Mid Jordan TRAX Now Funded

The Federal Transit Administration has announced that it will spend $428.3 million to build the Mid-Jordan TRAX extension that leads to Daybreak. This promise represents 80% of the funding needed to pay for the TRAX extension and will allow it to open by December 2011. UTA has already completed 25% of this line with much of the construction in Daybreak already being finished.

The remaining 20% of the line's cost is provided by a Salt Lake County referendum in 2006 that increased the sales tax a quarter of a cent per dollar. According to UTA, twenty-eight light-rail cars will travel along the 10.6-mile track between 6 a.m. and midnight when the Mid-Jordan line is complete. Trains will arrive at stations every 12 minutes during rush hours and every 15 minutes at remaining times. According to a UTA study the 10.6-mile line is expected to carry 9,500 passengers a day and reduce the number of miles traveled by car by 65,000 daily by the year 2030.

While nothing is actually guaranteed until it is built, this move essentially closes the funding gap that existed earlier and ensures funding for a massive project during a time when government budgets are deep in the red. Daybreak residents will benefit tremendously from this project as will Kennecott Land.

TRAX in Daybreak - Real Estate Boost?

As we experience a declining housing market in the U.S., it is important to consider the geography of areas both losing and gaining property value. In Utah we are currently seeing some neighborhoods decline as they are primarily constituted of homes in the higher price ranges. Beyond this trend, there is another subtle trend that I have noticed taking place across the country. Homes within a walkable distance to light-rail stations are fairing better in this down market and some are even gaining value.

The Washington post reported on this trend, showing the percent change in the median home price of individual zip codes of Washington D.C. and its surrounding counties. The paper found that areas without direct access to metro stations - ones that were typically suburban in nature - experienced greater losses in median home value.

In Denver, where they have pushed light-rail construction heavily, the Denver Post reported that values have increased for homes near light-rail stations:

Margarete Humphrey knows her bungalow near the Louisiana Station light-rail stop is in a hot neighborhood. But she was surprised to learn the value of her home has increased over the past two years as much of the metro Denver housing market has declined. Homes near light-rail stations along the southeast line, which opened in November 2006, have increased by an average of nearly 4 percent over the past two years, according to an analysis by Your Castle Real Estate. But the rest of the Denver market declined an average of 7.5 percent.

While most of the studies indicate that transit increases property values, there are a few that have found that it decreases property values. In looking at these studies these negative impacts occur because of the negative side effects that are realized by those properties located right next to rail facilities. The noise, aesthetics, and traffic were cited as the primary culprits. In these studies homes that were in extreme close proximity lost value, but homes further away (but still within walking distance) gained value. However, most of these negative impacts can be mitigated by proper planning. The Daybreak plan looks to mitigate these factors as the TRAX line follows commercial, industrial, and retail properties in its penetration of the community. So these "nuisance effects" are absorbed by these non-residential areas that actually benefit from the traffic of cars and people. Further benefit is realized as these non-residential properties will be using the TRAX parking to their benefit.

So how does transit increase property values? Because it increases access to area destinations for residents in close proximity to transit stations. It is for this very reason that TRAX may be able to add maximum value to the Daybreak community. Daybreak essentially lies on the fringe of development in Southwest Salt Lake County. To get to most destinations, residents must travel either East or North to arrive there. Right now there are limited options to do this and accessibility is definitely a problem. TRAX offers a direct route to Salt Lake City, the University of Utah, various sports complexes, shopping centers, commuter rail, etc. While gas prices have recently gone down drastically, I do not expect them to stay there. The more gas prices increase the more people will see TRAX as their best transportation option. This will only increase property values more.

Overall, transit adds value to communities like Daybreak regardless of the economic climate. Neighborhoods and communities with strong connectivity will thrive in the long-term. Transit has the ability to increase (or at least sustain) value because it provides more people with access to essential destinations in a given area; it also improves one's quality of life in congested metropolitan areas such as the Wasatch Front.

East / West Mobility - The 114th South Corridor

If you live in in the Southwestern portion of Salt Lake County (South Jordan, Herriman, Riverton) and commute, then you probably already know how difficult it can be to drive eastward toward I-15 in the mornings and back again after work. This East - West mobility issue has been a problem for decades. While different roads have been widened to help alleviate traffic, it has always been too little to late.

