Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Liberty Wellsian]

(I apologize, I know that I am on one today)

To clarify I don't think that the scale of a rail line from Denver to say Vail(100 miles) Works in Denver's favor.

That being said a pipe dream National high speed rail project that replaced the California Zephyr would be pretty cool. Salt Lake being the Western Junction and Denver being the Eastern. That would make Colorado's Mountain rail part of a larger project though probably still not feasible.
... but really really cool

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I'm honestly starting to worry that 2030 may represent the last best chance for either Salt Lake or Denver to host a Winter Olympics. Recently I read an article that said that winter had decreased by a full two months in Northern Utah over the last century. On top of that this winter has been shockingly mild.

As far as Denver is concerned I'm not sure if I was a Denverite if I would be for a massive Highway investment in order to get the Olympics. I'm definitely for the Olympics as a Salt Laker but that's one because the investment is much less and two because it's likely to be investment of a different variety. Another Olympics would be great for Salt Lake but I'm not sure that a first Olympics would be great(in the longrun) for Denver. I think at best it would be a boon to Suburban Colorado but not very good to Denver itself.

Actually SLC looks to be in a better shape going forward to host the winter games compared to other past sites. This article in the NYT from a couple weeks ago shows we're #3 behind Beijing and Albertville, France for the least amount of change in our "winter" going forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...l-warming.html

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

doubtful

When asked if a train to the mountains would be needed to get the games, Hickenlooper said, "I don't think so. I think we need a good bus rapid transit. A bus that would feel like a train. I don't see anyway we would get a train by 2026, 2028. We aren't going to get a train by then."

best bet is an expanded I-70 and a bus system that mostly disappears after the Olympics are over. Denver likely follows the Vancouver model if they get the Olympics.

I wouldn't' say that. Colorado knows that I-70 needs to be upgraded/expanded through Vail and that a transit component should be part of it. We've already implemented state-run bus service from the mountains to Denver and there's a strong desire to expand that. The rail cheerleaders would love for there to be high-speed rail running from Denver to Grand Junction and along the Front Range, but that $50 Billion project won't fly. However, adding a managed land on both directions along I-70 with BRT style stations for intercity coaches would be something that the majority of the state could get behind and the Olympics would certainly provide further rational to do it- along with some sweet, sweet federal monies.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Does anybody(@hatman) have an idea of what is a typical federal grant for a BRT line? Is it similar to rail(iirc ~80% for a new line and ~50% for the extension of a line?

[Hatman]

I've been working on my own personal feasibility study for my 'light commuter rail' concept, and it makes me so giddy that I've put links to the google map in my signature line. I'm also going to share a piece of it every day or so, so that I can give more details. If this bores you... I'm so sorry.

Today I want to show you the 'central segment,' from Salt Lake Central Station to Foothill Drive.
I've put the two new commuter tracks on the west side of the Union Pacific tracks at Salt Lake Central because that makes for an easy path to the Folsom trail ROW and from there out to Tooele:


But amazingly, the west side has an amazing amount of available space for two more railroad tracks from Salt Lake Central all the way to 17th south. The one exception is the I-15 bridge, which is going to need to be rebuilt one day to accomodate a second FrontRunner track. Now it will need to be rebuilt to span an additional 2 tracks - no big deal.

At 1700 South the ROW narrows, and freight tracks branch out into the industrial area to the west. So, immediately to the south of 1700 South (be it the current grade crossing or the future viaduct), a flyover bridge will carry the new commuter rail tracks across the 2 Union Pacific tracks and the 2 FrontRunner tracks. Two buildings will be affected - a metal shop and some storage units. Neither will be missed:


A good comparison is the current FrontRunner flyover bridge in South Jordan:


On the east side of all other tracks, the new tracks will be in the perfect spot for a shared station with the Green (West Valley) TRAX line. The TRAX station will be built on the filled-space between bridges and will have to be shorter that usual TRAX stations - 190 feet vs the usual 290 feet. This means that the Green line would only be able to run 3-car trains, but they currently only run 2 car trains even during rush hours, and if they need more capacity they could run trains more frequently.

