Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Hatman]

If it is on the long-range plans at all then maybe it can be expedited. After all, some of the Frontlines 2015 projects, mainly the wester TRAX extensions, were not expected to be completed until 2030. But those two lines will be 4 years old this August. They built them not to respond to demand, but to create it.
If a similar approach is used for the Utah County extensions, I would not be surprised to see them be completed sooner, maybe even within my 10-year estimate. Lehi is getting pretty developed, after all, and that station next to Adobe will be pretty busy.
Here's hoping...

[Makid]

Originally Posted by LeVaJe

On the WFRC Draft 2015-2040 Transportation Plan it is Unfunded, meaning they do not anticipate it before 2040, but it also says they would prefer it in Phase 3 (2035-2040).
On the MAG 2011-2040 MPO Transportation Plan it is Phase 3 (2031-2040).

The dates listed on the docs are with the current funding levels available.

I do know that MAG would like to speed up the construction time frame on this project. WFRC is indifferent but will put funds towards speeding it up if MAG does.

MAG or at least some people within MAG have made statements about wanting to increase Rail Transportation within Utah County, specifically LRT. The Blue line extension is a high priority for them.

Long term, MAG would like LRT going from Lehi, through Saratoga Springs and into Eagle Mountain. They also want to eventually run LRT through to at least the Provo Frontrunner Station.

Frontrunner would eventually extend down to Nephi (50+ years out).

WFRC would like to have more rail within Salt Lake, Davis and Weber Counties but public support has started to decrease so they have shifted more towards BRT and increased bus capacity. I do think that WFRC will push for more rail in the next 10 years but not until the BRT and bus expansion is completed.

This way they would be able to justify the rail expansion for high ridership BRT routes. They would also be able to convert more high ridership bus routes to BRT, extending the cycle.

Outside of the possible double tracking & maybe electrifying Frontrunner, Ogden Streetcar, LRT to Utah County, 4th South LRT to Hub and Downtown Streetcar, WFRC isn't really planning any rail projects in the short term (even with increased funding).

I wouldn't expect WFRC to modify their rail stance for at least 5 years. 2020 to 2021 will be the start of the next cycle for possible rail expansions. While nothing is concrete, we can dream about what could be included in the next rail cycle:

LRT to the Ski Resorts (possibly Park City via the pass at the top of the cottonwood canyons)
Streetcar from WVC to Magna along 3500 South
5600 West LRT conversion
90th South LRT connecting Canyons with Red Line
Taylorsville SLCC BRT conversion to Streetcar
Streetcar/LRT to Bountiful/Farmington Frontrunner station
South Valley LRT connecting Herriman to Draper Trax with Frontrunner connection
State Street Streetcar from Capitol to 70th South Trax Station
Frontrunner West: Tooele & Cedar Valley
Frontrunner Central - West side of MVC to Saratoga Springs.

Some of the above are dream lines, others are possible to start appearing on the 30 year draft from 2020 for the far edge (2050+ time frame).

Some would be possible to speed up with further funding. As the Wasatch Front continues to add density, the feasibility of additional rail lines increases and become more practical.

One thing that I would really like is for the Legislature to allow Cities and Counties to increase their taxes for transit/transportation without a cap. If a City/County wants to increase funding, currently the State needs to authorize this. I think the state should remove the cap and let the Cities/Counties do what they think is best.

Doing this would remove the need to have the Legislature continuously fight and vote to increase the cap. It would also stop people in Vernal thinking they are paying for transit in SLC.

[TransitAngst]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Frontrunner operations are pretty inflexible ...

Yeah, they shouldn't take off the comet car. It is worth it for the peak. But what I was trying to get at is there is a reason other commuter/regional rail only runs during peak. If your ridership is entirely commuters (mostly white collar commuters), why run empty trains in the evenings and midday? UTA could cut off-peak FR service and use the money for something else (like buses). Unless I am wrong about that? I figured all operating funds come from the same pot of money.