For Daybreak residents, this new corridor will provide a straight line connecting the community to the largest transportation artery in Utah. This aspect of the plan definitely gets a thumbs up from me. However, to accomplish this, we will be displacing long-time residents of South Jordan. That is the price of progress, but I consider it a costly one. While many may argue that building another road is not the answer, I would have to disagree. This simply provides another option and relieves the congestion on 106th and 123rd. This road will accomodate the current population with TRAX and the Mountain View Corridor addressing future population growth.

Construction could begin as early as late November 2008 with a completion date of fall 2010. Construction will widen the road from four lanes to five, add bike lanes and sidewalks as well as a bridge over Union Pacific and Utah Transit Authority tracks near the Jordan River. The road will connect to I-15 using the usual interchange seen on 106th and 123rd.

Housing Density and NIMBYs

Housing density has been and will remain the most common disagreement with regards to new development in existing towns. The politics surrounding this issue can be fierce with strong emotions on all sides. The battle over density usually starts when a developer purchases land with plans to build medium to high-density residential. One resident will hear about the pending project and will rally the troops. This person is usually referred to as a NIMBY which stands for Not In My Back Yard. This neighborhood watchdog will then broadcast the message that an evil developer is trying to profit with a new development and does not care about its impact on the surrounding community.

This was the case with Daybreak and many other new urban communities across the nation. The question that I would like to ask most NIMBYs is this: how did you inform yourself about the topic of density and its effects? Some of them call on first-hand experience. The neighbors near many developments complain about the traffic that the development is causing. Of course while the infrastructure that will accompany the development is only starting these neighbors pass judgment by what they see immediately. This short-term, subjectivity should not be taken as fact, but many NIMBY’s present it as fact. Many NIMBYs that I have talked to use the words “its just common sense” all too often when trying to explain their information source. While I feel that common sense is a valid tool that cannot be underestimated, I also feel that it is sometimes confused with myth.

These myths are traditional in my opinion. Passed down through the generations and are added to with each new generation. The history of where these myths started reaches back as far as the 1800s. The US started as an agricultural nation and transitioned into an industrial nation with factories and mass production. This transition was accompanied by waves of immigration from Europe. Each new wave contained different ethnic groups that were overtly discriminated against. This discrimination clustered these immigrants into densely populated areas with the least desirable jobs. This segregation along socio-economic status lines resulted in the materialization of many of the myths that are associated with density.

Fast forward to the age of suburbia that started after World War II. Being enabled to travel long distances via automobile, people could more economically live in the suburbs and further segregate themselves. Zoning use ordinances specified separation of land use and from then on commercial could no longer coexist with residential. In many cases this meant separation of density as well. Fast forward again to the 70s and 80s where the government decided to build “project housing” which not only segregated people of lower socio-economic status, but actually concentrated them. Many of these were an immediate failure with rampant crime and social problems. The images created by these projects reverberated with further intensity in the media particularly in movies and television. The “inner city” was a dangerous crime ridden area only suitable for those “other” people. All of these events perpetuated the myths of density with a simple philosophy: guilty by association.

So what is the real story behind density? The best way to answer this question is to address the myths often cited by NIMBYs one at a time.

Myth: Density will lower the value of my home. Many things can lower the value of a home, but density is not by itself one of them. In fact researchers have conducted many studies on single-family housing that is located in proximity to dense residential developments. The conclusion of these studies is that there is not a significant difference in the appreciation rate of those single family homes located in close proximity to high residential developments and those single-family homes located further away. In fact the percentage of appreciation is 2.9 versus 2.7 percent. This is not a significant difference. However, if you have an apartment building located next to your home that is 5 stories tall, over 30 years old, the grass is browning, windows are broken, loud music is blaring from the windows, and the paint is literally peeling like a sunburn, then this will obviously lower the value of your home. Of course, if a single family residence was in the same state, then it would lower the value of your home as well.

Another myth is that dense housing will create more traffic. Obviously if you add more cars to an area you will have more traffic. However, research has proven that higher density housing decreases traffic per person. Single family detached homes average 10 car trips a day. Compare that to the 6.3 car trips per day made by people living in townhomes and condominiums. Density is also needed for public transportation to be feasible. The Mid-Jordan TRAX line would not extend to South Jordan at all if not for the density that will make up the Daybreak Town Center. This mode of transportation will bring an additional choice for transportation that is likely to be used considering gas prices. Daybreak further mitigates traffic by having most necessities within walking distance which encourages the two-legged commute.