I'm calling this station 'Roper Station' since it is located within Union Pacific's Roper Yard.
From here, the new tracks will leave the railroad ROW and climb up a steep bridge into the I-15/I-80 spaghetti bowl. This bridge will rise over all the ramps except for the westbound-southbound bridge, which the tracks will be able to duck underneath. Here's a red circle around the bridge the tracks will go under:


From here, the tracks will become an integrated part of the I-80 corridor. A good comparison is the LA Metro's Green Line, which runs almost its entire length within the median of I-105:


The rail corridor, from outside-of-barrier to outside-of-barrier, is 30 feet wide without a station; add in a 12-foot-wide station and it becomes 42 feet wide. This means I-80 will need to be widened 15-21 feet on both sides, which is totally doable. I-80 has plenty of space on both sides to accommodate this kind of widening:


(Sidenote: Depending on the affects autonomous vehicles have on traffic patterns and roadway design standards, the widening may not need to be so large, if any widening is needed at all. Lane widths may be reduced, shoulders, especially in the medians, may be eliminated, and the number of lanes needed may be reduced. In any of these cases, the cost of this project will drop significantly.)

The first stop in the median of I-80 will be at Sugarhouse. Here, I've decided to extend the S-Line in a 1-mile loop to access both the new commuter rail station, but also the Monument Plaza:


This routing is an extension on a previous idea, located in one of the links in my signature line. The idea is that S-Line cars will make a clockwise loop around the plaza, then Wilmington Avenue, then the commuter rail station, before returning to the current S-Line. A loop between the commuter rail station and the plaza could also be run as a separate service, a 'Sugarhouse Circulator,' if you will.

I really love how this new transfer location really gives the eastern end of the S-Line some purpose. Rather than planing to extend the S-Line north along 11th east for some arbitrary distance, this adds a major trip generator on the east end of the line, which will be very, very good for ridership along the entire length of the line.

The next stop in the median of I-80 will be at Foothill Drive, 5-miles from the I-15/I-80 spaghetti bowl. Here the station will connect with a future BRT station. This future BRT line would run up Foothill Drive towards the University - then possibly down 2nd South to Salt Lake Central:

This bus-only loop would require three bridges, which is costly for a BRT line, but it would be a very popular transfer point. The buses would enter from the north, stop at the station, then be returned to head northward, back to the University:


That's all for today. I'll cover more segments in coming days. But as you can see, this one project will can be the catalyst for other important projects, like the S-Line and BRT along Foothill Drive. Rail Transit is like the skeleton of an organism. It's hard to have in-fill projects until a strong foundation is in place.

As always, check out the google maps for the precise alignments if you are curious!

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Does anybody(@hatman) have an idea of what is a typical federal grant for a BRT line? Is it similar to rail(iirc ~80% for a new line and ~50% for the extension of a line?

As far as I know, there isn't a typical funding arrangement, which is why there are far fewer BRT lines than there are LRT lines in this country, even though LRT lines are much more expensive to construct.

The Provo-Orem line, for example, was a specific line-item in the Federal Budget. It got a special grant from the US Secretary of Transportation.

I can tell you that the definition of a BRT line, according to the Federal Government, is one that has at least 51% of its route in a dedicated busway. I know this because we had to play a few tricks on the Provo-Orem line to finally achieve the 51% standard, otherwise we would have lost a lot of funding. For a while there leaders were considering cutting everything south of the Provo Intermodal Hub (which is almost all shared ROW), but in the end we were able to play the 'name game' to get bus stops defined as 'Exclusive bus lanes,' and everyone was happy.

Hope this helps.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I've been working on my own personal feasibility study for my 'light commuter rail' concept, and it makes me so giddy that I've put links to the google map in my signature line. I'm also going to share a piece of it every day or so, so that I can give more details. If this bores you... I'm so sorry.

Today I want to show you the 'central segment,' from Salt Lake Central Station to Foothill Drive.
I've put the two new commuter tracks on the west side of the Union Pacific tracks at Salt Lake Central because that makes for an easy path to the Folsom trail ROW and from there out to Tooele:


But amazingly, the west side has an amazing amount of available space for two more railroad tracks from Salt Lake Central all the way to 17th south. The one exception is the I-15 bridge, which is going to need to be rebuilt one day to accomodate a second FrontRunner track. Now it will need to be rebuilt to span an additional 2 tracks - no big deal.

