Moving rails in Salt Lake underground is costly. Will new benefits report change the debate?
The projected cost of an ambitious grassroots plan to move the railroad west of downtown Salt Lake City underground has loomed over most of the discussions regarding the project.
Leaders of the resident-led project, and local and state allies they've met along the way, say they believe a new economic benefits report will change the conversation.
The Rio Grande Plan, which could cost $3 billion to $5 billion or more to construct, has the potential to generate $12.3 billion in economic impacts, according to the Rio Grande Plan Economic Benefit Analysis released on Wednesday by researchers at the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business Analytics Solution Center.
If the land currently covered by rails is redeveloped as proponents hope, it could spur billions in annual commercial output.
'We think that this is going to be one of the most impactful and meaningful projects in Salt Lake City,' said Pedram Jahangiry, an assistant professor of data analytics and information systems at the center.
The Rio Grande Plan calls for the existing railroad corridor to be moved underground through a train box, from 400 North to 1300 South near downtown Salt Lake City. Advocates say doing so will improve safety and east-west connectivity because it removes interactions with trains. It could also open up about 75 acres of land for future redevelopment.
All of these potentials have helped the plan receive support from Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County in recent years.
The study used IMPLAN economic modeling to explore direct and indirect effects within various economic sectors tied to the plan, both during construction and afterward.
Researchers considered all the short-term impacts during construction, such as businesses buying materials or workers paying rent with wages. This is spread out over the estimated four to six years it could take to build the underground line, said Curtis Bishop, a graduate student in financial economics at Utah State University and one of the study's authors.
About 30% of the potentially redeveloped land would likely go toward transportation and other easements on the land, while half of it would go toward new housing and commercial space, per a previous Salt Lake City report. Potential land-use allocations were blended in with existing Census Bureau data and other datasets to generate some of the project's long-term economic values, he added.
The project has the potential to create about 51,800 jobs, many of which would come from construction. It could also produce $376 million in new state or local tax revenue. The new development could generate nearly $3.2 billion in annual commercial output and support about 13,600 jobs, per the report.
New household income from the more than 2,500 possible new housing units and new visitor spending factor into the numbers, Curtis explained.
Those findings added one reason to back the plan for those who have already become supporters. Salt Lake County Councilwoman Lauri Stringham said it provides new numbers for long-term planning discussions.
'We oftentimes take a short-term, myopic view — put a dime in front of our view and say we can't afford it,' she said. 'But, really, can we not afford to take a look and miss the dollar out there with the dime out in front of our face?'
While supporters of the plan championed the report in a briefing with reporters on Wednesday, the sense of who wasn't in the room was also noticeable. The project has not received endorsements from top state leaders, state transportation officials or Union Pacific.
Rio Grande Plan organizers presented their vision to a legislative interim transportation committee last year, but it was met with mixed reviews. Some signaled concerns over cost, as well as impacts to rail service and the potential that it could spill out into roadways. Some questioned why the state was focusing on Salt Lake City development again after a pair of stadium bills passed earlier that year.
'There is a whole vast part of our state that is not getting the same love and attention,' said Rep. Candice Pierucci, R-Herriman, at the time, pointing to transit holdups in southwest Salt Lake County and overall investments in rural Utah. 'It's hard to think that we need to bump this up to the top of the list.'
Some members said it wouldn't hurt to study the idea further. Rep. Raymond Ward, R-Bountiful, also attended Wednesday's event to lend his support, arguing that it could help improve growing transportation challenges as downtown grows and becomes more dense, representing how some legislators have been won over.
Meanwhile, Union Pacific, Utah Transit Authority, and other railroad users have met with Salt Lake City officials, which led to the proposed train box, but rail leaders have yet to support it. That must be figured out for the plan to work, said Salt Lake City Councilman Alejandro Puy, who has met with Union Pacific over other railroad issues.
'Ultimately, even if (the city and county is) unified in the need for this, we still need the other pieces to fall into place, which is the state and Union Pacific,' he said. 'Those are the places where the conversations should go next.'
Federal support is another major question mark. However, Rio Grande Plan supporters remain optimistic after U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said he wanted to invest in 'great train transit projects,' including ones with promising projections, during his visit to Salt Lake City earlier this month.
