Deseret News | Park might become a UTA parking lot

Reader comments
Park might become a UTA parking lot

Anonymous | 6:21 p.m. June 15, 2009

With all the run down space in this area, it is really appalling that one of the few parks would even be considered the best location for more pavement. I really hope officials will start thinking about quality of life for residents and plan for the future more wisely.

Mismanaged | 7:23 p.m. June 15, 2009

This does not surprise me considering how UTA is mismanaged. They want everything a Trax line, bus route or parking lot so they can rule the world.

Anonymous | 8:14 p.m. June 15, 2009

UTA does whatever they want whenever they want. Its a disgrace to even think of getting rid of that park, and replace it with a parking lot. Why is it that no matter what is said by the public,UTA won't care or listen. Fares go up but they don't listen to the people who pay them. Mark my words there will be a parking lot!!!! All bow to the mighty UTA!

Comments continue below

lost in DC | 8:43 p.m. June 15, 2009

bad idea, find some other dirt with a ramshackle building and use it.

Will Crowther | 3:10 a.m. June 16, 2009

Yes, UTA is an environmental company. They're out to destroy the environment at all opportunities.

Anonymous | 6:29 a.m. June 16, 2009

The properties adjoining the Jordan River are essential to the long-term growth of the west side. There is still time to rescue this idea from short-sighted politicians and cheap bureaucrats.

Anonymous | 7:46 a.m. June 16, 2009

All the vacant, barren land, and you have to pave a park? Surely you can do better.

Whiggy | 8:18 a.m. June 16, 2009

UTA has a demonstrated history of being completely out of touch with what is good for the community, including what is good for their own riders. If UTA would actually put some planning into its activities, it would never even have to consider ruining parks because a little thinking ahead would allow it to use other vacant land.

Anti-green UTA | 9:37 a.m. June 16, 2009

UTA has a proven track record of keeping prices higher than the costs of buying gas for your car so why is anyone surprised that they are getting rid of green space?

UTA Needs to Restrategize | 10:21 a.m. June 16, 2009

I would love to use public transit for travel to and from work; however it's never been economical for me to do so.

Right now a monthly adult UTA pass costs $67 per month. It currently costs me $26 to fill up my tank and one tank typically lasts me 2 weeks. I have free parking both at work and at home. Adding in a $30 oil change every 3 months basically equates to a cost of $31 per tank of gas.

I still come out $5 ahead per month and am not at the mercy of UTA's schedule...as the commute actually would take me 40mins longer each way on UTA.

So UTA - why would I ever want to be your customer? You've yet to prove to me why I benefit from purchasing your product.

Another Myth Exposed | 10:44 a.m. June 16, 2009

Advocates always trumpet how public transit is better for the environment than automobiles. So much for that myth.

UTA | 11:56 a.m. June 16, 2009

Answers to no one! They pretty much do what they want, WHEN they want! Frankly, I think even the local elected officials kow-tow to them!
The ONLY thing that will force them to be "part of the community" is if local leaders start looking over their shoulder. Something, up to now, they just haven't done.

UTA rules | 11:57 a.m. June 16, 2009

Years ago they cut down a grove of trees to build a parking lot in Midvale. Things never change.

sll | 12:44 p.m. June 16, 2009

Typical for UTA. Paving anything and everything--Native American sites and parks. Find another parking lot!!!

Larry | 12:58 p.m. June 16, 2009

The story said,

"That side of the park, owned by West Valley City, isn't part of the ongoing UTA discussions. However, its picnic tables and full-grown trees would be affected by a parking lot going up across the river."

How exactly, does a parking lot across the river affect picnic tables?

Btfl Resident | 1:30 p.m. June 16, 2009

To set a couple of issues straight, the discussion on car expenses vs transit is completely wrong. The cost of driving includes insurance, highway patrol, monthly car payment, road construction and maintenance, incident management, tires, car repairs, etc., etc. And no, the gas tax doesn't pay for all the government expenses. Most of them are paid by sales tax, car registration fees, and other "hidden" taxes. In Europe, where the gas tax does pay for all of the expenses, it ranges anywhere from $2-$3 per gallon! So the wimpy 50 cents or so we pay in gas tax doesn't even begin to cover it. Open your eyes people and see how the automakers, oil companies, car-part manufacturers, insurance companies, and road construction industries have been milking you for years.

Z | 3:12 p.m. June 16, 2009

If you read carefully, you will see that this isn't UTA's decision to make. The City of South Salt Lake is the only agency that controls the fate of this park. No doubt they are trying to push this parcel on UTA as the 'only available option' so they can get their 'better land more centrally located', as they put it. UTA should see through this ridiculous facade and acquire a different parcel that is not as encumbered.

Andrew Parker | 9:09 a.m. June 17, 2009

Btfl Resident,

You neglected to include the subsidy cost of the UTA, and you ignore the fact that, under the UTA's current routing and scheduling, one is required to own and maintain a private vehicle, so the automobile still comes out way ahead.

Public transit will never be cost competitive in the US, largely because for the past 80 years urbanization has grown around the automobile -- for good or bad. UTA knew this when they started.

Public transit in Utah will never succed as long as the UTA keeps pretending to be a viable business. Once they (and the Legislature) accept that they will always run at a significant loss, maybe they can begin to serve their non-driver riders. If, over time, UTA can prove itself a reliable alternative to automobile owndership, perhaps ridership will go up and stay up?

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.