Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[delts145]

Apparently, according to the articles the bidding process will begin immediately, and construction this coming Spring.

[rail car designer]

I've heard rumors that the cars currently under consideration are:

a modified version of the new LRVs UTA is getting
the United Streetcar (SKODA design) that Portland has
a 100% low floor german offering adapted to the US market

[jmonkey]

HOORAY!! Great news about the streetcar!! This is a really positive step for the whole area along the proposed line. I think we'll see some quick action on the Mecham and Granite projects in Sugarhouse, and perhaps Market Station in South Salt Lake, among many to come.

[s.p.hansen]

Bangerter Freeway? Plan is endorsed
By Lee Davidson
The Salt Lake Tribune
Published Oct 21, 2010 11:35PM

In plans taking shape for the next 30 years for Wasatch Front transportation, some major highways would be converted into freeways and many more dedicated lanes for buses would be built; also, a new focus is emerging on improving existing roads instead of building new ones.

Among specific proposals are converting into full-blown freeways such highways as Bangerter Highway in western Salt Lake County, U.S. 89 in Davis County and, eventually, the planned Mountain View Corridor Highway in western Salt Lake Valley.

This vision is included in a list of $35 billion worth of highway and mass transit projects proposed through 2040 that the Regional Growth Committee of the Wasatch Front Regional Council endorsed on Thursday.

The full council also is expected to endorse the once-every-four years planning document next week. Then the council will work to prioritize the order in which the projects should be built — and which should be dropped for probable lack of funding — for final approval next spring.

“It’s a big deal because any project to add new capacity cannot receive federal funding unless it is on that list first,” said Sam Klemm, public information officer for the council.

Ned Hacker, on the council staff, who has helped develop and negotiate the list among local governments, said the Wasatch Front is filling up with development. Not much room remains for new highways, so the focus is shifting to how to make existing ones more efficient.

“That means things like improving intersections, coordinating traffic signals and adding [continuous-flow] left-turn lanes,” he said. “It may allow, for example, two lanes to carry as much traffic as adding another lane would. It also has financial implications,” potentially saving money.

Some of the changes will require political will as well as cash.

For example, plans to turn Bangerter Highway into a freeway, with current ground-level intersections replaced with bridges and interchanges, already is causing some heartburn among West Valley City officials. They worry about traffic and construction impacts on cross streets.

In comments sent to the regional council, West Valley City officials have said they might prefer keeping special “continuous-flow intersections” that have been built there recently or are planned. Klemm said the regional council and West Valley City are planning meetings to discuss the proposals and worries.

U.S. 89 in Davis County also is favored to become more like a full freeway, with proposals to install freeway interchanges at Antelope Drive, Gordon Avenue, Oakhills Drive and 400 North in Fruit Heights.

Like Bangerter and U.S. 89, the Mountain View Corridor is proposed to begin as a highway and later be converted into a freeway. Construction recently began on that highway, which eventually will stretch from I-80 in Salt Lake City to northern Utah County, running at about 5800 West for much of its alignment.

Klemm said building Mountain View as a highway initially will be cheaper and provide needed capacity on the growing west side. Later, as more money becomes available, bridges can be added to build freeway interchanges, and eventually the entire length would be a freeway.

Another major change in planning is for many more bus rapid-transit lines. One now exists on 35th South in West Valley City, where dedicated lanes for buses in some stretches help speed them along.

“It’s designed to replicate rail lines,” sort of a TRAX on rubber wheels, Hacker said.

Plans call for such dedicated-lane routes in Salt Lake County on Wasatch Drive, 1300 East, 700 East, State Street, Redwood Road, Bangerter Highway, 5600 West, 5400 South, and 3900 South, among others.

Plans also envision such dedicated-lane bus routes between Salt Lake City and Ogden, with stops through Davis and Weber counties.

Plans also call for expanded streetcar lines in Ogden and in Salt Lake City, which this week was awarded $26 million in federal funding for a new streetcar line to Sugar House. Long-range plans call for extending that from Sugar House to Westminster College.

Separately, council members envision a streetcar line between Ogden’s intermodal center and Weber State University.