I know there are significant downsides to running only peak service. You get less for your money, for one thing. But FR is comparatively expensive to run. Like you said, it all comes down to ridership, and I have to wonder how many riders they would lose with only peak service. If the loss is small, that may make the positives outweigh the negatives.

Originally Posted by Makid

I wouldn't expect WFRC to modify their rail stance for at least 5 years. 2020 to 2021 will be the start of the next cycle for possible rail expansions. While nothing is concrete, we can dream about what could be included in the next rail cycle:

LRT to the Ski Resorts (possibly Park City via the pass at the top of the cottonwood canyons)
Streetcar from WVC to Magna along 3500 South
5600 West LRT conversion
90th South LRT connecting Canyons with Red Line
Taylorsville SLCC BRT conversion to Streetcar
Streetcar/LRT to Bountiful/Farmington Frontrunner station
South Valley LRT connecting Herriman to Draper Trax with Frontrunner connection
State Street Streetcar from Capitol to 70th South Trax Station
Frontrunner West: Tooele & Cedar Valley
Frontrunner Central - West side of MVC to Saratoga Springs.

Some of the above are dream lines, others are possible to start appearing on the 30 year draft from 2020 for the far edge (2050+ time frame).

Just for clarification, which of the above are the "possible" ones? That planners/whoever makes the plans have talked about including in the future?

Originally Posted by Makid

One thing that I would really like is for the Legislature to allow Cities and Counties to increase their taxes for transit/transportation without a cap. If a City/County wants to increase funding, currently the State needs to authorize this. I think the state should remove the cap and let the Cities/Counties do what they think is best.

Doing this would remove the need to have the Legislature continuously fight and vote to increase the cap. It would also stop people in Vernal thinking they are paying for transit in SLC.

I really hope it passes this year. My understanding is that the legislation would allow cities to put tax increases for transit on the ballot. People would still have to vote to approve it (and with all the negative press UTA seems to get, that may be a hard sell), but that is better than no chance for an increase in funding. Or are you talking about something else?

Thanks for the welcome, Hatman.

[Stenar]

I think this is a terrible idea. TRAX isn't meant for long hauls like commuter rail.

The Draper TRAX ought to connect to the Draper Frontrunner station and the Daybreak TRAX ought to come around and do the same. Then a separate TRAX line in Orem-Provo, etc. can hook into Frontrunner in Utah county.

Originally Posted by i-215

Anyone know anything about this? On WFRC's TIP (the official map of transportation projects funded over the next five years) it shows somewhere to the tune of $100+ million dollars tossed at a project called "Draper TRAX Extension (south)" with a description of carrying LRT to the county line:



For such a top-tier budget item, I can't find anything to validate if it's real or just a typo.

[billbillbillbill]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I think this is a terrible idea. TRAX isn't meant for long hauls like commuter rail.

The Draper TRAX ought to connect to the Draper Frontrunner station and the Daybreak TRAX ought to come around and do the same. Then a separate TRAX line in Orem-Provo, etc. can hook into Frontrunner in Utah county.

I agree completely with this. I hope MAG focuses on getting the Orem-Provo BRT done and better connections to frontrunner.

[jubguy3]

It isn't intended for long haul between SLC and Utah valley -- witb utah valley expanding to the size of Salt lake county by 2050 they need their own light rail system

[Makid]

Originally Posted by TransitAngst

Just for clarification, which of the above are the "possible" ones? That planners/whoever makes the plans have talked about including in the future?

From the list, the only ones that haven't been mentioned directly by various transportation planners are the Frontrunner West and Central lines.

Those are more of my dream lines to help speed up transit times between the various areas.

Some transit planners have mentioned a Frontrunner/Trax type of line running to Tooele but that would be the extent of the line. It would also be 50+ years out before it becomes remotely feasible.

The rest of the lines on my list are all either on the current long range WFRC list or have been in the past.

With the news about the canyons transportation plan, it is possible that we may see rail up to Park City via Little Cottonwood in the next 5 to 7 years.