At 1700 South the ROW narrows, and freight tracks branch out into the industrial area to the west. So, immediately to the south of 1700 South (be it the current grade crossing or the future viaduct), a flyover bridge will carry the new commuter rail tracks across the 2 Union Pacific tracks and the 2 FrontRunner tracks. Two buildings will be affected - a metal shop and some storage units. Neither will be missed:


A good comparison is the current FrontRunner flyover bridge in South Jordan:


On the east side of all other tracks, the new tracks will be in the perfect spot for a shared station with the Green (West Valley) TRAX line. The TRAX station will be built on the filled-space between bridges and will have to be shorter that usual TRAX stations - 190 feet vs the usual 290 feet. This means that the Green line would only be able to run 3-car trains, but they currently only run 2 car trains even during rush hours, and if they need more capacity they could run trains more frequently.

I'm calling this station 'Roper Station' since it is located within Union Pacific's Roper Yard.
From here, the new tracks will leave the railroad ROW and climb up a steep bridge into the I-15/I-80 spaghetti bowl. This bridge will rise over all the ramps except for the westbound-southbound bridge, which the tracks will be able to duck underneath. Here's a red circle around the bridge the tracks will go under:


From here, the tracks will become an integrated part of the I-80 corridor. A good comparison is the LA Metro's Green Line, which runs almost its entire length within the median of I-105:


The rail corridor, from outside-of-barrier to outside-of-barrier, is 30 feet wide without a station; add in a 12-foot-wide station and it becomes 42 feet wide. This means I-80 will need to be widened 15-21 feet on both sides, which is totally doable. I-80 has plenty of space on both sides to accommodate this kind of widening:


(Sidenote: Depending on the affects autonomous vehicles have on traffic patterns and roadway design standards, the widening may not need to be so large, if any widening is needed at all. Lane widths may be reduced, shoulders, especially in the medians, may be eliminated, and the number of lanes needed may be reduced. In any of these cases, the cost of this project will drop significantly.)

The first stop in the median of I-80 will be at Sugarhouse. Here, I've decided to extend the S-Line in a 1-mile loop to access both the new commuter rail station, but also the Monument Plaza:


This routing is an extension on a previous idea, located in one of the links in my signature line. The idea is that S-Line cars will make a clockwise loop around the plaza, then Wilmington Avenue, then the commuter rail station, before returning to the current S-Line. A loop between the commuter rail station and the plaza could also be run as a separate service, a 'Sugarhouse Circulator,' if you will.

I really love how this new transfer location really gives the eastern end of the S-Line some purpose. Rather than planing to extend the S-Line north along 11th east for some arbitrary distance, this adds a major trip generator on the east end of the line, which will be very, very good for ridership along the entire length of the line.

The next stop in the median of I-80 will be at Foothill Drive, 5-miles from the I-15/I-80 spaghetti bowl. Here the station will connect with a future BRT station. This future BRT line would run up Foothill Drive towards the University - then possibly down 2nd South to Salt Lake Central:

This bus-only loop would require three bridges, which is costly for a BRT line, but it would be a very popular transfer point. The buses would enter from the north, stop at the station, then be returned to head northward, back to the University:


That's all for today. I'll cover more segments in coming days. But as you can see, this one project will can be the catalyst for other important projects, like the S-Line and BRT along Foothill Drive. Rail Transit is like the skeleton of an organism. It's hard to have in-fill projects until a strong foundation is in place.

As always, check out the google maps for the precise alignments if you are curious!

sweet

Why not run the SH circulator behind shopko to 1300E?

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

As far as I know, there isn't a typical funding arrangement, which is why there are far fewer BRT lines than there are LRT lines in this country, even though LRT lines are much more expensive to construct.

The Provo-Orem line, for example, was a specific line-item in the Federal Budget. It got a special grant from the US Secretary of Transportation.

I can tell you that the definition of a BRT line, according to the Federal Government, is one that has at least 51% of its route in a dedicated busway. I know this because we had to play a few tricks on the Provo-Orem line to finally achieve the 51% standard, otherwise we would have lost a lot of funding. For a while there leaders were considering cutting everything south of the Provo Intermodal Hub (which is almost all shared ROW), but in the end we were able to play the 'name game' to get bus stops defined as 'Exclusive bus lanes,' and everyone was happy.

Hope this helps.