Supporters see the new study as a potential tool in their effort to carry out the project. It gives them more information to present the economic value of the plan, which they hope can tip the scales in favor of those on the fence.
It's an arduous task, but they also believe they could finalize everything before the 2034 Winter Olympics—if everything comes together soon. Frederick Jenny, one of the leaders of the Rio Grande Plan, said the group has already reached out to state leaders about more meetings to discuss the new numbers and how to make their bold plan a reality.
'We're hoping to — with these numbers — go back and say, 'We have the other half of the equation,'' he said. 'A year ago, we only had the cost. Now we have the impact.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
California city named best place in US to raise a family. Here's which one
A California city is the best place in the nation to raise a family, according to WalletHub. The personal finance website recently released its list of the Best and Worst Places to Raise a Family in the United States in 2025, based on factors including housing costs, recreation opportunties and the quality of local schools and health care systems. Fremont ranked No. 1 overall. 'Finding the best place to raise a family is difficult, between balancing an affordable cost of living with good educational opportunities, safety and enough recreation to keep kids entertained,' WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo wrote in an article published on May 27. 'Current or prospective parents can benefit from narrowing down their choices to a few of the best cities that are within a reasonable drive,' he added. In total, 26 California cities landed on WalletHub list. Fremont scored first place on WalletHub's list of the best U.S. cities for families, earning an overall score of 73.53 out of 100. The Bay Area city had an estimated population of 228,192 residents in 2024, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Nearly 50% of households have children under 18, WalletHub said, one of the highest rates in the United States. Fremont boasts one of the highest median household incomes in the nation, at $176,350 a year, Census data showed. According to WalletHub, the city had the third-lowest share of families living in poverty in the nation and the third-lowest share receiving food stamps Fremont also ranked No. 1 in socioeconomics, second in child care and education, fourth in health, and ninth in affordability, WalletHub said. Other factors that make Fremont a good spot for families include a high percentage of top-rated public schools and plentiful parkland acres per capita, according to the personal finance website. In total, 26 California cities landed on WalletHub's list of the best places in the nation to raise families. Irvine took fourth place, while San Diego came in 10th place. Huntington Beach barely missed the top 10, landing at No. 11 Further down in the rankings, Sacramento landed at No. 41, while Modesto was No. 79 and Fresno was No. 124. Source: WalletHub According to WalletHub, these are the top cities for families in the United States: Fremont Overland Park, Kansas Plano, Texas Irvine South Burlington, Vermont Seattle Boise Gilbert, Arizona Bismarck, North Dakota San Diego These U.S. cities offered the most challenges for people looking to raise a family, WalletHub said: Memphis Detroit Cleveland Gulfport, Mississippi Newark, New Jersey Birmingham, Alabama Baltimore San Bernardino Jackson, Mississippi Hialeah, Florida To determine the best and worse cities for families, WalletHub said it compared a sample of 182 cities in the United States based on 42 key metrics, including: Family fun Health and safety Education and child care Affordability Socioeconomics The personal finance website graded each metric on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing 'the most favorable conditions for family life.' WalletHub calculated each city's weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and ranked them in order based on the resulting scores. Data came from the U.S. Census Bureau, TripAdvisor, Yelp, Numbeo and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. WalletHub also sought data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
10 Worst Cities for Renters Who Need Child Care
Rent prices in the U.S. have been going up since the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020. Low inventory is the chief factor driving high rents, and with interest rates still steep, fewer people can afford to buy. The cost of child care has also been going up in the U.S. Limited supply and overwhelming demand plays a similar role here. But what choice do we have? Working parents need to maintain an income. And even if you have the luxury of working from home, the 'working' part doesn't go away. Child care, however much of a privilege it's become, is a need. Learn More: Read Next: Combine rising rents with rising costs for child care and you get, quite possibly, a financial nightmare. And it's worse in some major cities than in others. A recent analysis by Redfin looked at the combined monthly cost of rent and child care to find the 10 cities that are the most unaffordable for middle-class parents. All data cited is from Redfin, while U.S. Census Bureau data was used to source the median household incomes. Median monthly household income: $11,787 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $4,692 ($1,997 for child care + $2,695 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 34.5% Find Out: Median monthly household income: $6,419 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $2,393 ($918 for child care + $1,475 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 38.3% Median monthly household income: $5,941 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $2,658 ($865 for child care + $1,793 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 40.6% Median monthly household income: $8,077 