[Hatman]

Everyone is right - light rail is not meant for long-haul commuting. Only the most freakish transit nerds would have the patience to ride TRAX from SLC to Utah County (I can't wait!). The issue is greater connectivity along the line. As some people get on others get off. People living in Sandy and Draper but work in Lehi would certainly ride it. Extending the line incrementally into Utah County also eliminates much of the cost and uncertainty of building a new system from scratch For example, maintaining a whole new LRT vehicle fleet in Utah county - it's going to happen sometime, but it doesn't have to be there from the start. Incremental steps are the surest steps.
Also, UTA owns this right of way, which is the old Union Pacific RR right-of-way - meaning, TRAX can run full speed on this route. A sudden turn towards the Draper FrontRunner station would mean a new right-of-way needing to be purchased, which almost assuredly means trains in the street (meaning SLOW). I agree that the Draper FrontRunner station needs better connectivity, but doing via LRT is not the best way, IMO.
From that map though, I can see how it looks like a terrible idea. That's because it's only a part of the proposed line. It looks like a much better plan if the map were to go further.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by TransitAngst

Yeah, they shouldn't take off the comet car. It is worth it for the peak. But what I was trying to get at is there is a reason other commuter/regional rail only runs during peak. If your ridership is entirely commuters (mostly white collar commuters), why run empty trains in the evenings and midday? UTA could cut off-peak FR service and use the money for something else (like buses). Unless I am wrong about that? I figured all operating funds come from the same pot of money.

I know there are significant downsides to running only peak service. You get less for your money, for one thing. But FR is comparatively expensive to run. Like you said, it all comes down to ridership, and I have to wonder how many riders they would lose with only peak service. If the loss is small, that may make the positives outweigh the negatives.

Operating funds technically come from the same pot of money, as you say, but how the money is distributed is a highly statistical and political process.

In the UTA Network study, FrontRunner operating costs are pegged at $0.02 per passenger mile, assuming 390 passengers on the train. 390 passengers is a full train (every seat taken) without a comet car. With the comet car added, the price stands to go down a little further.
TRAX, btw, operates at $0.05 per passenger mile if everyone is seated and $0.02 if operating at a crush standing load.
Buses operate at $0.17-$0.13, based on the same TRAX criteria.

So comparatively, FrontRuner costs are on the low end. It is much better, from UTA's point of view, to get rid of express and long-haul buses (and occasionally long-haul TRAX) and put everyone on a commuter train.

This is why FrontRunner must run as frequently (or preferably more frequently) as it does, because I would estimate that most of the people on it are not the 'typical' 9-5 commuter. College students make up a significant portion of the ridership, and they need transportation all day (and all night). and the general public uses FrontRunner much more than other commuter rail systems. I've pretty well firmly made up my mind at this point that FrontRunner should be classified as a 'regional rail' rather than 'commuter rail,' because it is much more useful to the community than a simple commuting option.

FrontRunner trains, running on their own tracks, are also cheaper to run than a commuter train running on leased freight tracks, BTW. The cost of leasing, the cost of scheduling your train during prime business hours, the cost of having dispatchers give preference to the commuter train (rather than the freight trains that actually make the railroad money) and - biggest of all - the INSURANCE costs of running your train on someone else's tracks all add up. UTA doesn't have those costs.
Then there is the staffing. UTA employs 'operators,' not engineers, and 'train hosts' rather than 'conductors,' simply so that they can pay their staff less. Whereas other commuter trains must operate with 3-4 man crews, FrontRunner trains work with just the one operator. (The Train host is an administrative part-time position, and consequently gets paid even less).

All this means that FrontRunner is one of the cheapest-to-operate commuter rail system in the country - leading me to believe that dropping service in the off-peak hours would have a very small effect on the budget while it would have a marked effect on ridership and public perception.