Yes it does

Kinda disappointing(not surprising) but am glad for the info.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Why not run the SH circulator behind shopko to 1300E?

That's a good idea. I'll get to work on it.

Meanwhile, more articles discussing free transit:

What if Utah mass transit was free?
http://kutv.com/news/local/what-if-u...ansit-was-free

The article is not hopeful that transit fares will be eliminated soon, and so long as UTA is waiting on getting direction/money from the legislature to eliminate fares, I think they are right.

If I were the king of UTA, I would announce that in 2 years - at the beginning of the year 2020 - all fares will be eliminated. There would then be a ticking clock element to getting funding and for closing out funding agreements with institutions like universities who pay for free transit.
In the worst-case scenario, no new funding is found, and UTA will have to cut back their service by 10-15%. I imagine this would hit the buses hardest, but probably also cut back the hours of service on rail transit as well. Bad, but not terrible.
The best-case scenario is that UTA gets more funding from somewhere and service levels remain the same (or even increase!)

In both cases UTA then gets inundated with new riders. Ridership climbs at least 25%, as per the linked article, or even higher. Demand suddenly outstrips service, and the public will put pressure on their governments to increase transit service.

There would be a very different argument for new transit projects and funding. Instead of hearing 'the fares are too expensive and the buses are always empty!' we would hear 'Anyone can ride for free, and the buses are always packed!' In one of those environments, getting public support for transit is much easier.

Ultimately, I think free transit should be paid for as part of a property tax. When I get my utility bill I get charged for things like 'lighting' and 'sewer' and other things that I don't choose to pay for but just come as part of owning a property in the city. A part of that should be for 'transit' as well, and the amount paid should be based on a combination of the distance from my property to the nearest transit station, and the frequency of transit at that station.
Sales tax revenue would be eliminated from transit operations. Perhaps it could still be used to build new transit lines, but it would not be used to fund operations. Operations would need to be funded by means of the property taxes collected. This adds a bit of capitalism back into the UTA, as routes would need to be planned to serve areas that would pay the highest property taxes. It would be a self-correcting cycle. The yin and yang of mobility and access would be complete:

And there would be peace in the world, and we would all find eternal rest.

[Makid]

There is talk about a bill being drafted to adjust/remove fares for transit in Utah. the fares would be replaced with a mixture of Gas tax and Sales tax revenue.

This would allow an increase in Riders for UTA and those other systems that are already free, they would receive additional revenue to increase service levels or coverage.

From my understanding, there is broad support to remove fares for UTA as it would reduce both air pollution and the costs for road repair and expansion both of which do become more costly along the Wasatch Front as the population increases.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Hatman

...
Sales tax revenue would be eliminated from transit operations. Perhaps it could still be used to build new transit lines, but it would not be used to fund operations. Operations would need to be funded by means of the property taxes collected. This adds a bit of capitalism back into the UTA, as routes would need to be planned to serve areas that would pay the highest property taxes. It would be a self-correcting cycle. The yin and yang of mobility and access would be complete:

And there would be peace in the world, and we would all find eternal rest.

This doesn't really work. Wealthier people (living in places with higher property taxes) don't ride transit as much and don't need to. The less affluent areas need more transit.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Stenar

This doesn't really work. Wealthier people (living in places with higher property taxes) don't ride transit as much and don't need to. The less affluent areas need more transit.

More importantly it provides an incentive to develop away from transit where the taxes will be lower. I think we should do the exact opposite. Transit should be seen as a strategy to mitigate pollution and road demand. The properties contributing most to the problem(transit isn't the problem) should be paying the most toward solutions.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

More importantly it provides an incentive to develop away from transit where the taxes will be lower. I think we should do the exact opposite. Transit should be seen as a strategy to mitigate pollution and road demand. The properties contributing most to the problem(transit isn't the problem) should be paying the most toward solutions.

Kennecott should just pay for all of it.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Stenar

This doesn't really work. Wealthier people (living in places with higher property taxes) don't ride transit as much and don't need to. The less affluent areas need more transit.

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

More importantly it provides an incentive to develop away from transit where the taxes will be lower. I think we should do the exact opposite. Transit should be seen as a strategy to mitigate pollution and road demand. The properties contributing most to the problem(transit isn't the problem) should be paying the most toward solutions.