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $4,396 ($1,609 for child care + $2,787 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 42.1% Median monthly household income: $8,693 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $3,995 ($1,318 for child care + $2,677 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 42.6% Median monthly household income: $7,473 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $3,516 ($1,183 for child care + $2,333 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 44.5% Median monthly household income: $5,058 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $2,846 ($961 for child care + $1,855 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 45.6% Median monthly household income: $7,313 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $3,892 ($1,145 for child care + $2,747 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 48.4% Median monthly household income: $6,643 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $4,051 ($1,208 for child care + $2,843 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 49.2% Median monthly household income: $4,949 Average monthly child care + rent costs: $3,179 ($764 for child care + $2,415 for rent) Share of income spent on child care + rent: 50.5% More From GOBankingRates 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth This article originally appeared on 10 Worst Cities for Renters Who Need Child Care 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
122, 232, 301, 338: The numbers key to Trump's tariff revival
No matter the outcome of a major legal case on President Donald Trump's tariffs, his import taxes are likely here to stay — in one form or another. Even before a Wednesday ruling that Trump overstepped his authority by using a national emergency to impose most of his tariffs, there had already been discussions inside the West Wing about options if the courts struck down his expansive and untested use of emergency authority, two senior administration officials told CNN. 'We really do think we have a strong case and will win,' one of the officials said. 'But we do have other tools that can get us to the same exact place we're ready to use if necessary.' Key to those efforts: using different trade-related laws to push forward more tariffs. Here are the most likely options the administration could tap into: This law allows a president to levy a tariff of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days to address 'large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.' That would occur when the value of a country's imports far exceeds that of exports, also referred to as a trade deficit. The US currently runs an $87.6 billion goods trade deficit, according to advanced figures the Census Bureau released on Friday. Trump often claims large deficits are a sign the US is being 'ripped off' and treated unfairly. Many economists, however, are much less convinced of his argument, with some even noting that a trade deficit can be a reflection of a strong economy and the power of the US to effectively stimulate the global economy. Administration officials initially weighed using Section 122 to impose higher tariffs but decided not to, due to the 150-day limit. If the administration goes down this path, it could replace the current 10% universal baseline tariff on nearly every country's exports. After the 150-day period concludes, the levies can only continue if Congress signs off on them. This gives the president the authority to impose higher tariffs on national security grounds. It can only be used to target specific sectors and requires an investigation to be launched before tariffs can be imposed. For instance, a recent Section 232 investigation the administration launched into imports of critical minerals claimed that 'overreliance on foreign critical minerals and their derivative products could jeopardize US defense capabilities, infrastructure development, and technological innovation.' There are several other current Section 232 investigations concerning other sectors. The 25% across-the-board tariffs on steel, aluminum, cars and car parts were all the result of 232 investigations. These tariffs can continue to remain in place regardless of how the appeal on the allegedly emergency-related tariffs proceeds. 'Trump has not emphasized sectoral tariffs as frequently lately as he did earlier this year, but if the White House finds it has less flexibility on country-focused tariffs, sectoral tariffs might receive more attention again,' Goldman Sachs economists said in a recent note. This allows the USTR to investigate countries potentially violating other nations' trade agreements or practices in a way that is 'unjustifiable' and 'burdens or restricts' US business. Trump used Section 301 during his first term to hike tariffs on several Chinese imports, along with aircraft and other European Union goods. Ultimately, it could take weeks or even months for those investigations to lead to tariffs because of the lengthier process involved, including a period for public comment, compared to recently imposed tariffs. But, unlike Section 122, there's no limit to the level or duration of tariffs arising from Section 301 investigations. While never implemented by any president, Trump can use this law to impose tariffs of up to 50% on countries' imports if he believes they are engaging in trade practices that discriminate against the US. Doing so, however, could violate World Trade Organization agreement terms and prompt steep retaliation from impacted countries. Despite the clear setback delivered by the courts, administration officials insist nothing has shifted in Trump's thinking. That message is in part one of necessity, given that the threat of dramatically higher tariff rates is the central leverage the administration is using in the 18 separate bilateral trade talks that the administration says are underway. 'President Trump is 100% serious about this,' one official told CNN. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
