as long as the massing matching the existing stock. Along Historic Main they could allow for building up to three stories and zone them for mixed use, retail/office/residential.

Considering Midvale City Hall not at the north end of Main I think it would be a smart idea for Midvale City to run a trolley like that runs in a loop in each direction; Bingham Junction Trax station, around to Main street and back, have both the south loop and the north loop timed to that it arrives before the train and departs after it leave. . That would serve a massive amount of residents in all the apartments south of the Bingham station, businesses north of the station and residents and businesses on and around Main St. Make it a free trolley that businesses sponsor, or that a very minor commercial property tax on businesses along the loop pay for. This would allow residents living anywhere in the area, easier access to Trax, as well as WinCo, and entertainment options, without the need for a car. I think it would also provide a great opportunity for Top Golf as a lot of people that go there drink while they are there, and that way they could get there without a car and without an Uber.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I agree 100% with you on this one. Downtown Midvale is a unique place with a massive amount of character and charm.

I hadn't really thought about how to develop the surrounding area, but row houses, maybe up to three stories with accessory dwelling units in them might be a great idea, it might also be a prime area for form based code, restricting the mass, height and setbacks, but not necessarily how many units are in the building, could be one could be 6, as long as the massing matching the existing stock. Along Historic Main they could allow for building up to three stories and zone them for mixed use, retail/office/residential.

Considering Midvale City Hall not at the north end of Main I think it would be a smart idea for Midvale City to run a trolley like that runs in a loop in each direction; Bingham Junction Trax station, around to Main street and back, have both the south loop and the north loop timed to that it arrives before the train and departs after it leave. . That would serve a massive amount of residents in all the apartments south of the Bingham station, businesses north of the station and residents and businesses on and around Main St. Make it a free trolley that businesses sponsor, or that a very minor commercial property tax on businesses along the loop pay for. This would allow residents living anywhere in the area, easier access to Trax, as well as WinCo, and entertainment options, without the need for a car. I think it would also provide a great opportunity for Top Golf as a lot of people that go there drink while they are there, and that way they could get there without a car and without an Uber.

What about a double decker bus? You would still have good branding for the loop but much smaller investment cost and the line could begin running immediately. I looked on google maps, the bridge looks like it has a clearance of 16'1" so a double decker would be fine on that route.

[i-215]

If I could afford a house (hahahahahahaaaa.... sob ), I would seriously consider old town Midvale. It's ratty now, but with all that transit and freeway access, I can't help but see it become a desirable "new Sugarhouse" type place in another 10-20 years.

Plunk down. Buy an old house and fix 'er up.

Oh well, maybe next market crash.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

What about a double decker bus? You would still have good branding for the loop but much smaller investment cost and the line could begin running immediately. I looked on google maps, the bridge looks like it has a clearance of 16'1" so a double decker would be fine on that route.

I missed key words in my description, it should have said Trolley like bus. I didn't mean a fixed route rail trolley, I simply meant maybe something that looked like a trolley, that we have discussed before, or any sort of bus vehicle that can be branded as Midvale.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by i-215

If I could afford a house (hahahahahahaaaa.... sob ), I would seriously consider old town Midvale. It's ratty now, but with all that transit and freeway access, I can't help but see it become a desirable "new Sugarhouse" type place in another 10-20 years.

Plunk down. Buy an old house and fix 'er up.

Oh well, maybe next market crash.

"Afford a house" is all relative. I just helped a client get into a house in the Fairpark area, the client worked a brand new full-time job, and had two years at a part-time job, neither one paid over $13 an hour. There are still reasonably affordable homes in areas of the valley, yes even in Salt Lake City and Midvale. These homes need some work, but that sounds as if is your ideal situation anyway. Don't not pursue it if that's what you truly want.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by i-215

True. As I've learned seeing Los Angeles, the carrot is time savings. And that won't happen until Frontrunner is regularly faster than driving (which will probably happen in the next 10-20 years)....

I had to go downtown from Draper last week to rescue a family member who locked their keys in the car and I debated taking the train or driving. It was 4:30. I knew it was rush hour, but rush hour going north didn't used to be as bad.

Without traffic, it only takes me 15 minutes, so I thought with traffic it would take at most 30-35, as opposed to 50 minutes for Frontrunner with transfer according to UTA's Trip Planner.

When I got on the freeway, it was already wall-to-wall stopped traffic, which lasted until 7200 S. The radio traffic report said there were no accidents and this was just the usual afternoon slowing.

Anyway, it took me 47 minutes driving to get downtown, almost the same as Frontrunner with a transfer in Murray to TRAX.