The most prominent myth about density is that it creates crime. This claim is absolutely false. Numerous studies have been conducted and the conclusion is that per population, crime is the same in higher density housing as it is in single family housing. The perception of crime is perpetuated when the observer holds an entire apartment complex to the same standard as one single family home. So when three juveniles from the same complex commit a crime and the police show up at the apartment complex three times in one year, it is considered “crime ridden.” On the other hand if the police show up for a juvenile in a single family residence this is considered an “anomaly.” Crime research indicates that crimes increase in accordance with certain socioeconomic indicators such as education attainment, unemployment (particularly of males), and the poverty rate.

The final main myth is that dense residential housing is unattractive and is only desired by lower-income households. Considering the changing demographics and preferences of consumers, this assumption is not based in reality. This market appeals to empty-nester and first-time home buyers tremendously. As with anything in real estate it is all about location, location, location. You can buy a single-family home in some locations for half of the price of a town home in south Jordan. Considering that the average income earner in Utah currently cannot purchase high-density housing in many areas, I would have to say that it is not just the poor that are moving into condos and townhomes. If the housing has a good design and is well maintained it will attract quality residents who care about and participate in their community.

So who is winning this battle, the NIMBYs or the New Urbanists? The New Urbanists have the clear lead, but this depends greatly on where you live. In North Dakota and Oklahoma , the NIMBYs are holding their ground. If you live in Utah , Colorado , Texas , Florida , or California on the other hand, the New Urbanists are definitely ahead of the game. Since its inception in the early 80s, New Urbanism has grown at a phenomenal rate in most states. Locally, more and more new urban developments are popping up. They are called by different names such as smart growth or transit oriented developments, but they are the same with respect to density.

In fact, South Jordan will shortly be surrounded by these developments. With the Herriman Towne Center , Daybreak, Jordan River , and other future communities coming to light, New Urbanism will also be the future of development locally. A number of strong forces demand this density. Energy costs demand homes that are more efficient, smaller, easier to take care of, and closer to the necessities of life. Businesses now want to locate their operations in communities that are vibrant, walkable, and have transit nearby. Density is the vehicle that has to be used to accomplish these attributes. The government wants density as it allows for less expenditure on infrastructure per tax payer. Finally, people are demanding more density and they are voting with their feet. The success of dense New Urban communities speaks volumes about this demand.

Density will have its place in the future of South Jordan, but if not planned correctly it can cause problems. Density cannot be thrown in a community in a half hazard manner in order for the developer to make a buck. Instead it should be planned and integrated correctly according to transect planning and community needs. These new developments must feature good designs that are sensitive to the context of the surrounding community. These designs and features must be maintained by a community organization such as a HOA. I can see why many NIMBYs are opposed to housing density, but assumptions should not be made based on false associations of the past. To those NIMBYs who will fight till their last breath any development that has more density that 2 units per acre consider if your beliefs about density are actually true. Also consider if your energy might be better spent ensuring that these developments are integrated properly instead of trying to ban them all together. Density is here to stay. Instead of a battle of how many units per acre, we need to ensure that these units are built, maintained, and located in a fashion that will enhance the community for all of us.

Traffic In Daybreak

With the increase in the planned density at Daybreak concerns have surfaced about the increase in traffic. The current plans for Daybreak call for over 20,000 homes to be located within the community. All of these residents will have cars. Most of them will have more than one along with more than one member of the family to drive them. If you do the math on these numbers you can easily see the thousands of car trips that will be necessary for each family daily. However, these calculations are based off of the traditional suburban model of traffic. Daybreak follows the principles of New Urbanism and studies have shown that there is a significant difference in the amount of traffic generated by these diametrically opposed planning schemes.

New Urbanism improves transportation choice and reduces traffic speeds. These New Urban design features tend to reduce per capita automobile ownership and use. While most individual features have modest impacts on total travel, their effects are synergistic resulting in significant total reductions in vehicle use. Research has proved that residents that live in well-designed New Urbanist neighborhoods with good walkability, mixed land use, connected streets, and local services tend to drive 20-35% less than residents in automobile dependent areas. Another study has concluded that these residents take 305.5% more walking trips than residents of conventionally designed suburbs. While these benefits have not materialized immediately in Daybreak, most of the research suggests that these benefits will not be realized until developments are "made whole" with the majority of basic needs within a short distance of homes.