Ooh. These are both really good points.

What I want is a funding system that has a direct feedback loop. If your property value goes up because of transit, then your property should contribute more to transit. If a new transit service would cause more funding to come to the transit agency, it would have a very good incentive to extend service to that location.

So what about if we broke out roads and funded those the same way? Your utility bill would have lines for both roads and transit. Roads cost more to build and maintain than transit (usually), so the incentives would work in transit's favor.
Perhaps there also needs to be a flat transit rate for everybody to pay regardless of distance, since Park and Ride (or transferring from driverless taxi to a train or whatever) is always going to be a thing.

What I don't like is how transit funds are so dependent on sales tax revenue. Sure, there is a link between sales tax revenues and the amount of people riding transit, but it involves many logical steps and assumptions. I think it is important in the long-term for funding to be restructured to be more directly related to the things actually affected by transportation, which is why I thought of property taxes and the whole mobility/access curve.

But I'll settle for free transit for now. One step at a time.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Kennecott should just pay for all of it.

Yep.

Realistically, they could build us a very neat-looking Salt Lake Central Station, at least.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Kennecott should just pay for all of it.

Careful, push them too hard and Rio Tinto just might let a tailing pond sidewall fail.

[Hatman]

Continuing my thoughts on the rail line to Park City...

The next segment is through Parley's Canyon. This segment goes between the Foothill Drive Station to the Kimball Junction Station - a distance of 16 miles during which there will be no intermediary stations. This will be one of the longest uninterrupted stretches and one of most scenic segments of rail transit, at least in North America.



For reference, the LA Metro's Green Line runs for exactly 16 miles within the median of Highway 105, so this length of line within a freeway median is not unprecedented.

The first 6 miles will be the most challenging, since the canyon is narrow and I-80 will need to be widened by aproximately 30 feet (15 per side) in order to make things fit. There is plenty of room to make everything fit, though there may need to be larger concrete walls built into the mountainsides, similar to what UDOT has constructed in Provo Canyon when it upgraded US-189:



So not unprecedented.

In contrast to the first 6, the next 9 miles will be incredibly easy. The median of I-80 is very nearly 30 feet wide already for this entire stretch. No additional work would need to be done besides adding the rail tracks:



I can't stress how important this is. People I speak with seem to all think that it would be impossible to build a rail line along this route just because there is no space. The truth is for the majority of the route there is already enough space. Only the throat of the canyon needs to be improved.

At Kimball Junction the line rises up and out of the median and into the center of State Route 224. This will be a significant bridge, but will be no more difficult to build than a standard freeway ramp:



After stopping at Kimball Junction Station, the route will continue down the center of this road, so I've placed the Kimball Junction Station within the roadway even though the Kimball Junction Transit Center is so close. Instead of making a deviation in the alignment to better access the transit center, I've shown an improved walkway from the platform to the bus bays. This walkway is no more than 500 feet long.



From this station, the Summit County buses (which are FREE!) are accessible to passengers from Salt Lake County. It is possible that this segment gets built first, before the rest of the line into Park City proper is finished, since at this point the route would be very much like an express version of the SLC-Park City CONNECT bus currently in operation. The Olympic park is also nearby, making this station a very important destination for tourism as well.

More to follow soon!

[Makid]

Hatman,

For the first 6 miles at the mouth of the canyon that needs the most work, would an elevated line work here?

With the costs to widen the canyon, shift the road, utilities and such, would it be better to elevate the tracks?

My thought for this is that it may be possible to limit the turns needed for the track in this section by having the track elevated. If the track was laid into precast forms, the pillars for the track could be built and then the precasts could be added between the pillars. This could reduce the impact to traffic while also possibly speeding up the construction.

Overall, I think the costs may be similar due to the costs of widening the canyon but to help limit the impact to the a major East/West highway, I think it might be worth any possible increase in costs. Also having the ability to have a higher speed due to having less turns and curves through this section. Lastly, it may help sell the scenic view of the route even further by being above the traffic.

I do like the route though. What are your thoughts on a further expansion south to say eventually going near Heber and Midway and then down Provo Canyon eventually creating a nice mountain loop (far future, say 50 years out).