Hacker said plans also include a yet-to-be determined form of fast transit up Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. He said either a rail line to ski resorts or a some sort of dedicated-lane system for buses is being discussed.

Also, plans include seeking a connection to tie the end of the current Legacy Parkway in Davis County to the planned West Davis highway and S.R. 67 extensions that would go north in western Davis and Weber counties.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50...eeway.html.csp

[Future Mayor]

I love that all the dignitaries arrived at the monument on a bus. Very appropriate.



US Dept of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood


Making the money official

[delts145]

The end is near, at least for Sandy road construction - Crews to wind up work by late November on 7th & 13th East, 114th South.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/neighbo...south.html.csp

Sandy • Bright orange barrels, backhoes and dust seem to be everywhere.

The bad news: the road construction season is not over. The good news: it will be by the end of November ­— at least until spring...


(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Road Construction at the intersection of 700 East and 11400 South in Sandy, construction and traffic make hard to get to businesses. Saturday, October 16, 2010. Road construction projects in Sandy are making it hard on local businesses.


(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune)



.

[John Martin]

Hehe, arriving in a bus. That's cute.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by John Martin

Hehe, arriving in a bus. That's cute.

At least they did it in style.

[WeST]

Thanks for posting that article s.p. Hansen, that is some real good information. I am glad to see they are try to make what capacity we have more efficient because most of the time when expansion happens private property ends of being swallowed up by the non-tax generating UDOT. This seems much cheaper, better for private property, and hopefully will lead cities to innovate some great technologies and ideas besides just adding lanes.

[s.p.hansen]

I wasn't quite sure where to post these articles.




Images of the LSR4 Prolific Roadway Series by Lighting Science Group

Salt Lake City, Utah, to install 1,370 LED streetlights from Lighting Science Group

Friday, October 29, 2010
By New Streetlights staff

The city of Salt Lake City, Utah, is preparing to implement its first, large scale LED streetlight installation project. The city is using $850,000 of funds from an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) award from the U.S. Department of Energy to purchase 1,370 LED streetlight fixtures. Following a competitive bid process, the city chose the PROLIFIC LED fixtures from Lighting Science Group, a manufacturer based in Florida.

“We tested and evaluated seven separate LED streetlight fixtures. These fixtures were ordered, installed and tested by our crews, and we took a series of measurements including lighting levels. It was critical for us to see the fixtures installed and running in the field,” said Mike Barry, transportation engineer for the city of Salt Lake City. Barry had also considered induction technology but found that LED technology performed better in roadway lighting applications.

The installation involves 1,370 LED streetlight fixtures, which will be installed along the city’s arterial roadways. The new 146 watt LED fixtures will replace existing 250 watt high pressure sodium (HPS) cobra head streetlights. Barry anticipates a reduction in energy consumption of approximately fifty percent with the new fixtures, which will result in an annual rebate of about $70,000 from the local power company, Rocky Mountain Power.

Salt Lake City owns and maintains about fifteen thousand streetlights. According to Barry, the city intends to continue replacing the remaining HPS fixtures with LED streetlight fixtures as additional funding becomes available.

http://www.newstreetlights.com/index..._Group_255.htm

Lighting Science Group wins bid to relight Salt Lake City

Date Announced: 18 Oct 2010

Satellite Beach, Florida – Lighting Science Group’s (OTCBB: LSCG) high-performance PROLIFIC series LED street lights will soon line the streets of Salt Lake City, Utah. Compared with traditional high pressure sodium (HPS) street lights, the PROLIFIC LED series street lights are 50% more efficient, provide more uniform light distribution, increase light levels, and will save Salt Lake City tens of thousands of dollars each year in energy and maintenance cost. The project is being paid for using Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“The Lighting Science Prolific Series street lights look great, we will have less outages, and we are saving energy and money,” said Mike Barry, Transportation Engineer for the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. “Retrofitting existing HPS street lights with Lighting Science LED street lights will reduce the city’s annual energy consumption by 885,271 kWh (kilowatt hours)—eliminating approximately 636 metric tons of CO2 emissions each year.”