If you're commuting every day, which I don't as I work from home, I do not know why you're not riding the train.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Anyway, it took me 47 minutes driving to get downtown, almost the same as Frontrunner with a transfer in Murray to TRAX.

If you're commuting every day, which I don't as I work from home, I do not know why you're not riding the train.

I agree. Take the train. Send some emails, zone out, hell, take a nap.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Stenar

If you're commuting every day, which I don't as I work from home, I do not know why you're not riding the train.

Agreed. Especially if I had to commute into an urban core where parking is a premium.

[Highrise_Mike]

In talking with UTA the Front Runner service cannot be increased until there is a second track. They hope to build a second track and electrify the system which would allow them to greatly increase the service and efficiency of the system. It might be some time before they can do this.

They also hope to take Trax to Lehi around the Point of the Mountain as well. At this point they are trying to secure properties for stations on that line. They are also trying to secure right-of-way and funding for an extension of the red line into Riverton and Herriman. The rules changed and federal funds aren't as easy to come by these days for Utah compared to a few years ago which also makes funding these projects difficult. If only there was some kind of tax we could approve to increase transportation funding

I actually take Trax when I go to school in downtown because when I get out at 10 pm, Front Runner only comes every hour to hour and a half that late whereas Trax is every 15 minutes. If I miss the Trax train I don't mind waiting 15 minutes, but I don't want to wait an hour or more if I miss Front Runner.

[i-215]

I think a lot of those improvements are on the long-range horizon plan (10-30 years out). Which is good. The system grows with our population and traffic demand.

Mountain View is the same way. Like Frontrunner, it was engineered from day one to be a freeway nearly as substantial as I-15 and to have a parallel BRT/LRT route on 5600 West. It will grow as west-side population and traffic demand grows.

The sort of foresight has benefits:

1. We are not spending money on unused infrastructure, which saves up front costs, and reduces long-range maintenance cost.

2. It dampens the influence of induced demand because we didn't dump a gigantic surplus of capacity onto the network all at once. Rather, the capacity grows with the population.

(Frontrunner will have a similar "induced demand" effect as a freeway, but with park-and-ride lots instead of freeway off-ramps)

[Future Mayor]

I know this topic has been discussed before, but I am still having a hard time grasping the concept that extending Trax around the Point to Adobe is going to be justified with ridership?

I realize Adobe is a large employer, and that area is a large residential area as well, the thing I question is if there are enough employees living in Salt Lake County, working on the east side of I-15, at and near Adobe, to justify that line.

As for the north bound traffic, where would the Traverse Ridge residents be commuting to in SL County that they would take Trax instead of FrontRunner? There currently aren't that many business hubs built around Trax.
Trax primarily is built to take suburbanites to downtown, the University, the Airport and back. Why would a commuter choose to drive 5 less minutes to the Trax Park and Ride, and take a longer ride on Trax, than drive over the the FrontRunner park and ride and take a shorter ride?

Highrise Mike, you may be able to address this. Are there plans for a office hub surrounding Adobe?

Maybe I'm blind to it, but besides the fact that they told Adobe they were coming, I don't see the demand to justify the cost.

[TonyAnderson]

I don't get the point of Trax going from Salt Lake to Utah County in general. You're going to have at least 5 miles between Draper / Lehi where there's no stops and you're basically running alongside FrontRunner. What's the point of that? Commuter rail connects counties, light rail connects cities in a county. If Utah County wants light rail they should start a hub there and extend it from there.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

I don't get the point of Trax going from Salt Lake to Utah County in general. You're going to have at least 5 miles between Draper / Lehi where there's no stops and you're basically running alongside FrontRunner. What's the point of that? Commuter rail connects counties, light rail connects cities in a county. If Utah County wants light rail they should start a hub there and extend it from there.

I agree

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

I don't get the point of Trax going from Salt Lake to Utah County in general. You're going to have at least 5 miles between Draper / Lehi where there's no stops and you're basically running alongside FrontRunner. What's the point of that? Commuter rail connects counties, light rail connects cities in a county. If Utah County wants light rail they should start a hub there and extend it from there.

In a way, Utah County is building a hub - it's the BRT line. It isn't exactly designed to be upgraded from BRT to LRT like the planners originally hoped, but the eventual conversion will be so much easier than starting LRT from scratch.

There will not be a 5-mile gap in stations. There are two stations already designed for the Draper Line Phase II, which will extend TRAX to the county line. All that is needed is constriction money, and that could be built today, as all the designs and even the bridges are already in place.

(The state street option is dead, but the station locations for the Draper Line have not changed)
On the Utah County Side, there is the potential for 2 more stations before reaching the Adobe station, depending on development (these will likely be in-fill stations built after the fact). Again, much of the preliminary engineering, and most of the bridge construction, has already been completed for this section.