[jubguy3]

Ok, so I had a moonshot idea while riding the University Line - UTA should fully submerge TRAX between 650 or 850 East and Central Campus Drive / South Campus Drive - TRAX could effectively run at 55 mph speeds between the west submersion and the east. And accidents frequently happen at 700 and 900 East, so submerging would hopefully reduce accidents. The tunnel between University Street and Central Campus Drive could be part of the rumored submersion of South Campus Drive between University Street and somewhere east of the stadium through the program to expand the north bleachers - most likely to occur if the Olympics reach Salt Lake City (pls no Boston). The issue with my idea though is that it would cost a uselessly large amount of money (probably like $700 million with the grade and soil condition and all) and the fault line and soil condition is prohibitive. It's more of a concept than anything that actually needs to be built to improve service.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Ok, so I had a moonshot idea while riding the University Line - UTA should fully submerge TRAX between 650 or 850 East and Central Campus Drive / South Campus Drive - TRAX could effectively run at 55 mph speeds between the west submersion and the east. And accidents frequently happen at 700 and 900 East, so submerging would hopefully reduce accidents. The tunnel between University Street and Central Campus Drive could be part of the rumored submersion of South Campus Drive between University Street and somewhere east of the stadium through the program to expand the north bleachers - most likely to occur if the Olympics reach Salt Lake City (pls no Boston). The issue with my idea though is that it would cost a uselessly large amount of money (probably like $700 million with the grade and soil condition and all) and the fault line and soil condition is prohibitive. It's more of a concept than anything that actually needs to be built to improve service.

They do that in Melbourne Australia. All the tracks and stops are above ground until you get about 2 miles or so (I'm guessing) from the city and then all the trains go underground and act like subways. But they keep a street car system in the downtown along with buses.

[Twothirty8]

Y'all should read this article "All the Ways Germany Is Less Car-Reliant Than the U.S., in 1 Chart"

- http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/...1-chart/385163/

[Hatman]

Here is the '1 Chart.' It's good.

[billbillbillbill]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Here is the '1 Chart.' It's good.

I really struggle with comparisons like this. Germany has 80 million people packed in a country the size of New Mexico. I could maybe understand comparing it to some states on the east coast but there is so much of a difference between a dense Germany and much of the western United States (California excluded!)

[Twothirty8]

Actually, the Wasatch Front metro area is quite dense and getting more so every year, so this article, if read with open eyes, has the potential to inspire and educate us. Quickly adding large scale mass transit options is in our best interest, along with urban cores that are bikeable and walkable. Because of our short-sighted American culture, we Utahn's now find ourselves in quite an air quality predicament that relates directly to our car reliance and lack of motivation for mass transit installations. I do think that our mass transit is coming along, but much to slowly for my tastes.

[Hatman]

Utah exists in a very strange dichotomy of development: we are considered the 8th most-urban state in the union because over 90% of the population takes up only 1% of the state's land. At the same time, however, we are also 2nd nationally in developing sprawl, based on the undeveloped land that has since been paved over for subdivisions.

How do these things exist at the same time?

Because Utah is a huge state with a small population, is how. There's also our nifty geography, which keeps us relatively squeezed in close to each other. Without those mountains and those lakes nearby, transit and urbanism in Utah wouldn't stand a chance.

While comparisons between small Germany and Large USA are not always even, fair, or entirely useful, I like them because they show us what we can aspire to. Not just in transportation, but in our entire transportation policy, including land use.

