Why we Build Roads Instead of Transit
14 January, 2009
Image Courtesy of UTA
This past week I read this interesting article about the Wasatch Front Regional Council’s(WFRC) plans for Foothill Boulevard in SLC. The article talks about the desire of the Salt Lake City council to have a light rail line on that route instead of reversing lanes and BRT. I am very pleased to see the vision of the council on this issue, but they may be fighting a loosing battle, at least until this new administration gets its feet under it, and perhaps a lot longer if the highway and auto lobby’s have their way. This is why. When an entity such as WFRC or MAG, which are the regional transportation planning agencies, go to plan transportation infrastructure, they look at population densities as part of their process to determine what to build. Population density determines what gets built as does zoning and population projections. These entities, called Metropolitan Planning Organizations or MPO’s, determine what to study based on population projections as well. So, by estimating population increases based on computer models and looking at city zoning, they decide what type of transportation infrastructure to build. By decree from the Feds, if density is low, you build a road. If traffic along the corridor is projected to be heavy, you build a big road. So, by examining all of the current zoning in the vast majority of this country, not to mention Utah or Utah County, we will automatically build roads. This seems on its face to be perfectly rational and logical. But I submit that it is not. Let’s look at the results. If you build a road that is five or seven lanes wide, like many of the new roads being built in Utah county, you can carry a lot of traffic. If you build that road to mostly empty country such as Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain, and other such places, you allow people easy access to vacant land and they will build there. They will build large homes that are on 1/4 acre lots,or bigger, and they will commute to work. If on the other hand you build light rail out to those communities and only a two or three lane road, people will build smaller homes much closer together so they can be closer to the train station. More walkable communities tend to develop. If you do the same thing in more developed places, like Orem and Provo, redevelopment occurs. Density, the all important catalyst of transit investment soon follows. Basically, we have two self-fulfilling prophecies going on here. If you build roads you get sprawl. If you build trains, you get walkable compact development. The problem is, the Feds won’t allow transit unless density requirements are met, and they won’t be met around here, unless there is a catalyst. Great chicken and egg story right? So, now you know why there will likely not be light rail on Foothill. In speaking to the team doing the studies on the Provo-Orem BRT, I learned a valuable lesson. If Orem changed its zoning along University Parkway to allow mixed use higher density development in place of strip malls and big box stores, we would be in line to easily qualify for Light Rail instead of BRT. As it is, we don’t have the density. Density is, by the way, the worst seven letter word you can ever say in a place like a Utah County neighborhood meeting. Let me know what you think we should have. Would you rather live in a townhouse or condo with a great park nearby and the ability to walk or ride a bike or take transit everywhere, or would you rather have the 1/4 acre lot in Eagle Mountain and a long commute? I really would like to know.
15 January, 2009 at 7:58 am
Brad,
Not being prompted by your post, my wife and I spent some time discussing this last night. I would really like to live in an apartment in downtown SLC. Make Provo or Orem similar to SLC with TRAX and FrontRunner and I’d leave the farm in a heartbeat. I’d save a ton on cars and repairs. I might still own a car, but we would use it much, much less.
15 January, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Nice post, Brad. One of the big disappointments with the Foothill study (I don’t know all the details but am somewhat familiar with it) is what it WON’T do for bikes. Foothill is the main route — by far the quickest and most direct — to get to the University from points south and southeast. This includes Millcreek, Olympus Hills, Cottonwood Heights, etc. Much money was spent in years past on two bridges that carry a multi-use bike/ped path across the EB and WB lanes of I-215 and allow cyclists to get to the south end of Foothill right where the offramp from the freeway is. Right now there are only two lanes in each direction (plus a decent shoulder) up until about 1700 South, at which point the shoulder goes away and it starts to be a really uncomfortable place to ride a bike. Somewhere between 1700 South and 800 South, it transitions to 3 lanes each direction. Lots of traffic, 40-50 mph speeds, and the outside traffic lane has no shoulder. The U is one of the biggest traffic generators in the entire state, Foothill gets a large portion of people to it, there is a great multi-use path that funnels right onto it, and yet the study does not incorporate an on-street bike facility into its recommendations. You’d be hard-pressed to find another road in the entire state that could benefit more from allocating some space for bikes. Foothill is a state route (SR-186), by the way. As far as I know, the study recommended allocating all of the space to cars and BRT and it was deemed that this road is not suitable or desirable as a bike facility. I don’t know if there will be dedicated BRT lanes or if they will run in mixed traffic, but if they have dedicated lanes, maybe they could be bike/bus lanes. We’ll see.
Travis, if you really are interested in moving to the urban SLC scene, let me know. That’s where I live now (moved from a townhouse in Provo 3 yrs ago) and I love it. I sold my car when I moved up, and haven’t looked back. I have a TRAX stop right outside my building, multiple bus routes within one block, my job is 4 blocks away, SLC is fairly bike-friendly, and everything is pretty accessible without a car. I can be up City Creek Canyon within 10 mins on my bike, or go over to Liberty Park, which isn’t much further than that. It’s a great life. Oh, and the Farmer’s Market is a block away as well. Can’t beat that. The only thing I miss is being able to get out into the country and ride 100 miles on my bike while only hitting two stoplights along the way. Oh well, can’t have everything
.
16 January, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I can’t grow a garden in the park next to my condo. The farmer’s market in Provo/orem does not carry the organic produce and free range eggs that I want and I can’t afford to buy them at the store(maybe I could if I lived in a condo). The community gardens that I have been exposed to are not organic or sustainable and that bothers me (although community gardens could be organic and sustainable). Working in the yard is one of my greatest stress relievers, I can’t do that if I have a townhouse. My kids are noisy and they disturb the other townhouses nearby.
I agree with you completely, we should live in higher population densities, but somehow it seems like we have to give up a lot to live where we know we should.
16 January, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I’ve been following your blog, as usual Sans, and I understand the dilemma facing you and I agree with you that there are some things that you might have to give up. Compact neighborhoods can include detached single family homes. Many of Salt Lake City’s most popular neighborhoods are compact walkable neighborhoods with detached homes with yards. Older Communities were developed that way, and some new ones are being developed that way too. It doesn’t have to be town homes and condos as we know them. What is important in my mind is the mixing of land uses and transportation options. If we develop or even redevelop in more compact and walkable ways, things can work better for all. I think it really may all come down to greed. We tend to tear down those small homes and build big ones. We seem to want the bigger homes and don’t care about the yard. I know you are not that way. In fact we need people that are willing to be farmers and to help the city folk eat. We need people to bring produce to the farmers markets and we need people to live in the rural areas. Sometimes I think that I’d like that myself. Good luck to you. I hope you can find a place that meets your needs and expectations. I look forward to seeing pictures!
26 January, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Awesome article Brad, whoever you are
I’m from NJ and a UDOT engineer and I really am interested in the policy driving the decisions for development. You should find me on facebook or somewhere and add me so we can stay in touch!