Reader comments
A bad move for Bluffdale

Decades ago, the elected leaders of Pleasant Grove voted to not have a freeway exit for their city when the plans were being laid for the construction of I-15. Their reasoning was that they wanted to prevent traffic, bad influences and bothersome visitors from spoiling the hometown feel of their community. Over the following years, the growth came anyway, to PG and the rest of the valley. But Pleasant Grove experienced only the residential growth - without freeway access, the commercial development flowed north and south to Orem and American Fork. Pleasant Grove became a poorly based bedroom community without the means to provide parks, fire trucks and libraries for its growing population. It was early in the new century before city leaders corrected the mistake by finally getting a freeway exit, but the development will still take years. Bluffdale leaders would do well to note the mistake of their neighbor to the south and not bypass a golden opportunity to properly position their community for the inevitable future.

Good for them. That means one less stop in my commute as I zip through Bluffdale. Their loss is our gain.

If rail lines add value to homes near the lines, then why did 1,100 Draper home-owners living within one mile of the proposed Draper TRAX line sign a petition against the line?

The value of their homes is about $1/2 billion! They know something you are too lazy to attempt to grasp. For homes beyond the TODs at a new rail stop, rail lines damage property values!

For those living close to the lines, they will never have a peaceful interlude in their gardens again as TRAX trains pass by every 7 to 15 minutes from before 5:30 AM till nearly midnight. Though the noise won't be loud, it will be there through all their waking hours, reminding them of the way UTA and Draper "leaders" strong-armed this upon them.

If DMN and others had done a simple experiment. Just walking through these areas would give them an idea of the impacts on these homeowners. They would not have been so quick to approve what they would not have in their own neighborhoods.

The DMN editorial board needs to get off their collective duffs and do needed footwork before pontificating, as you so ignobly do so often.

...will be defined as those areas not served by transit systems. They will be filled with people who are farming their former lawns and raising chickens in their former garages. They will have dropped out of the job market because no one will pay them the sort of wages they would need to be able to afford their commutes in the coming age of scarce, expensive, and quite likely rationed vehicle fuels.
Driving transit out of your communites now is something you will come to regret in the very near future.

Sorry, Economic Consultant. Despite volumes of UTA, DMN, and transit industry propaganda, a 1930's-technology diesel electric commuter train is not remotely comparable to a freeway.

The South FrontRunner extension would have about the same ridership as the north FrontRunner; about 12,000 gross boardings a day off in 2030. That is less than 5% of the freeway traffic by that year.

The Federal Transit Administration requires UTA to more thoroughly, more accurately, analyze ridership of a new train for which federal money is desired. This, BEST shows that UTA will only gain 6,500 daily new trips as a result of FrontRunner north, with, likely, an equal number from south FrontRunner, totaling just 13,000 new daily transit trips from this multibillion-dollar trainset.

This is insanely small gain for so much taxpayer pain.

Furthermore, modeling of data in two data tables in the EIS for North FrontRunner shows that the gains to several hundred thousand car-driver-trips would be only ONE minute removed for 30-to-50 minute-commutes!

There would be virtually ZERO GAIN for MILLIONS of daily car trips outside the corridor!

It is easy for DMN. UTA Board Members, Economic Consultants to praise trains, about which they won't learn.
.

Good move, Bluffdale. Now you'll get the noise of FrontRunner without any of the convenience or utility.

Brilliant!

The "slums of the future will be those areas not served by rail" theory sounds good on the first, but if you think about it and compare this theory with some real life examples, it doesn't hold up. For instance, Harlem is well connected to NYC's subway and rail system (still became a slum). The communities outside NYC's Mass Transite grid where they can live in homes instead of apartments and walk/play in their yards instead of the streats, are where the middle-class choose to live. Is NYC just an anomoly? Think about it... Same situation in Chicago (South city slums are well connected by mass transit, suburbs are thriving but outside the mass transit grid)... Hmmmm.