In addition to the traffic reducing affects of mixed-use communities, Daybreak offers a variety of traffic calming structural features in its design. The most noticable of these are the two roundabouts that deflect traffic from two fairly high-speed parkways that lead to Daybreak from Bangerter Highway. These arterial roundabouts distribute traffic in a more efficient manner than 4-way intersections and slow traffic down upon their entrance to Daybreak. Recent studies have also proven that roundabouts significantly reduce vehicle crashes compared to intersections.

Another traffic calming feature is the neckdowns that are placed at most intersections in Daybreak. Neckdowns are curb extensions at intersections that reduce the roadway width and tighten the curb radii at the corner. Again this feature slows traffic, but it also decreases the distance that a pedestrian must travel to cross the street and makes the pedestrian more visible. There are other traffic calming measures, but these two are the most effective.

Even with all of these measures, there are still drivers that choose to speed down the street, racing to their destination. This practice has irked quite a few residents in the community including the Daybreak Daily website author Scoop. He decided to do somethign about it and worked with the City of South Jordan to monitor the traffic on a particularly problematic street in Daybreak where drivers tend to speed. The street in question is Kestrel Rise. One of the main problems with this street is that when driving South you drive down hill. This obviously increases speed and many do not slow down until they are only feet away from a stop sign. While these studies gave an average speed of 25 mph, this is simply an average. The traffic monitoring devices registered speeds of up to 50 mph on this street. Of course speeds like this did not happen every day, but speeds of 35 to 40 mph are fairly common depending on the day of the week.

What additional options are there to preven cars from accelerating to 50 mph in an area where kids play? A few design features come to mind. Traffic slowing features such as humps or speed bumps as some people call them. These features actually come in a large variety and are one of the most effective design features in slowing traffic speed. There is a downside to this though. Cost. You would think that making a bump in the road would not be very expensive, but in this case a properly designed bump can cost thousands of dollars. The question that keeps popping up in my mind is this: Isn't a few thousand dollars worth it when a simple design feature can (and probably will someday) save the life of a child? Especially considering this street is adjacent to an elementary school.

I would deem most streets in Daybreak to be safe. This safety is due to the design features that were likely planned from the very beginning. However, no plan is perfect and some adjustments need to be made here and there. While speed humps may not be the answer, planners and the community need to do something about people driving 35 to 50 miles per hour past homes full of children and an elementary school.

Pollution Waning in Utah?

While many groups have been disputing the proposed Mountain View Corridor, the Wasatch Front Regional Council has released information indicating that automobile pollution is down in Utah. The report which can be found at wfrc.org. attributes the trend to stricter EPA standards, cleaner engines, more mass transit options and increased awareness. I definitely consider this good news. I personally attribute the lower pollution to gas prices forcing residents to buy low emission vehicles. These new cars use less energy and go much further than their older counterparts. This is confirmed by the fact that a car in 1966 produced 57 times the amount of emissions than a car made in 2004. According to the report 51% of the harmful particulates in the air come from vehicles. These particulates are harmful to children especially those with asthma. With future solutions such as mass transit, ultra low emission vehicles, and tougher government standards, pollution in Utah will trend downward to a point that will be comfortable for us all.

One matter that was not strongly addressed was Carbon Dioxide or CO2 emissions. This gas is the primary culprit for depleting the Ozone layer. Locally we have a limited impact on our global atmosphere, but every bit counts right? Some things that we can do as residents are:

1. Make sure your car that you drive is in optimal shape. This means checking the tire pressure, getting a tune-up, and avoid stomping on the gas when the light changes to green.

2. Combine trips and people. When you do drive, carpool and try to squeeze all of your errands into one trip.

3. Walk and bike everywhere that you can. Considering the design of Daybreak, this will be much easier for us to do.

4. Trees. Trees filter the air and reduce home energy costs if you plant them in the right place. Planting a deciduous tree on the South side of your house shades windows from the sun in the summer and allows the sun to warm the house in the winter.