That Pantages Theater proposal actually looks quite nice, but I think as has been mentioned, the time for that was 2 years ago, not now. They're talking about how much the community loves this theater, but as I have said repeatedly, where was the love for that theater before it was announced as being for sale?
It also still doesn't address how they would raise the funds for this ambitious project. Like was mentioned, people could vote to preserve them, but not raise their taxes, so it continues to sit empty for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing
When I was at the UofU, my group was asked by UTA to work on the S-Line extension project. From what we discussed with them, it sounded like they had basically abandoned plans to direct the transit line northwards from its location due to the narrowness of the roads and public backlash in the area to the idea.
We were directed to work closely with both Millcreek and Holladay on the potential extension of the S-Line southwards along Highland Drive or along 1300 East (for at least part of the way).
Based on this, we suggested the line could first be extended from its current location in Sugar House to 3300 South, where Millcreek was developing its new downtown/community center.
It could then be extended further south along Highland Drive to Murray Holladay Road where the future Holladay Hills project was planned.
We suggested the line could be even further extended to Ft. Union Blvd in Cottonwood Heights, where it could either continue south along Highland to Sandy, turn west along Ft Union where the line would conclude at the Midvale Ft. Union Station, or turn east along Ft Union and conclude at Big Cottonwood Canyon.
While these last extensions into Cottonwood Heights, Sandy, or Midvale was our group's suggestions on very long-term extensions for the line, UTA was requesting research on what a line would be like at least as far as Murray Holladay (aprox 4700 South).
We found there were a few critical bottlenecks that would be an issue for the line, the first (and most pressing) being getting the S-Line from its current end-location to either Highland or 1300 East. It's interesting, because that short extension is the one the Utah legislature and UTA just funded this year.
So it does seem like, at least so far, UTA is continuing with the plan we worked on.
|
Yeah, I assume this is what evolved into the current Local Link study area? I do think that has a lot of potential, as that area is primed for increased density, and Millcreek's downtown redevelopment is moving along nicely. Having lived on 3300 South until about 2 years ago, that area needs some real transit solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironweed
It sounds like the legislature is pinning all future mass transit on BRT. I am a fan of rail, and think it has some distinct advantages. BRT is a cost savings concept. Not sure I am sold on it.
Other than Front runner, it appears that investment in additional rail is DOA unfortunately.
|
I sitll have hopes for re-use of the rail on 4th West and some kind of downtown loop, but I do agree that additional streetcars - except for maybe the extension of the S-Line to Millcreek and Holladay - are extremely unlikely. My proposal to extend the S-Line north through the rich NIMBY area of Salt Lake is probably infeasible, but I do think a streetcar would be very successful on 200 South. That is the kind of street that is screaming for improved transit, but it seems that any such proposal is a long ways off, considering they only just finished a study of 200 South transit that didn't involve street cars at all.
I do think the slowdown in rail proposals may be temporary, as some in the legislature still are probably considering UTA's recent issues and re-organization, and they're still paying off the massive amount of debt they took on to expand the rail system in the first place. But Utah's legislature is much more pro-transit than most conservative legislatures around the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockies
I mean I'm sure students do ride the bus more than other groups, but there is still a seriously long way to go to make the bus service decent. Last year, other students would be almost shocked when I told them I took the bus daily from campus to work downtown. After months of horrible experiences with the bus service here I just gave up and would uber almost everyday. I wasn't trying to be condescending towards people who have to ride the bus, as that was my situation last year, and I was speaking to my own experience as a student with student friends.
The trax is infinitely more reliable and easier to use in pretty much every case. Especially for many of us who grew up in suburbs without access or exposure to public transportation. I really tried to make the bus work for my situation, but it was so unbelievably unreliable (among other problems) on an almost daily basis. I didn't meet anyone who was taking the bus by choice, but I met many people who would willingly leave their car on campus to take the trax to work downtown.
I have had good experiences with the UVX in Provo, though. I would love to see something that reliable and simple to use implemented up here.
|
I guess that's been different from my experience. I know quite a few students who took the bus even though they had their own cars. Now, granted, it wasn't usually because they wanted to ride the bus, but because of how expensive parking passes are (and the fact that transit is free for students). Sometimes they would ride the bus and take their cars other times. But I do think the expense of parking passes has been effective in getting students out of their cars.
BRT on 700 East and/or 1300 East would help a lot with bus transit to the U of U and downtown though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing
|
I actually like this townhome proposal a lot. I hope it gets approved. I understand density and street engagement are very important, but I do wish more condo and townhome proposals included this kind of community and green space. You can do that without sacrificing too much density.
Prev
Linear Mode
