Deseret News | Reader comments: No decision made on airport TRAX line

Reader comments
No decision made on airport TRAX line

Surprise Surprise | 12:51 a.m. April 16, 2008

You know what is going to happen don't you? When very efficient cars become mainstream, people will stop riding the public transport because it so inconvienient(unless you live/work right next to the line).

Inconvenient | 7:58 a.m. April 16, 2008

I agree with surprise. I live in Midvale and would actually benefit from a trax line to the airport, but the issue will always be time. I can get there in 20 minutes in a car, but probably over an hour in trax.

Maybe they can schedule some trax cars to make outer stops, but skip the inner city to shorten the trip to the airport... just a thought.

Tammi Diaz | 8:18 a.m. April 16, 2008

UTA has DESTORY the BUS SYSTEM, things to change with UTA pay for High Executives John Inglish Genernal Manager Salary $266,614 a Bonus 39,860,
Mike Allerga Chief Capital Development Officer $155,886 a Bonus of $26,890, Cherryl Beveridge Support Service Manager $152,581, a Bonus $22,887, Paul O'Brian Rail Service General Manager Salary is
$140,290, a bonus $21,638. Governer Huntman salary is $107,200 they make more then Governor. There are 6 more High Pay Executives. They to cut the salaries
in half or start over with New Management, Restore the BUS SYSTEM.

Comments continue below

Z | 8:29 a.m. April 16, 2008

Sure, you can get to the airport in 20 minutes by car from Midvale, but... Then you have to park. If you are in Long Term parking, then you have to wait for a shuttle. If you park at one of the off-site lots, you have even farther to go to the airport once the shuttle picks you up. Suddenly, the time-gap doesn't look so large.

Anonymous | 8:41 a.m. April 16, 2008

Efficient cars or not- do you know how much it costs to park at the airport? I would use an airport TRAX line all the time! Lets face it, some people wouldn't use TRAX even if it stopped right outside their door. For those of us that aren't afraid to step outside, TRAX to the airport would be a serious enhancement to an already successful system.

And to stay on topic- 400 West gets my vote.

Anonymous | 9:06 a.m. April 16, 2008

Don't forget all your luggage you now get to drag onto a TRAX train. Are any of the trainss equipped to hold two bags and a carryon easily? I'm not taking about stacking the stuff up in an aisle.

Also, how many people want to be dragging their stuff around Salt Lake at night after they have flown in from Atlanta or New York or the new hub in Detroit?

Have any studies been done of other American cities to see how well utilized their light rail lines to their airports have been used?

Carl | 9:24 a.m. April 16, 2008

I can tell you that Portland's light rail system to the airport is convenient, frequent and carries lots and lots of passengers. It beats driving and parking and we're helping the enviroment.

Public transportation does work. It's not perfect, but it does work well.

Pat | 9:33 a.m. April 16, 2008

The long-term parking system at the airport is so poorly designed that it's faster & cheaper for me to park on North Temple and take the 550 bus to the airport than it is to mess around with the on-airport system. I do this at least once a month. (And, no, I'm not telling you where i park . . . )

As for 400 West issue, i really don't understand why the council has a problem with this locally preferred route.

Speaking of Surprises | 9:42 a.m. April 16, 2008

"Surprise Surprise" is in for a big one if he thinks that efficiency or alternative fuel is going to allow personal automobiles for everyone to continue to exist in the future, much less eliminate transit. We are in the twilight of the auto age. How well the average person will get around in the future will largely depend on how much foresight his city had in building transit systems.
Actually of all the Trax lines I expect the airport line to become the least useful. Not because people will continue to go to the airport in cars, but because air travel is destined to decline even more dramatically than car use in the post peak oil future.
-lowonoil

Tammi Diaz | 9:55 a.m. April 16, 2008

I not against TRAX, we need UTA to restore the BUS
SYSTEM. There are alot of INDIVIDUALS that do have a
car, disabled, elderly and low income workers. UTA has not met needs of the GROWTH in Salt Lake County.
Not everyone can live down town Salt Lake, that UTA
only concern about the BUS SYSTEM. If you live anywhere else you have a car to drive to TRAX, it is worse in the EVENING. There 7 High Pay Executive
they also get Big Bonus, they make more Money then
Governor Huntman. There is a problem here so many Bus Routes Cuts and High Executive Salaries there need to be Change. VOTER VOTED FOR A IMPROVEMENT IN THE TRANSIT, NOT DESTRUCTION OF THE BUS SYSTEM!

reality check | 10:07 a.m. April 16, 2008

The "problem" with the 400 West alignment is that it costs more, requires an entirely new second intermodal hub be built at North Temple, which causes impacts to move into the Jackson, Guadalupe and West Capitol neighborhoods. The 400 West alignment also causes more traffic impacts to 400 West, which hurts west side, east side and commuter traffic. Because of track capacity limitations, it also compromises the long term ability to expand to Davis County and other expansions (whereas a dedicated line on 600 West does not). The bigger problem is that the debate has become so politicized that such facts do not even make it into the coversation with the general public without being shouted down.

disenfrancised neighbor | 10:27 a.m. April 16, 2008

The 600 West line is technicaly better, facilitates expansion more efficiently and is cheaper for the taxpayer. Unfortunately some (not all) developers on 600 West have exploited class angst to turn the debate into east side vs. west side argument, oblivious to the facts. Ironically the new condos have balconies facing I-15, which has thousands of cars per hour, but the ends of the building face 600 West which would have a train only every 5-7 minutes.

lost in DC | 11:58 a.m. April 16, 2008

I think we need to look at trax to the airport not only for people going out, but also for people coming in. When I go to DC I usually ride the metro from Reagan airport, with my luggage, and I'm not the only one. I've taken the CTA when I've flown in to Chicago's O'hare. It doesn't work for some people, but it does for me.