Good theory but it doesn't pass the reality test. Being connected to the mass transit grid doesn't insure your community won't become a slum. Conversly, most inner city slums ARE well connected to mass transit. It's a sad fact, but the people who need to live in America's slums, also need mass transite to survive. So contrary to this theory... I think mass transit is a PREREQUISITE to your neighborhood becoming a slum.

Not saying rail is bad, just not slum cure.

I agree with what I've read in this thread today.

That the DMN-Editorial-Board can't comprehend why a community like Bluffdale would pass on a train-stop shows they can only understand the SLC point-of-view.

Life in Bluffdale is NOT like life in SLC (and I think that is what has drawn many residents TO Bluffdale).

Don't be shocked that everyone doesn't want to be just like SLC or that everyone's life doesn't revolve around "How can I get to SLC".

BTW: I predict that the slums of the future will be in blighted areas of SLC (along the tracks line), not Bluffdale (with or without FrontRunner).

What you have said may be true for what will prove to be the all too brief period of history when those of normal means were granted unprecedented mobility due to the automobile, but more importantly, the cheap energy source to run the automobile. It allowed the masses to flee the cities and scatter themselves around the countryside. Only those too poor to pay for even this artificially cheap mobility were left behind. This is going to change in a big way as the ranks of those unable to afford unlimited automobility are going to soon swell until they include most of us. Our cheap fuel is growing scarce and our car use is going to plummet. It has already started. The most recent federal highway VMT figures show no growth in 2006 over 2005.
Those of normal means will return to transit served areas leaving the declining auto dependent suburbs for the poor people they will displace. But the carless poor will not be living the suburban lifestyle you are accustomed to. They will be subsistence gardening and getting around on old bicycles.
Call me nuts now, you won't in ten years.

If this theory is true... What is going to happen to those living in rural Utah, North Dakota and so many other rural parts of the United States not connected by urban rail systems after your predicted apocalypse?

Are we all just going to cease to exist? Be forced to move to the inner-city slums to get access to the all important mas-transit? Turn to subsistance farming and total self reliance or parish because we don't have a FrontRunner station and can't find a way to get to one?

We've had gas crunches before and survived. If you believe all Al Gore says, I can see how you would believe the theory that the world will end in 10 years because humans ruined it and we didn't have enough mas-transit and we didn't implement nationalized-healthcare soon enough, but I think we can survive this without all communities that don't have a trax-stations falling off the end of the earth or becoming the future slums.

I think we will all need to adjust our life-styles but I don't buy scare tactics in the, "If you don't have a trax-station you will become a slum or parish in comming years" theory.

Bluffdale doesn't need a rail stop. They just need a hitching post for their horses. When Riverton and South Jordan form a new school district, leave Bluffdale out. Let them support their own district with all the taxes they generate with no businesses or commerce.

What will happen to those in the country? Those who live in the country will have to return to country ways. You will work where you are. You will not drive your pickup 40 miles every day to get to your job at the Subway. You will farm, ranch, or move to town.
We are not going to cease to exist, but our cheap fuel is. We are just going to have to rearrange ourselves to make do with much less of it.
The gas crunches of the past were political and temporary. This one is geological and permanent. And who said anything about Gore? I personally don't worry about global warming because I know that our coming shortfall of economically extractable carbon fuel will cause us to meet the most ambitious of CO2 reduction goals without even trying. Those of you hoping that oil shale or french fry oil or hydrogen is going to save mass motoring are going to be sorely disappointed. The most optimistic realistic projections for these things combined will only slow our rate of decline into energy poverty.

I completely agree with this editorial, and that comes from someone who grew up in Bluffdale and still has family who lives there. Unfortunately, there are many on the city council who can't see the forest through the trees. They don't realize Bluffdale can still keep their horse property while availing a great convenience to their citizens. They also seem to have not done their historical research. 60 years ago (and more), Bluffdale had a train stop when the train ran multiple times daily. It was how those who went to school or worked in Salt Lake got there everyday. This isn't a new, untested idea. It's a system that works in many cities throughout the U.S., and has worked for citizens of Bluffdale in the past. For Bluffdale to vote down a commuter rail stop in their city is a mistake they will learn to regret--sooner than they suspect.