Let me get something off my chest - I think population density comparisons are overrated. Germany's population density is 234.67 people per km^2, which is quite a few. The northeast megalopolis (the area between Boston and Washington DC), however, boasts a population density of 359.6 people/km^2, or over 100 more people per km than Germany. (Nationally, the US averages a mere 31 people/km^2.)
So how do these two regions compare? From the chart above, cars in Germany hold a 58% mode share on average. In the Northeast Megalopolis, which is 1/3 more dense than Germany, cars still control an amazing 80% of the mode share for all trips (using the same Wikipedia page as my source). Keep in mind that the national mode share for cars is 83% - meaning that one of the highest population densities in the world only made a 3% difference in the car's mode share in America.
In other words, population density does nothing to get Americans to use public transit, walk, bike, or use any other mode than their cars. Why? Because US transportation policy is so car-centric. We measure the performance of roads in vehicles per hour instead of people per hour. We spend all this transportation money on roads without regard and still have to bond locally for bike lanes and sidewalks because these things are not considered part of the transportation system, but instead are classified as 'local improvements.' Transit systems are dependant on tempermental government gift money (TIGER grants and the like), while highways enjoy a steady stream of funding no matter how many times the Highway Trust Fund needs to be bailed out. Few Americans have ever heard of 'complete streets' and the national percentage of people who ride their bikes to work is a laughable 1%.

Q: What do we get in return for all this?

A: Back yards.

Seriously. Did you know that the largest irrigated crop in the United States is LAWN? I mean, lawn is grown over 4x as much compared to the next highest crop, corn. Everybody in this country is so determined to live in the suburbs miles away from anything useful that we willingly trade away our time, our money, our clean air, our health, and ultimately our lives.

In short it is our terrible funding mechanisms, our transportation policy, our public apathy, and our complete obsession with the suburbs that continues to keep us slaves to our cars. Population density doesn't enter into it. It's all in our heads.

[Orlando]

Amen! Except, that even though I preach against sprawl, there are some other contributing factors that need to be considered, such as cost and size of household. Household sizes in Utah are larger than the average, and thus providing for a larger family may be not as affordable closer in to the city in a decent neighborhood. That being said, I'm sure you can weigh in the fact that even though living closer in may cost more per real estate, it can save you in time and money in regards to transportation. And, if the government was smarter, there would be incentives for those living closer to existing infrastructure. Maybe there already is, and I'm a little ignorant of that, but I believe that state and federal taxes are not based on how close you live to existing infrastructure(roads, utilities, etc.).

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Amen! Except, that even though I preach against sprawl, there are some other contributing factors that need to be considered, such as cost and size of household. Household sizes in Utah are larger than the average, and thus providing for a larger family may be not as affordable closer in to the city in a decent neighborhood. That being said, I'm sure you can weigh in the fact that even though living closer in may cost more per real estate, it can save you in time and money in regards to transportation. And, if the government was smarter, there would be incentives for those living closer to existing infrastructure. Maybe there already is, and I'm a little ignorant of that, but I believe that state and federal taxes are not based on how close you live to existing infrastructure(roads, utilities, etc.).

I think there are a lot of people who don't even get as far as considering if they can afford to raise kids close to downtown. They have a mentality that the suburbs are the only safe place to raise kids, and they can't be convinced otherwise. I've gotten into that with several family members, and it's too bad because their kids will miss out on all the great things there are for kids downtown.

[CountyLemonade]

And watch out with the whole notion that Germany has 80 million people "packed" inside its boundaries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its cities are much more compact than the sprawl-hell monstrosities that are the American city, yes. But Germany still has miles and miles and miles of undeveloped landscape (farm, forest, etc) that makes it the stellar country it is.

[brankrom]

It drive me crazy to see that the stats claim that Utah is one of the densest populations... (there's a joke there but I digress). I spent 5 days last week in Portland and coming home I felt like I was coming back to Mayberry when I got back to SLC. Huge blocks, mile wide roads something Portland doesn't have.

I live in SLC so I'm not even counting the 'burbs of both MSAs because Oregon actually uses non development green belts, but comparing SLC in density to what I saw in the Richmond district and even sunnyside and St. John is laughable. Portland is a big city geographically and the people are packed in... tight.

With that said the MAX system and Trax are virtual doppelgangers, fare price, airport connection even the models of LRT, though the number of seats on MAX trains is lower.

Trimet has more lines that go further and a higher level of service but UTA has made great strides and we should be proud of our rail system.

I didn't ride a bus so I don't know how level of service compares to UTAs complete lack of bus service.