The Lighting Science’s PROLIFIC Series street lights are the perfect one-to-one replacement for HPS streetlights—easy to install, high lumen output, maintenance-free operation, long-lasting, and outstanding energy savings. The PROLIFIC LED technology eliminates costly re-lamping and re-ballasting of HPS street lights and direct line wiring is used in place of starters or capacitors to eliminate traditional maintenance issues. To ensure performance and reliability, Lighting Science Group’s PROLIFIC Series street light was tested under the rigorous LM-79 process by an independent laboratory approved by the U.S. Department of Energy’s CALiPER program.

“With rising energy costs across world, cities like Salt Lake City are looking for ways save energy—Lighting Science Group’s LED products are a perfect solution,” said Zach Gibler, CEO of Lighting Science Group Corporation. “The LED street lights provided will improve both the environment and the city’s bottom line by delivering a 50% energy savings over HPS street lights and will last approximately 5 times as long. The Salt Lake City project is another significant win for Lighting Science Group in the infrastructure market and exemplifies the clear leadership and high-performance capabilities of the Company.”

Lighting Science Group LED solutions are offered through lighting distributors worldwide and directly by the company. To find your nearest sales location, go to: www.lsgc.com.

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/press/27322

[WeST]

If they spent the whole $850,000 just on those light fixtures, that is a cost of about $360 for each! If they truly get that kind of savings from Rocky Mountain, then it would take over 12 years to just recoup the cost of the fixtures! That sounds like a lousy investment to me.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by WeST

If they spent the whole $850,000 just on those light fixtures, that is a cost of about $360 for each! If they truly get that kind of savings from Rocky Mountain, then it would take over 12 years to just recoup the cost of the fixtures! That sounds like a lousy investment to me.

One additional factor you have to take into account is that the labor cost to install any new street light bulb is significant. I did some research on this and half of the recoup and what actually puts utilities even more ahead with LEDs is that they last about 2 times longer than HPS street lights (20-25 years). The expenses involved in calling out the guy with the cherry picker to replace the bulb makes the LED not just cost sustaining but also profitable as well after it outlives its first equivalent HPS replacement (around 13 years) and just builds momentum from there until it reaches the equivalent of the second replacement. So you brake even in 12 years and in 24 years you are now ahead in all that extra power and reduced costs in replacements. Also, HPS cost $70 for the bulb and don't recoup any costs (because they are the current standard).

Governments subsidizing the installation of LEDs like the United States and China will help to advance the technology and that will drive down costs and improve quality.

Some Facts:

LEDs:

Create no light pollution unlike HPS street lights. This one interests me the most; could we get to a point where stars would be visible again in SLC?
Produce no harmful glare unlike HPS street lights.
Don't turn yellow as they age unlike HPS street lights.
Contain no lead or mercury unlike HPS and Compact Florescent.
Are able to take abuse (life things hitting them) unlike HPS.
Use less power than what is required by an HPS.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by WeST

If they spent the whole $850,000 just on those light fixtures, that is a cost of about $360 for each! If they truly get that kind of savings from Rocky Mountain, then it would take over 12 years to just recoup the cost of the fixtures! That sounds like a lousy investment to me.

But your analysis is wrong.

First, let's assume you are right and they are $360 each. That is starting from a base of $0. We don't know how much it would cost to replace the bulb with the current standard, but my guess would be it is greater than $0. Thus, while it may take 12 years to pay for themselves...that is back to $0, they will pay for the additional cost over the regular standard quicker.

Second, LEDs, as s.p. mentioned, last much longer than a typical lamp. Thus you have to calculate the cost of the lamp and replacing it not only just once, but many times.

Finally, as mentioned, the lifespan of the LEDs usually will last around 12 years before the reduction in their brightness is 70% of their original brightness. Thus even IF they only last exactly 12 years, they have paid for themselves entirely, thus making the purchase FREE, plus we get the lighting of our streets.

If you ask me, that sounds like a pretty sound investment.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by jtrent77

But your analysis is wrong.