[Hatman]

Elevated tracks are not a bad idea. For example, on Long Island, the builders of the Air-Train to JFK airport routed their new tracks down the median of I-678 for two miles. Due to the urban constraints around them the entire length of these two miles are elevated above the freeway:


The advantage is that the freeway didn't need to be reconstructed. The bad news was the elevated structure had to be up high enough to get over the cross streets, making it a really massive structure:



I have a gut feeling that in the case of Parley's Canyon, an elevated structure would not be cheaper than cutting back the mountains in a few places. I may be wrong, and I'd go along with whatever solution is the cheapest and best, but my intuition tells me that it would be easier to avoid the elevated line and the structural/foundational issues that accompany those.

The view from up there would be really spectacular, though. Perhaps that alone would be enough to sell the line.

As for how far the line should go, I think Park City is the practical limit. Heber is certainly doable, but it would be a stretch. The ride to Park City is already looking like it will be in the 45 - 60 minute range once all the stops are included. Currently it takes over 90 minutes to make the same trip by transit. A car trip takes about 45 minutes on the route, so transit would be very competitive along that line.
Heber is so far away that a ride from Salt Lake Central is likely to be closer to an hour and a half, which is more than most people would tolerate for a commute, IMO. We then have to ask how many people would commute from Heber to Salt Lake, even if Heber is totally built out? And if it won't be very many people, why built a rail line rather than an express bus line, like Denver is experimenting with on the Denver-Boulder route?

Completing the loop to Provo does not seem practical to me. The reason to build a rail line to Park City from Salt Lake City is because one of the ends is Salt Lake City - the dense urban core of the metropolitan area. I don't see Provo becoming so dense as to require the road from there to Heber to need to be augmented by an additional rail line. Buses would be enough, if done right. The lack of ROW for rail is also concerning. If Parley's Canyon is so narrow as to bring elevated lines to consideration, Provo canyon will be a whole new level of challenge.

Just my opinion. I hope to be surprised by what 2050 brings.

[Hatman]

Continuing on from Kimball Junction:

I've routed my new rail line down the median of SR-224, or Park Avenue. This road is a four-lane road with limited intersections and wide shoulders. Pedestrain pathways on either side take the form of either sidewalks or trails depending on available space. Like I-80, the two new tracks will require the road to be widened 15 feet in either direction, or the rough equivalent of adding a lane.
There is plenty of room for this along the entire length of the Park Avenue segment.

I would like to draw a comparison to Tryon Street in Charlotte, North Carolina, which just finished adding a light rail line down the median of a busy four-lane road. The results are pretty spectacular:

Youtube: https://youtu.be/cuEfhb6MZuY?t=9m

As you can see, they built a high-speed rail transit line down the middle of an arterial street, using railroad crossings at some of the intersections...



... and using bridges at busier intersections:



This way the trains only need to stop at stations and not at stoplights like our TRAX does when it runs in the medians of streets downtown.

Tryon Street in Charlotte is, from sidewalk to sidewalk, an average of 170 feet wide. This includes the very generous amount of landscaping shown in the pictures above.

Interestingly, Park Avenue is also 170 feet wide, from ROW fence to ROW fence throughout most of this segment. It does narrow down to about 118 feet in places, but if the landscaping widths are kept to a minimum there can still be enough space for road and rail:

(8' Sidewalk x 2) + (12' road lane x 4) + (12' turning lane x 2) + (30' rail corridor) = 118'.
Use 11 foot lanes all around, and there will be an extra 6 feet to play with.

The length of this median section is almost exactly 3 miles - compared to Charlotte, which is 4 miles long.

I have included two stops in this segment: 1 at the Canyons, and 1 just south of Kearns Boulevard.
The Canyons Station looks like this:


I've drawn in a pedestrian bridge to get to the station. Perhaps this bridge can be extended just a little farther in to the resort area so that no other streets would need to be crossed, but this would probably be contingent upon the resort chipping in to help with the project. In total, it would be a walk of less than 1,000 feet to get to the first lift, which is ridiculously close for rail transit.

The other station I've placed at Kearns Boulevard, just after a fly-over bridge. who knows if the bridge will actually be necessary from a preservation-of-traffic perspective, but I've drawn it in anyway just to see how it would look from a plan view:



From here, it's only one more mile to the Park City Old Town Transit Center - but I'll save that for later.