If I had to use a bus system rather than a rail system, I would be much less inclined to take mass transit and would be forced into a cab.

Dirk | 2:41 p.m. April 16, 2008

I totally agree with reality check and disenfrancised neighbor.

This routing debate should be about which one (600 W or 400 W) is technically better, more efficient, least disruptive to traffic, and cheaper to the taxpayer - but it's not!

This debate is about who can scream the loudest and who can stir up the "neighborhood". Which is interesting, since most of those representing the "neighborhood", don't even live close enough to the 600 West section to be affected. But somehow, this routing on 600 West, while providing direct TRAX service to the "west side", is touted as a slap in the face to the "west side".

Dutchman | 3:01 p.m. April 16, 2008

Forget this trax line to the airport and build a commuter rail train to Park City. I-80 eastbound up Parley's Canyon is a mess.

Surprise Surprise | 3:26 p.m. April 16, 2008

I'm saying that all public transport is extremely inconvienient when it comes to point to point trips(almost all trips). It can work to have someone drop you off at a train station, if the destination is walking distance from the station. This works for extremely congested areas like New York or San Francisco. Usually, you need a ride at the trip origin or destination.

There are very efficient transportation technologies NOW, though not yet widely available. Public transport will never equal personal transportation for point to point convienience.

When my new electric car can take me to the airport for a few cents, why would I use much more expensive and inconvienient public transport?
I plug it in and it's all charged up when I return.
I fly infrequently, so I usually get dropped off and parking is not an issue.

Public transport has a role, but usually only survives because of massive public subsidy. Given tolerable traffic and reasonable cost, most people will gravitate to personal transport.

Jordan T. | 3:34 p.m. April 16, 2008

That's a great idea, Dutchman. When the first phase of UTA's Front Runner system gets going at the end of April, it will only serve a fraction of the population living in Davis, Weber Counties.

That said, UTA needs to seriously consider building a commuter rail line up to Park City going along the Kimball Junction area and extending to Park City's Main St.

Of course, it would be nice to see a commuter rail line going up Ogden Canyon to Snowbasin ski resort, and the Tooele County area to eventually serve the needs of west-siders living in Tooele, Grantsville, and Stansbury Park.

Inconvenient Truth | 5:07 p.m. April 16, 2008

Any design that terminates at the Intermodal Hub is a bad design. If the airport line doesn't take people closer to the downtown hotels and offices without a transfer, it won't get used! Transferring with luggage is a major pain. If this line must go to the hub, then it should first follow the existing S Temple/Main street lines to 400S, and a new line should be built back along 400S to the intermodal hub. This circular route (think of the Chicago Loop) was part of the original design for the University line, but it was cut out because of budget restraints.

Convenient truth | 5:37 p.m. April 16, 2008

Contrary to popular mythology: The primary ridership for the Airport line is in the form of employees (at the airport and along North Temple)- not tourists. Therefore the airport line must have direct interaction with commuter rail and other light rail lines (read - go to the hub) or it misses the primary ridership market. Furthermore; as the line is connected with the Univeristy line in the future, along 400 South, it will actully be closer to more hotels (most hotels are actually at the southern portion of Downtown).

Convenient is right | 10:47 a.m. April 17, 2008

We rode the light rail in Baltimore from the Airport to the downtown Camden Yard stop. We knew it existed from our internet research, but when we landed in Baltimore airport we had to really search for signs to tell us where it was. We took a very long walk to the end of the airport to reach the transit stop. We were the only ones boarding with luggage. Everyone else appeared to be an airport employee.
I have been wondering ever since whether the existence of the transit line at the airport was being kept quiet due to the influence of the taxi, bus, and car rental companies.
BTW we had a great time in Baltimore for 4 days and never missed having a stinking car.

It's all about me | 11:01 a.m. April 17, 2008

Everyone seems eager to criticize the failure of public transit to provide them convenient service from some random point to some other random point within hundreds of square miles of low density auto dependent urban sprawl. Transit can't be expected to be convenient and economical in that kind of development.
Where transit will work well is in conjunction with transit oriented development. In the early 20th century before most people had cars, transit was thriving. Cities and transit systems were co-designed to serve people without cars, which was almost everybody.
I expect that as oil depletion puts auto dependency beyond the means of more and more of us, we will move away from the declining suburbs and begin clustering around transit corridors again.
- lowonoil

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.