First, let's assume you are right and they are $360 each. That is starting from a base of $0. We don't know how much it would cost to replace the bulb with the current standard, but my guess would be it is greater than $0. Thus, while it may take 12 years to pay for themselves...that is back to $0, they will pay for the additional cost over the regular standard quicker.

Second, LEDs, as s.p. mentioned, last much longer than a typical lamp. Thus you have to calculate the cost of the lamp and replacing it not only just once, but many times.

Finally, as mentioned, the lifespan of the LEDs usually will last around 12 years before the reduction in their brightness is 70% of their original brightness. Thus even IF they only last exactly 12 years, they have paid for themselves entirely, thus making the purchase FREE, plus we get the lighting of our streets.

If you ask me, that sounds like a pretty sound investment.

I question your assumption that the light fixtures have to be replaced. The article doesn't claim that the others were worn or otherwise in need of replacement. My guess is Mayor is replacing them not because they are old and non functioning, but because it is part of his initiatives on climate change and pollution in general. If that is the case your base would be $0 or close to it. In fact the article says they will continue to replace the thousands of lighting unit around the city as they get the money, not as they wear out.

As far as they being "FREE", you have to know the difference between the upfront cost of the two technologies and the opportunity costs associated with tying up that extra money for 12 years. What could that money be spent on in the mean time?

[Future Mayor]

We also have to remember that the money being spent on these lights is from "Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds" So it's not as if the city is using budget money to install these new lights, it is money that is targeted for projects just like this one. So by installing these lights, with money that we didn't have and thus saving substantial money on the consumption of electricity, combined with the rebates that Rocky Mtn Power will be kicking in, the City is financially ahead on this project and will continue to be ahead each year due to less energy consumption.

The only cost to the city, (and this very well may be covered in the grant as well) is the man hours used to install the new fixtures. But again, that cost will be reduced over the years as it will be a longer period of time between replacements.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Some Facts:

LEDs:

Create no light pollution unlike HPS street lights. This one interests me the most; could we get to a point where stars would be visible again in SLC?
Produce no harmful glare unlike HPS street lights.
Don't turn yellow as they age unlike HPS street lights.
Contain no lead or mercury unlike HPS and Compact Florescent.
Are able to take abuse (life things hitting them) unlike HPS.
Use less power than what is required by an HPS.

So, I was already on board with LEDs for their lower energy consumption and longer life, but I'm super excited about no light pollution. That's one of my pet peeves.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

We also have to remember that the money being spent on these lights is from "Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds" So it's not as if the city is using budget money to install these new lights, it is money that is targeted for projects just like this one. So by installing these lights, with money that we didn't have and thus saving substantial money on the consumption of electricity, combined with the rebates that Rocky Mtn Power will be kicking in, the City is financially ahead on this project and will continue to be ahead each year due to less energy consumption.

The only cost to the city, (and this very well may be covered in the grant as well) is the man hours used to install the new fixtures. But again, that cost will be reduced over the years as it will be a longer period of time between replacements.

Good point, but I don't view tax dollars separately. It isn't free money even if it comes from Uncle Sam. If fact since we are borrowing everything we spend these days, the interest makes them even pricier.

I don't blame the city for jumping when "free" money is dangled in their face, but I am becoming more and more stingy (as we all should) with mine and your tax dollars in light of the continued economic malaise.

[Future Mayor]

While I agree that it isn't "free money" in the sense that nobody is paying for it. But in the contexts of the discussion that was being had, regarding the cost to the city budgets vs the savings the city will receive from it, it is free money!

[TimeSaltlake]

Speaking of Lights...I wanted to know where I could get more info on that bridge project across Utah lake? Okay so it has nothing to do with the lights...hahaha...Anyways...I am all for it that bridge and the growth it would bring!!!!!! How cool would it be to be driving across the lake at night and all around it nothing but CITY!!!!! I know what your all thinking Its just funny to think of all the thoughts that I know some forumers had at that moment of reading my approval. This is what alot of coffee and replacement of your friends with text books does... But to the point. Any development on that?

[TonyAnderson]

Here's a dedicated thread to it: Proposed Utah Lake Thread