As for justifying TRAX along this corridor - UTA owns the corridor, there is a business/commercial hub at the point of the mountain, the existing freeway infrastructure there is extremely crowded and contested during rush hour proving there is traffic demand there, and the area is still packin' in development at an impressive pace compared to the rest of the state. So why not?

It's also a vital stepping stone for UTA to extend LRT into Utah County for cheap. UTA can use all the existing heavy maintenance buildings in Salt Lake County to service all its trains, rather than building duplicate supporting infrastructure in 2 neighboring counties. It is easier to expand than to start anew, especially for rail transit.

Most importantly, by building rail transit sooner than later, you can nudge the developers to build more transit-oriented developments. Perhaps not true TOD right away, but if there is an existing transit line full of potential customers, developers will respond to that much better than merely the promise that one day there *may* be transit.
This is called 'building for the future', and so it doesn't really need to make sense in the present. There are plenty of arguments for and against this practice, but in the case of Lehi TRAX I'm in favor of it.

But to get to the core of the matter - I sense the real unhappiness towards this TRAX extension is the expenditure of transit money on the sprawling suburbs rather than in the core downtown. Why extend the Blue Line to suburbia when UTA can't even get the money to rebuild the interlocking at 4th south and main (a requirement before the Black Line can begin), or even extend the University Line to Salt Lake Central Station? And how many streetcar lines could we build in Salt Lake City for the same amount being spent on this extension?
The answers are 1) Politics 2) More Politics, and 3) not as many as you may think (streetcars cost more to build per-mile than LRT on an existing and already-owned abandoned rail ROW). Politics meaning that UTA gets money from everywhere, and so service must be extended everywhere. Spending too much money on Salt Lake City isn't fair to the suburbs, who also pay for UTA service. If Salt Lake City really wants streetcars and added downtown TRAX lines/service, it's going to need to pay more for it. Like it did for the S-Line (Salt Lake City paid to build, then UTA operates). Public money doesn't come without strings. I find this just as annoying as anyone, but we can either be sour about it or make lemonade.

Originally Posted by i-215

I think a lot of those improvements are on the long-range horizon plan (10-30 years out). Which is good. The system grows with our population and traffic demand.

Mountain View is the same way. Like Frontrunner, it was engineered from day one to be a freeway nearly as substantial as I-15 and to have a parallel BRT/LRT route on 5600 West. It will grow as west-side population and traffic demand grows.

I'm all in favor of organic growth as well; my only worry is Right-of-Way. UTA does not currently have all the ROW it needs to double-track FrontRunner, and there is the serious risk of freeways expanding or developers building into the space UTA will need for the second track. That would make the second track much more expensive (due to relocating roads, tracks, or structures to make way for another track), perhaps prohibitively so. I would feel much more comfortable if UTA were to purchase the ROW for the second track now, and then add the track later on organically.
Some opportunities do not wait.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

serious risk of freeways expanding [into Frontrunner double track]

I wouldn't worry about that. UTA and UDOT (and the MPOs) talk to one another A LOT. They aren't going to shoot each others' projects in the foot like that. Especially with the present environment of cooperation between the agencies.

Private developers? Now, that is an entirely valid concern. I'm frankly stunned that UTA does not own the ROW it needs.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Highrise_Mike

In talking with UTA the Front Runner service cannot be increased until there is a second track. They hope to build a second track and electrify the system which would allow them to greatly increase the service and efficiency of the system. It might be some time before they can do this....

Couldn't they just put in more side track to pull over, without going to a full double track? And/or instead of double tracking all 88 miles, maybe they could put in say 15-20 miles of double track so that when they do pull over, they don't actually have to stop, but have enough track to pass while continuing travel.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Couldn't they just put in more side track to pull over, without going to a full double track? And/or instead of double tracking all 88 miles, maybe they could put in say 15-20 miles of double track so that when they do pull over, they don't actually have to stop, but have enough track to pass while continuing travel.

I remember doing the math on this type of thing, double-tracking between stations so that trains could pass at speed, rather than at stations. Let me look for it...

Found it! From the transit thread last February (2015):
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ck#post6925826

It isn't the best analysis because it doesn't take into account its own benefits (it uses the same run times even though the project is meant to shorten them!).

One main problem with this plan is that it doesn't allow for an increased frequency. The same number of trains use the system, they just pass each other at different locations. Run times are slightly faster - probably about 20 -30 minutes faster, Provo to Ogden - but only if trains continue to run every half hour at most. That is helpful, but not the kind of improvements that will get FrontRunner to double its ridership, as UTA (and the rest of us) want.
I think for double-tracking, it's an all-or-nothing deal.